House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Tenth Report of Session 2013–14
Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence
Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/eacom
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 8 January 2014
HC 332 [incorporating HC 846-i-ii, Session 2012-13) Published on 16 January 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00
Environmental Audit Committee
The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; t o audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.
Current membership Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) (Chair) Peter Aldous MP (Conservative, Waveney) Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Martin Caton MP (Labour, Gower) Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Chris Evans MP (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn) Zac Goldsmith MP (Conservative, Richmond Park) Mark Lazarowicz MP (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith) Caroline Lucas MP (Green, Brighton Pavilion) Caroline Nokes MP (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North) Dr Matthew Offord MP (Conservative, Hendon) Dan Rogerson MP (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) [ex-officio] Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP (Conservative, Meriden) Mr Mark Spencer MP (Conservative, Sherwood) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton, Test) Simon Wright MP (Liberal Democrat, Norwich South)
The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) [ex-officio] Ian Murray MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Sheryll Murray MP (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Paul Uppal MP (Conservative, Wolverhampton South West)
Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/eacom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Simon Fiander (Clerk), Nicholas Beech (Second Clerk), Richard Clarke (Committee Specialist), Andrew Wallace (Senior Committee Assistant), Anna Browning (Committee Assistant), Sayeda Begum (Committee Support Assistant) and Nicholas Davies (Media Officer).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NB. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6150; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 1
Contents
Report Page
Summary 3
1 Introduction 5 White Paper 6 Inquiry 7 Joint Ministerial Council of the Overseas Territories 8
2 Responsibility 9 Power 9 Moral responsibility 9 Legal responsibility 10 Convention on Biological Diversity 11 Aarhus Convention 12 Environment Charters 14
3 Protecting biodiversity 15 Monitoring 15 Threats 16 Sustainable development 16 Environmental funding 19 European Union funding 19 National Lottery funding 19 Marine Protected Areas 20
Annex 1 Visit to Cayman Islands 22 Programme 22 Observations 23 Legislation 23 Environment Protection Fund 24 Cayman Turtle Farm 24 Waste management 24
Conclusions 26
Recommendations 27
Formal Minutes 29
Witnesses 30
List of printed written evidence 30
List of additional written evidence 31
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 32
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 3
Summary
The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability was the first White Paper to address the UK’s relationship with the Overseas Territories since 1999. That 13-year gap between White Papers is indicative of policy drift by successive Governments.
During our inquiry, the UK Government expressed general but unspecified aspirations to ‘cherish’ the environment in the Overseas Territories, but it was unwilling to acknowledge or to address its responsibilities under United Nations treaties. This was disappointing, because the environment in the Overseas Territories is globally significant and comprises 90% of the biodiversity for which the UK Government has responsibility. We found that the Government has failed to negotiate the extension of the Convention on Biological Diversity—the flagship United Nations policy on biodiversity protection—to the Overseas Territories. In addition, the Government has not ensured the accurate monitoring of biodiversity in the Overseas Territories. Taken together, the Government is unclear on what it is responsible for and why it is responsible for it. In environmental terms, the 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper was a missed opportunity.
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 5
1 Introduction
1. The 14 United Kingdom Overseas Territories (UKOTs) comprise Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); Cayman Islands; Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus (commonly known as Sovereign Base Areas); Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands (commonly known as Pitcairn Islands); St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands; and Virgin Islands (commonly known as British Virgin Islands or BVI). 2. The UKOTs are geographically diverse: Anguilla, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands and British Virgin Islands are in the Caribbean; Bermuda is in the North Atlantic; Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are in the South Atlantic; Pitcairn Islands are in the Pacific; Sovereign Base Areas and Gibraltar are in Europe; and the locations of British Antarctic Territory and of BIOT are self-explanatory. The UKOTs encompass vast tracts of ocean, thousands of coral atolls, tropical forests and a polar wilderness six times the size of the United Kingdom.
3. Eleven of the UKOTs have permanent populations, ranging from the 63,000 residents of Bermuda to the 50 or so inhabitants of the Pitcairn Islands. Three UKOTs—British Antarctic Territory, BIOT and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands—have no permanent population. Taken together, the total population of the UKOTs amounts to some 250,000 people, which is loosely equivalent to that of Nottingham.1
1 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012
6 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Figure 1—The United Kingdom Overseas Territories
White Paper 4. In June 2012, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) published The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability.2 It was the first White Paper specifically to address the UK’s relationship with the Overseas Territories since Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories, which was published in 1999.3 The 2012 White Paper covers defence, economic development, governance, communities and the environment. Considering the environment alone—defence, development, communities and governance are also important—the international significance of the biodiversity in the UKOTs means that 13 years is too long a gap between Overseas Territories White Papers and indicates policy drift by successive UK Governments. We therefore welcome the publication of the 2012 White Paper.
5. The UK oversees engagement by the UKOTs in UN programmes (see paragraph 16). The UN has introduced several overarching environmental initiatives in the past 13 years, such as the Aarhus Convention, the Nagoya Protocol and the Rio +20 Sustainable Development Goals. If any Overseas Territories White Papers had been introduced in the past 13 years, they would have allowed the UK to develop its strategy to engage the UKOTs
2 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012 3 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories, March 1999
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 7
in the UN’s evolving environmental programmes. That did not happen, and the 2012 White Paper included no such policy detail.
6. The 2012 White Paper set out the UK Government’s aspirations in relation to the environment in the UKOTs. The Prime Minister indicated the scale of his ambition in the foreword:
We see an important opportunity to set world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environments we have inherited. This Government is ambitious for our Territories as we are ambitious for the United Kingdom. This White Paper sets out our commitment to work with the Territories to address the challenges we face together. This is a commitment from across the UK Government.4
The Foreign Secretary shared the Prime Minister’s vision: The Coalition Government has a vision for the Territories ... of natural environments protected and managed to the highest international standards ... In many respects the Territories are more vulnerable than the UK. We have a broad responsibility to support them ... We have not in the past devoted enough attention to the vast and pristine environments in the lands and seas of our Territories. We are stewards of these assets for future generations.5
We are heartened by that broad commitment to protecting the environment in the UKOTs. This Report examines the actions that the UK Government is taking to realise its aspirations.
Inquiry 7. Our predecessor Committee examined the conservation of biodiversity in the UKOTs in Halting biodiversity loss, published in 2008.6 To build on the scrutiny conducted in the previous Parliament and to examine the policies advanced in the 2012 White Paper, we resolved to conduct an inquiry on Sustainability in the United Kingdom Overseas Territories. Our inquiry began with a call for evidence in March 2013. In the course of our inquiry, we received 40 written submissions. We conducted four oral evidence sessions, when we heard from FCO Minister Mark Simmonds MP, former Defra Minister Richard Benyon MP, UK and UKOTs civil servants, NGOs and developers. We are grateful to everyone who gave evidence.
8. Two of our Members visited Cayman Islands in June 2013. The visit programme and our observations are set out in Annex 1. The UKOTs are geographically, culturally, economically and environmentally diverse. Despite the differences between the UKOTs, however, they also have a great deal in common. Our visit was therefore both generally and specifically valuable. For example, we had read about the constitutional relationship
4 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012, p 5 5 Ibid., p 7 6 Environmental Audit Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2007–08, Halting biodiversity loss, HC 743
8 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
between UK Governor and UKOTs Government, but the subtle strengths and tensions implicit in that relationship only became apparent when we saw it work in practice.
9. We heard that while FCO civil servants visit the UKOTs, Defra staff are discouraged from doing so.7 The 2012 White Paper sets out new responsibilities for Defra and other Departments in supporting the UKOTs, which entails “each UK Department assuming responsibility for supporting the Territories, as needed, in its own areas of competence and expertise.”8 Defra must empower its staff to visit the UKOTs to meet elected representatives and civil servants and to examine environmental issues in person in order effectively to discharge their responsibilities.
Joint Ministerial Council of the Overseas Territories 10. The Joint Ministerial Council of the Overseas Territories (JMC) is an annual forum involving UK Ministers and UKOTs Governments. The JMC is a new institution that first convened in 2012. The second JMC took place in London from 26 November to 28 November 2013.9 As part of the JMC, we attended a meeting with representatives from UKOTs Governments on 27 November 2013 focused on the environment. At this meeting, we were told that while representatives from the UKOTs were involved in deciding some aspects of the JMC programme, the agenda was ultimately set by the FCO and that some representatives from the UKOTs did not feel that they were equal participants. The FCO must prioritise greater involvement by representatives from the UKOTs in setting the agenda at future JMCs.
7 Qq 131-134 8 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012, p 16 9 HC Deb, 12 December 2013, col 55WS
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 9
2 Responsibility
Power 11. All 14 UKOTs exist under UK sovereignty.10 The most fundamental principle of the relationship between the UKOTs and the United Kingdom is the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the UKOTs as a matter of constitutional law and has the responsibility to ensure good governance in the UKOTs.11 The FCO Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mark Simmonds MP, acknowledged that point: “In theory, we could impose from the outside environmental legislation on the Overseas Territories but we do not think that that would be constructive.”12 The power to impose legislation on the UKOTs is not, however, purely theoretical. In 2009, for example, the UK Government suspended the constitution in Turks and Caicos Islands following allegations of financial malfeasance and imposed direct rule by introducing an Order in Council in the UK Parliament.13 12. Possession of hard power also confers significant soft power. On 16 June 2013, the Prime Minister brokered an agreement with those UKOTs with financial services industries to join a Multilateral Convention on enhanced tax transparency.14 Interestingly, that agreement, which was hastily negotiated before the G8 Summit 2013, did not include provisions to enhance environmental transparency. For example, companies quoted on the London Stock Exchange are subject to sustainability reporting requirements, but the UK Government did not negotiate the introduction of such requirements in the UKOTs when it brokered the 2013 agreement.15 The UK Government is prepared to exercise hard and soft power in relation to financial matters in the UKOTs, but it is apparently not prepared to exercise those powers to protect biodiversity and to promote environmental sustainability.
Moral responsibility 13. The 2012 White Paper made a great deal of the shared history of the UK and the UKOTs. The Foreign Secretary pointed out that “no historian can fail to be intrigued by the stories which tell how the United Kingdom’s 14 Overseas Territories have been entwined in our national history.”16 The Foreign Secretary’s observation is especially true in the case of the environment—eminent British scientists and conservationists such as
10 British Nationality Act 1981, schedule 6 11 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson, British Overseas Territories Law, 2011, p 12 12 Q 124 13 The Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution (Interim Amendment) Order 2009 (SI 2009/701) 14 ”G8 2013: Concrete action agreed on tax transparency”, HM Treasury news story, 17 June 2013 15 Sustainability reporting involves organisations publishing information about their impact on the environment and society. The Companies Act 2006 requires quoted companies to report annually on “environmental matters (including the impact of the company’s business on the environment)”. The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013 make reporting on greenhouse gas emissions mandatory for all companies listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange. 16 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012, p 7
10 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Darwin, Wallace, Hooker, Banks and Attenborough all studied the UKOTs.17 That shared history brings with it a moral responsibility.
Legal responsibility 14. Before and during our inquiry, the UK Government consistently sought to downplay the extent and nature of its environmental responsibility in relation to the UKOTs. The 2012 White Paper stated that the UKOTs “contain an estimated 90% of the biodiversity found within the UK and the Territories combined” rather than using a straightforward phrase such as ‘90% of the biodiversity for which the UK is responsible.’18 Similarly, the Prime Minister discussed “our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environments we have inherited”, and the Foreign Secretary referred to the UK’s role as “stewards of these assets”.19 Chambers English Dictionary defines ‘steward’ as “one who superintends another’s affairs.”20 Part 2 of this Report explains how environmental protection in the UKOTs is the UK’s affair.
15. Following the line established in the 2012 White Paper, the FCO Minister made his priority clear in his opening statement to the Committee:
I just need to say upfront, if I may, Madam Chairman, that territory governments are constitutionally responsible for the environment, for environmental protection and for conservation of their natural environments. While each constitution is different, in all cases in all inhabited Overseas Territories they are responsible.21
The UK Government has constitutionally subcontracted environmental management to the Governments of the inhabited UKOTs, but such constitutional arrangements cannot devolve away the UK’s ultimate responsibility under international law. The authoritative text, British Overseas Territories Law, is clear on that point:
The overseas territories are plainly not independent sovereign States. Their external relations remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom, the sovereign power. Accordingly, the United Kingdom is responsible for each of the territories under international law.22
We highlighted that responsibility at our evidence session with Defra and FCO Ministers, but they did not acknowledge it.23
17 BioDiplomacy (OTS 40) para 9 18 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012, p 8 19 Ibid., pp 6-7 20 W & R Chambers, Chambers English Dictionary, 7th edition (London 1992), p 1442 21 Q 93 22 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson, British Overseas Territories Law, 2011, p 12 23 Qq 93-101
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 11
Convention on Biological Diversity 16. The UK signed the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The CBD comprised a comprehensive list of actions that parties must take to protect species and ecosystems. CBD signatories are committed to developing strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The CBD is an evolving process. In 2010, the 10th Conference of Parties to the CBD agreed the Nagoya Protocol, which sets out a transparent legal framework on sharing genetic resources. CBD engagement in the UKOTs would provide an overarching framework under which to address the threats to biodiversity identified in Part 3 of this Report.
17. The UKOTs have no international legal personality or treaty-making capacity. The UK concludes treaties on the UKOTs’ behalf and is ultimately responsible if a UKOT violates a treaty obligation.24 British Overseas Territories Law states:
As a matter of constitutional law it is open to the United Kingdom to apply treaties to (or to withdraw their application from) the territories without any consultation with them because the application of treaties falls wholly within the responsibilities of the Government of the United Kingdom, not those of the territory Government.25
We asked Defra and FCO Ministers and officials whether, when the UK signed the CBD in 1992, it also signed on behalf of all the UKOTs.26 We asked that question four times, but we did not receive a clear answer. The FCO later explained how the UK extends international treaties to individual UKOTs at their request by extending ratification under Article 29 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.27 Ratification is a subsequent and separate process after a treaty is signed. When the UK signed the CBD in 1992, it signed on behalf of all the UKOTs. 18. When the UK ratified the CBD in 1994, ratification was extended to three UKOTs under the Vienna Convention procedure, namely British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Five years later, the 1999 Overseas Territories White Paper stated that “the Convention on Biological Diversity has already been extended to the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and St Helena (and other Overseas Territories are preparing to join).”28 In 2013, the then Defra Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Richard Benyon MP, told us that “the CBD is extended to four Overseas Territories: the British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, St Helena and the Cayman Islands.”29 In 14 years, no UKOT completed the necessary preparations to join the CBD. Parties to the CBD include Saint Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands and
24 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson, British Overseas Territories Law, 2011, p 254; FCO (OTS 44) 25 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson, British Overseas Territories Law, 2011, p 256 26 Qq 94-98 27 FCO (OTS 44) 28 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories, CM 4264, March 1999, p 38 29 Q 97
12 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Vanuatu—small island nations with limited resources which are not unlike many UKOTs.30
19. The UK must fulfil its core environmental obligations to the UN under the CBD in order to maintain its international reputation as an environmentally responsible nation state. The FCO must agree a timetable to extend ratification of the CBD with all inhabited UKOTs where this has not yet taken place. That may entail preparations in the UKOTs, which must be clearly timetabled. The FCO must immediately extend ratification of the CBD to all uninhabited UKOTs.
20. The UK submitted its Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in May 2009.31 This 136-page report addressed biodiversity in the UKOTs in four-and-a-half pages, despite the UKOTs containing 90% of the biodiversity for which the UK is responsible.32 Under the heading ‘Statements from UK Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories’, the report covered St Helena and Bermuda. The entry covering St Helena referred to neither Ascension nor Tristan da Cunha, to which the CBD has been extended. The report on Bermuda was puzzling, because CBD ratification has not been extended to Bermuda.
21. The four UKOTs to which the CBD has been extended have not been effectively included in UK biodiversity reporting. Compliance with the stipulations of the CBD is ultimately a UK responsibility. The UK Fifth National Report to the CBD, which must be submitted by 31 May 2014, must include comprehensive entries on biodiversity protection in those UKOTs to which the CBD has been extended—British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha.
Aarhus Convention 22. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters is commonly known as the Aarhus Convention.33 It grants the public the right to access information on governmental decision-making in relation to the environment. The FCO Minister stated:
Yes, of course we are keen to see enhanced transparency. Obviously we believe it is in the essence of good government in this country and certainly we feel that anything that is applicable to us in this country we should be encouraging the Overseas Territories to implement as well.34
The extension of the Aarhus Convention would address some of the weaknesses that we identified in planning and development control in the UKOTs (see paragraph 35).
30 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, List of Parties 31 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity: United Kingdom, May 2009 32 UK Government (OT S 01 ) 33 The convention was drafted and agreed in the Danish city of Aarhus in June 1998. 34 Q 150
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 13
23. We discussed the application of the Aarhus Convention to the UKOTs with Defra officials, who told us:
It is a UNECE treaty, the Economic Commission for Europe, so I think—I may be corrected by my legal adviser—it is only available to territories or geographical spaces that are within the ECE region. I am not sure the Overseas Territories would qualify in that situation. I may be wrong.35
They were wrong. Any state may ratify the convention regardless of its geographical location, which several non-European states have done.36 The FCO tried a different tack in a subsequent written submission to our inquiry:
UK practice is that Conventions are only extended to Overseas Territories at their request and if they can demonstrate that they can meet their obligations under the Convention. To date, no Territory has requested such an extension of this Convention.37
24. We heard that the FCO may have inadvertently extended ratification of the Aarhus Convention to all the UKOTs by failing to list the UKOTs to which the Aarhus Convention would not apply in its instrument of ratification.38 The UNECE website states that ratification of the Aarhus Convention was extended to, for example, Cayman Islands on 23 February 2005, the date when the Aarhus Convention was ratified by the UK.39 The UNECE website also indicates that, for example, Denmark did not extend ratification of the Aarhus Convention to Greenland, because it explicitly excluded Greenland from the provisions of the Aarhus Convention in its instrument of ratification. The FCO told us:
It is our view that the [UNECE] electronic map does not clearly indicate that the UK’s OTs are excluded from the UK’s ratification of the Aarhus Convention. This is an issue that we will raise with the UN publisher responsible. In light of the analysis of the ratification procedure submitted by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, it seems unlikely that that was a publishing error. 25. The FCO must immediately contact the UNECE to ascertain whether the UNECE believes that the UK has extended ratification of the Aarhus Convention to all the UKOTs. We recommend that the FCO reviews its standard procedure for excluding the UKOTs from the stipulations of international treaties under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention and consider introducing a more transparent procedure.40 In light of the FCO Minister’s commitment to enhanced transparency and the inadequacy of the planning regimes in many UKOTs (see paragraph 16), the FCO must agree with UKOTs Governments a timetable to extend ratification of the Aarhus Convention.
35 Q 157 36 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Article 19(3) 37 FCO and Defra (OTS 39) 38 UKOTCF (OTS 38) paras R11 to R13 39 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Parties and Signatories to the Aarhus Convention 40 For example, the FCO could define the scope of a treaty on signature.
14 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Environment Charters 26. Environment Charters were a key development following the 1999 White Paper. They consisted of a high-level agreement between individual UKOTs Governments and the UK Government setting out their shared environmental responsibilities.41 The current UK Government has distanced itself from Environment Charters.42 In 2012, for example, the Bermuda Ombudsman stated that the requirement to conduct environmental impact assessments in Bermuda’s Environment Charter was binding. Having clarified the situation with the UK Government, the Bermuda Minister of the Environment, Planning and Infrastructure subsequently stated:
We have taken advice from both the Attorney-General’s office and the FCO via Government House, and conclude that the UK Environment Charter does not constitute law. It is unenforceable. Rather, the UK itself considers the Charter to be aspirational.43
The 2012 White Paper claimed to build on the achievements of the 1999 White Paper, but it contained no references to Environment Charters.44
27. Environment Charters were a useful development from the 1999 White Paper. A clear statement of the nature and extent of shared environmental responsibilities between the UK Government and each UKOTs Government would clarify many of the issues around CBD engagement and compliance (see paragraph 16). In addition, compliance with the terms of an Environment Charter could be linked to environmental funding, which would provide the UK Government with a mechanism to drive environmental protection in the UKOTs. Defra must restate its commitment to Environment Charters and use them to deliver its CBD commitments in the UKOTs. Darwin Plus funding (see paragraph 39) should be linked to compliance with the terms of Environment Charters.
41 UKOTCF (OTS 10) para C25 42 Ibid., para C27 43 Ibid. 44 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012, p 11
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 15
3 Protecting biodiversity
28. The UKOTs contain at least 517 globally threatened species. There are 194 such species in the UK. The UKOTs also contain undisturbed habitats of international significance.45 The UK Government acknowledged the importance and sensitivity of the rich biodiversity of the UKOTs:
The UKOTs support a diverse range of unique ecosystems and habitats, sustaining a large number of rare and threatened species. It is estimated that over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is located in its Overseas Territories, with more priority ecosystem types (including mangrove, coral, sea-grass beds, peatlands etc) occurring in the UKOTs than in the metropolitan UK.46 29. Endemic species are defined as those found only in specific geographical locations. They are most likely to arise on biologically isolated islands. The UKOTs support many endemic species. On St Helena, for example, 45 plant species, more than 400 invertebrate species and 12 coastal fish species are endemic, with more likely to be identified. Eight endemic bird species were present on St Helena before humans arrived, but only the St Helena Plover has survived to the present day.47
Monitoring 30. It is impossible accurately to calculate the number of globally threatened species in the UKOTs, due to the lack of basic survey data. Data are usually available at a population level for vertebrate species, such as sea birds, but presence or absence surveys are often the only available data for plant and invertebrate species. The available data on marine biodiversity are less developed than those for terrestrial biodiversity.48 The RSPB pointed out that
many groups of taxa, especially terrestrial invertebrates, lower plants, and marine species have not been well researched or been subject to international threat classification. It is therefore impossible to make an assessment of the status of much of the biodiversity of the Territories. At present, threatened species in the UKOTs may be in danger of global extinction without awareness in the UK or internationally. The St. Helena Olive Tree’s (Nesiota eliptica) extinction in 2003 provides a clear example of the impact of this lack of knowledge.49
31. Without enhanced monitoring, Defra cannot accurately report to the CBD on the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs and therefore measure progress towards the UN 2020 target to halt biodiversity loss. In addition to agreeing a timetable with all UKOTs Governments to ratify the CBD (see paragraph 16), Defra must draw together UKOTs Governments, NGOs such as the RSPB, civil society and research institutions to
45 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red List of Threatened Species 46 UK Government (OT S 01 ) 47 Non-native species in UK Overseas Territories: a review, Report 372, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2006 48 Biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories, POSTnote 427, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, January 2013 49 RSPB (OTS 04) paras 1.4 to 1.6
16 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
agree a comprehensive research programme to catalogue the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs.
Threats 32. Available data indicate that biodiversity in the UKOTs is subject to immediate and significant threats, including invasive species, under-regulated development and climate change. According to the authoritative International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, for example, the UKOTs are home to 33 globally threatened birds, which is more than the whole of continental Europe.50 The RSPB told us:
On Pitcairn Islands, a total of 466 species have been recorded . Of these, 146 have been assessed against the Red List criteria, and 41 of these are globally threatened: this is almost a third of those species assessed. Of the 15 endemic species assessed, all were found to be globally threatened. Only half of St Helena’s endemic plants, and only 2 of its 400+ endemic invertebrate species, have ever had their threat status assessed, so many of these could be on the brink of disappearing for ever.51
As the RSPB highlighted, the lack of monitoring means that biodiversity loss in the UKOTs may be worse than the Red List assessment suggests. This is especially likely in the cases of terrestrial invertebrates, of certain plants and of marine species, which are relatively under- researched and rarely subject to international threat classifications.52
Sustainable development 33. Economic activity in the UKOTs is concentrated in a small number of sectors, notably tourism and financial services.53 The 2012 White Paper stated that “The UK Government will continue to work with the Territories to help them develop their economies.”54 Several UKOTs, such as Montserrat, Anguilla and Pitcairn Islands, are not economically self- sufficient and depend on Department for International Development funding.
34. We appreciate the need for economic development in the UKOTs, but such development must be sustainable. The UK Government acknowledged that point: By ensuring that the natural environment and the ecosystem services it provides are intrinsically valued by Territory Governments we can ensure that development and growth in the UKOTs is sustainable, green and beneficial for their inhabitants.55
Sustainable development is especially important in those UKOTs that rely on tourism, which depends on the maintenance of natural capital. The 2012 White Paper recognised that
50 International Union for Conservation of Nature, Red List 51 RSPB (OTS 04) para 1.3 52 Ibid., para 1.4 53 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012, p 31 54 Ibid. 55 UK Government (OTS 01)
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 17
tourism is a major part of the economy of most Territories. It is important to develop this industry but also to consider carefully the environmental impact of proposed development so that the coasts, seas and wildlife that attract tourists are not damaged.56 The work force in the UKOTs will need green skills if they are to contribute to and benefit from green growth. Given their small populations, some UKOTs may lack a green skills base, the development of which Defra could support. In that context, our 2012 A Green Economy Report contains a number of pertinent recommendations.57 35. Managed sustainable development is contingent on the maintenance of an effective planning regime. A recent assessment of development controls in the UKOTs by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development and the RSPB observed that five Territories have no legal requirement to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before permitting major development proposals. Three of the more populous Territories are also lacking strategic development plans to identify respective areas for building and conservation and prevent uncontrolled development from spreading across their most valuable landscapes, coastlines and habitats.58
That report assessed development controls in Cayman Islands, Sovereign Base Areas, Falkland Islands, Pitcairn Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands as ‘weak’; and it rated development controls in Anguilla as ‘very weak/absent’.59
36. Unrestricted development can destroy valuable habitats such as primary forest and mangroves. Opaque planning and development processes reduce stakeholder involvement and increase the chances of corrupt practices or inappropriate developments being granted planning permission.60 In some UKOTs, legislation implementing baseline development controls such as statutory environmental impact assessments has been stalled by the political process. For example, the Physical Planning Bill was introduced in Anguilla in 2001 and the Conservation and Environmental Management Bill was introduced in Montserrat in 2008. Those Bills would introduce basic planning controls, but in December 2013 none of them had been enacted.61
37. We identified a pertinent example how inadequate development controls impact the environment when we visited Cayman Islands (see Annex 1). Grand Cayman has a development plan, but environmental impact assessments are not a statutory requirement for developments. The two Sister Islands, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman, which are
56 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, CM 8374, June 2012, p 32 57 Environmental Audit Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2010–12, A Green Economy, HC 1025 58 The Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development and the RSPB, An assessment of environmental protection frameworks in the UK Overseas Territories, February 2013, p 4 59 Ibid., p 6 60 RSPB (OTS 04) para 5.10 61 Ibid., para 5.12
18 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
relatively undeveloped, have no development plans and minimal planning controls. A British company, Crown Acquisitions, has purchased land on all three Cayman Islands, which it has subdivided into undeveloped plots with planning permission for sale to individuals.62 Crown Acquisitions told us that it owns approximately 200 residential plots with planning permission on Little Cayman.63 Little Cayman is the smallest of the three Cayman Islands. It is approximately 10 miles long and one mile wide with a permanent population of fewer than 170. In addition to its healthy marine environment, it supports the largest red-footed booby population in the Caribbean.64 Those sea birds live and breed on an 82-hectare site, which is a designated Ramsar wetland of international importance.65 It has restricted infrastructure and resources, a limited road network and no public transport; fresh water and power are limited; waste management is inadequate; and the airstrip is served by a 10-seat de Havilland Otter aircraft.66 Crown Acquisitions told us that it had not assessed the impact of its proposed development on Little Cayman’s infrastructure.67 While there is no insinuation or inference that developers are committing any criminal or civil offences in their development programme in the Cayman Islands, there is significant local concern about their activities and their impact on unique environments. Although they are acting within the current development framework, developers are risking the biodiversity and ecological sustainability of the Cayman Islands. That is the direct consequence of inadequate development controls and lack of comprehensive governance arrangements.
38. The FCO cannot abnegate its constitutional responsibility to ensure that good governance arrangements are introduced in the UKOTs. Sustainable development in the UKOTs is contingent on their Governments implementing effective development controls, such as statutory environmental impact assessments for major developments and strategic infrastructure plans. Defra must work with UKOTs Governments on developing planning regimes which value and protect natural capital and which promote sustainable tourism industries and economies. Accordingly, the FCO must direct its Governors strongly to advocate the introduction of effective development controls.68 In particular, the Governors in Anguilla and Montserrat must prioritise the passage of stalled environmental legislation which, if enacted, would at least provide baseline standards on development control. In addition, the extension of the Aarhus Convention to the UKOTs would usefully increase transparency around planning and development (see paragraph 22).
62 Crown Acquisitions is not the only company to have purchased land and obtained planning permission for subdivided residential plots in Cayman Islands. It appears to have complied with the current planning regime in Cayman Islands. Crown Acquisitions has no connection with the Crown, the Queen or the British state. 63 Q 176 64 The red-footed booby is an endangered species of sea bird. 65 The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, which is known as the Ramsar Convention after the city in Iran where it was signed in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international co-operation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. 66 Observation by Committee Rapporteurs, 20 June 2013 67 Q 181 68 Anguilla, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands all lack baseline standards on development control, such as statutory environmental impact assessments for major developments and strategic development plans.
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 19
Environmental funding 39. In 2007, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that “environmental funding currently being provided by the UK to the Overseas Territories appears grossly inadequate and we recommend that it should be increased.”69 In 2007–08, Defra spent £152,379 on protecting the environment in the UKOTs. In 2011–12, Defra had increased spending on biodiversity conservation to approximately £3 million through the Darwin Plus scheme, which equates to just £9,000 per globally threatened species.70 If one compares Defra spending on biodiversity protection in the UK with similar Defra spending on the UKOTs, it appears that Defra “values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in Great Britain and Northern Ireland about 5,000 times more than it values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in the Overseas Territories.”71 Investing to prevent biodiversity loss in the UKOTs is a direct and cost-effective contribution to meeting the UK’s international commitments under the CBD. Defra has increased spending on protecting biodiversity in the UKOTs since 2007-08, but a further step change in Darwin Plus funding is required adequately to address the scale of the UK’s international responsibilities to protect biodiversity.
European Union funding 40. LIFE+ is the European Union’s only dedicated funding stream for the environment. The UKOTs cannot currently access it, although it has been used to fund environmental schemes in the French Overseas Departments since 2007. There is no legal bar to the UKOTs accessing LIFE+ funding, but some EU Member States apparently oppose its extension to the UKOTs.72 Negotiations on the next LIFE+ programming period, which will run from 2014 to 2020, are currently under way. The FCO must advance the proposition in negotiations in the European Council that LIFE+ funding should be extended to schemes that protect biodiversity in the UKOTs.
41. Following an initiative by the European Parliament, the European Commission introduced the Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories (BEST). BEST has received two of its three years of pilot funding, after which it must either become a permanent programme or be discontinued. Three projects involving seven UKOTs were funded in the 2012 BEST funding round.73 We heard that the European Commission is unenthusiastic about extending BEST.74 The FCO must press the European Commission to build on the pilot and implement a permanent BEST scheme.
National Lottery funding 42. The environment in the UKOTs could be protected by grants derived from the National Lottery. The Heritage Lottery Fund currently funds conservation projects in the
69 Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, Overseas Territories, HC 147-1, Recommendation 27 70 RSPB (OTS 04) para 1.21 71 UKOTCF (OTS 10) para C5 72 RSPB (OTS 04) para 1.26 73 RSPB (OTS 04) para 1.27 74 UKOTCF (OTS 10) para C19
20 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
UK. It is legally permitted to fund conservation projects in the UKOTs, but it has never done so because the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) directed it to prioritise accessibility for UK residents in making grants. DCMS stated that “there is no bar on Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) making [grants for work in the UKOTs] but HLF’s current policy is to treat any such applications as a low priority.”75 UKOTs residents are currently unable to play the National Lottery. We recommend that DCMS extends the right to play the National Lottery to UKOTs residents using terminals and via the internet . When this is achieved, DCMS should direct the Heritage Lottery Fund to accord applications for projects in the UKOTs equal priority with applications for projects in the UK.
Marine Protected Areas 43. In 2010, the UN declared 2011-2020 the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity to promote the implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 76 The UK committed to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as part of the evolving CBD process. The object of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets is significantly to reduce biodiversity loss. Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 stated: By 2020, at least ... 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.77 To date, 3.2% of the world’s oceans is partially protected and less than 1% of the world’s oceans is fully protected in no-take marine reserves.78 Several of the uninhabited and sparsely inhabited UKOTs, including Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha, BIOT and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, have exceptionally large exclusive economic zones which are less biologically degraded than many other marine areas. The UK could make a significant contribution to achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 by declaring new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) around Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
44. MPAs protect marine ecosystems, processes, habitats, and species. They range from highly protected areas in which all extractive activities are prohibited to areas in which some natural resource use is allowed. The benefits of MPAs include maintaining biodiversity, protecting marine habitats from damage by destructive fishing practices, providing areas in which fish can spawn and grow to their adult size and creating a benchmark for undisturbed, natural ecosystems, which can be used to measure the effect of human activity elsewhere.
45. We heard that the UK Government has advanced the argument that establishing MPAs in the UKOTs where the marine environment is not currently under pressure from human
75 RSPB (OTS 04) para 1.24 76 United Nations, Resolution 65/161, 20 December 2010 77 United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 78 Pew Environment Group (OTS 09) para 3
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 21
activity is unnecessary.79 Such an approach would be short-sighted. First, the UK can contribute to the achievement of a UN target on biodiversity protection by declaring MPAs in the UKOTs. Secondly, if the UK Government waits for the marine environment to be degraded before it acts, it is conceivable that such damage will be irreparable. 46. Enforcement to prevent illegal fishing and to regulate legal fishing is challenging in remote marine areas. We learned that marine monitoring and enforcement in the UKOTs is conducted only in BIOT, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and Falkland Islands. That means that 3,400,000 km2 of ocean in the UKOTs is currently unpatrolled. Licensed fishing takes place in those waters with no monitoring, which may mean that the marine environment in the UKOTs is being illegally degraded.80 Satellite tracking may make a cost-effective contribution to addressing that problem, although it cannot substitute for marine patrols.
47. In 2010, the previous Government designated BIOT as the world’s largest fully protected no-take MPA. BIOT is home to the world’s largest coral atoll and one of the world’s healthiest reef systems, and its marine biodiversity is internationally significant. Although commercial fishing licences are no longer issued in BIOT, legislation to prohibit extractive activities such as commercial fishing or marine mining has still not been enacted.81 Defra and the FCO must complete the legal protections for the marine environment in BIOT by prohibiting all extractive activities.
48. Pitcairn Islands has a population of some 50 people, but its exclusive economic zone extends to some 836,000 km2, which is more than three times the size of the UK. Because of its remote location in the South Pacific, its marine environment has not been industrially fished, which means that it has one of the best preserved marine ecosystems in the world.82 As fisheries elsewhere become overexploited, however, it may be fished by distant water fishing fleets. Pitcairn Islanders have requested that the greater part of its exclusive economic zone should be declared a fully protected no-take marine reserve, which would become the largest such reserve in the world.83 We appreciate that there are resource implications in setting up an MPA around the Pitcairn Islands, but we heard that MPAs are relatively inexpensive to maintain.84 In this Report, we have identified various sources of funding for environmental protection in the UKOTs that could be used in this case (see paragraphs 39 to 42). Defra and the FCO must respond positively to the Pitcairn Islanders’ request to establish a fully protected MPA in line with UN Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020.
79 Ibid., para 27 80 Pew Environment Group (OTS 09) para 19 81 RSPB (OTS 04) para 6.2 82 Pew Environment Group (OTS 09) para 30 83 We note that the FCO has not formally responded to the proposal submitted by the Pitcairn Islands Council. 84 Pew Environment Group (OTS 09) para 35
22 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Annex 1 Visit to Cayman Islands
On 17 April 2013, the Committee resolved to send two Members as Rapporteurs to examine how sustainable development is practised in the Cayman Islands. We are grateful to the Government of the Cayman Islands, former Governor Taylor, Cayman Islands National Trust and the Cayman Islands Department of Environment for facilitating our visit, which took place in June 2013. The Committee’s two Rapporteurs were Joan Walley MP (Chair) and Dr Matthew Offord MP.
Programme Monday 17 June 08:30–10:30 Mastic forest guided tour.
10:30–13:00 Visit to Botanic Park, including Blue Iguana Recovery Programme. Meeting with Programme Director, Mr Fred Burton.
14:00–16:30 Meeting with Cayman Islands National Trust. Executive Director Christina McTaggart; Programmes Director Mr Paul Watler; Field Officer Mr Stuart Mailer.
16:30–18:30 Tour of East End via Queen’s Highway. Tour included Dr Shetty hospital, proposed Bodden Town waste management facility, Collier’s wilderness reserve and less developed areas of Grand Cayman. Tuesday 18 June
09:00–13:00 Visit to Cayman Islands Department of Environment coral reef management and marine research programmes, including North Sound and Little Sound environmental zone, central mangrove wetland and Rum Point channel.
14:00–17:00 Meetings with Cayman Islands Department of Environment Director Ms Gina Ebanks-Petrie and Deputy Director Mr Tim Austin.
Wednesday 19 June
09:00–10:00 West Side marine park tour and examination of development issues in the Seven Mile Beach corridor.
10:00–12:00 Tour of Cayman Turtle Farm.
14:00–16:00 Tour of Seven Mile Beach corridor examining road closures and wetland/marina/hotel redevelopment.
18:00–20:00 Reception at Government House hosted by Governor Taylor. Guests included Premier McLaughlin, other Members of the Cayman Government and civil society.
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 23
Thursday 20 June
06:00–19:00 Visit to Little Cayman and Cayman Brac.
On Little Cayman, visits to the National Trust booby pond Ramsar site, Department of Environment facilities, proposed development sites, Bloody Bay marine park, Southern Cross low impact resort, iguana nesting habitat, tarpon pond and waste management facility.
On Cayman Brac, visits to south-side wetlands, the Sister Islands rock iguana habitat, lighthouse nature trail, Brac booby nesting site, Brac parrot reserve and waste management facility.
Friday 21 June
9.00–10.00 Meeting with Department for Environmental Health Director Mr Roydell Carter to discuss proposed new waste management facility.
10.00–12.00 Tour of existing waste management facility.
14.00–15:00 Meeting with Governor Duncan Taylor and Mr Tim Colley, Deputy Director of Overseas Territories, FCO.
15.00–16:00 Meeting with Cayman Islands Government, including Premier Alden McLaughlin.
16.00–17:00 Meeting with Cayman Islands Minister for Environment, Mr Wayne Panton.
Observations The Environmental Audit Committee is a Select Committee of the House of Commons. As such, we scrutinise and make recommendations to the UK Government. We have no remit to make direct recommendations to UKOTs Governments. That said, we were impressed by the new Cayman Islands Government’s aspiration to protect the environment and therefore have a number of observations following our visit.
Legislation The National Conservation Bill, which was designed to address gaps in environmental governance in the Cayman Islands, was first proposed in 2000. This legislation will protect the Cayman Islands’ most threatened wildlife. The Bill was reintroduced in 2007, but despite its enactment having been a stated aim of successive Governments, it was stalled in the political process until 2013. When we visited in June 2013, the new Cayman Islands Government expressed its determination to enact that legislation. The Cayman Islands Government translated that aspiration into reality in December 2013, when the Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly voted unanimously to enact the National Conservation Bill. We congratulate the Cayman Islands Government on that historic achievement.
24 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Environment Protection Fund An Environment Protection Fund, which is currently worth more than £40 million, has been collected by levying an environmental tax on visitors to the Cayman Islands. To date, almost none of this has been used for environmental protection and the vast majority of the fund remains unspent. The National Conservation Bill includes spending guidelines for this fund. We regret the lack of action by the UK Government to persuade the Cayman Islands Government to use this fund for its intended purpose. If the fund were used for its intended purpose, it would allow UK funding for environmental protection, such as Darwin Plus, to be directed to other UKOTs which have more limited resources than the Cayman Islands and which do not have access to their own environment funds.
Cayman Turtle Farm We visited not only the turtle-based theme park, but the behind-the-scenes turtle breeding tanks at Cayman Turtle Farm. We heard that this state-run facility currently attracts an annual subsidy from the Cayman Islands Government that is four times greater than the annual budget of the Cayman Islands Department of Environment and 20 times greater than funding for the Cayman Islands National Trust. Cayman Turtle Farm does not farm wild turtles; it breeds ‘domestic’ turtles for consumption by Caymanians and release into the sea. It currently holds 9,000 turtles. In the past year, 750 turtles were slaughtered for human consumption and 158 were released into the wild. In August 2012, some 300 green turtles were found dead after a leak from a seawater pipe left them to dry out in a holding container.85 We observed large turtles attempting to swim from the sea up the sewage outflow channel from the farm. It is conceivable that those were female turtles which had been released from the farm and which were following their natural instinct to return to where they were hatched to lay their eggs. While turtle was apparently a traditional cuisine in the Cayman Islands, there remains some dispute whether the Cayman Turtle Farm is creating an artificial market in the tourist industry by encouraging visitors to eat a meat that the majority of indigenous people now shun. We heard that if ‘domestic’ turtles were not farmed, wild turtles would be poached. However, the Cayman Turtle Farm introduced a 25% price decrease on 1 September 2013 for turtle meat, contradicting that assertion.86 The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) expressed its concerns about this facility.87 We heard that the Cayman Islands Government will engage in dialogue with WSPA in January 2014, which we welcome.
Waste management We were concerned about waste management practices in the Cayman Islands. We saw old refrigerators being crushed with no regard to CFCs and recycling that ranged from minimal to non-existent. The waste management site on Grand Cayman appeared to be inadequately lined and waste may be seeping into the water table.88 The facilities on
85 300 Green turtles die at Cayman Turtle Farm, Wildlife Extra, August 2012 86 WSPA responds to Cayman Turtle Farm, WSPA, 4 September 2013 87 WSPA (OTS 36) 88 Observation by Committee Rapporteurs, 21 June 2013
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 25
Cayman Brac and Little Cayman were even less convincing. The facility on Little Cayman was lined, but the lining had been fractured by the unregulated burning of rubbish. The facility on Cayman Brac was unlined and waste appeared to be seeping into a nearby lake.89 Local authorities in the UK have the expertise to address those issues. Cayman Islands Government and the UK Government might wish to consider developing a partnership with a UK local authority to share best practice.
89 Observation by Committee Rapporteurs, 20 June 2013
26 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Conclusions
1. Considering the environment alone—defence, development, communities and governance are also important—the international significance of the biodiversity in the UKOTs means that 13 years is too long a gap between Overseas Territories White Papers and indicates policy drift by successive UK Governments. We therefore welcome the publication of the 2012 White Paper. (Paragraph 4)
2. The UK Government is prepared to exercise hard and soft power in relation to financial matters in the UKOTs, but it is apparently not prepared to exercise those powers to protect biodiversity and to promote environmental sustainability. (Paragraph 12)
3. The four UKOTs to which the [Convention on Biological Diversity] has been extended have not been effectively included in UK biodiversity reporting. Compliance with the stipulations of the CBD is ultimately a UK responsibility. (Paragraph 21)
4. Without enhanced monitoring, Defra cannot accurately report to the CBD on the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs and therefore measure progress towards the UN 2020 target to halt biodiversity loss. (Paragraph 31)
5. The FCO cannot abnegate its constitutional responsibility to ensure that good governance arrangements are introduced in the UKOTs. Sustainable development in the UKOTs is contingent on their Governments implementing effective development controls, such as statutory environmental impact assessments for major developments and strategic infrastructure plans. (Paragraph 38)
6. Investing to prevent biodiversity loss in the UKOTs is a direct and cost-effective contribution to meeting the UK’s international commitments under the CBD. (Paragraph 39)
7. The UK could make a significant contribution to achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 by declaring new Marine Protected Areas around Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. (Paragraph 43)
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 27
Recommendations
8. Defra must empower its staff to visit the UKOTs to meet elected representatives and civil servants and to examine environmental issues in person in order effectively to discharge their responsibilities. (Paragraph 9)
9. The FCO must prioritise greater involvement by representatives from the UKOTs in setting the agenda at future [Joint Ministerial Councils]. (Paragraph 10)
10. The UK must fulfil its core environmental obligations to the UN under the CBD in order to maintain its international reputation as an environmentally responsible nation state. The FCO must agree a timetable to extend ratification of the CBD with all inhabited UKOTs where this has not yet taken place. That may entail preparations in the UKOTs, which must be clearly timetabled. The FCO must immediately extend ratification of the CBD to all uninhabited UKOTs. (Paragraph 19)
11. The UK Fifth National Report to the CBD, which must be submitted by 31 May 2014, must include comprehensive entries on biodiversity protection in those UKOTs to which the CBD has been extended—British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. (Paragraph 21)
12. The FCO must immediately contact the UNECE to ascertain whether the UNECE believes that the UK has extended ratification of the Aarhus Convention to all the UKOTs. We recommend that the FCO reviews its standard procedure for excluding the UKOTs from the stipulations of international treaties under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention and consider introducing a more transparent procedure. (Paragraph 25)
13. In light of the FCO Minister’s commitment to enhanced transparency and the inadequacy of the planning regimes in many UKOTs , the FCO must agree with UKOTs Governments a timetable to extend ratification of the Aarhus Convention. (Paragraph 25)
14. Defra must restate its commitment to Environment Charters and use them to deliver its CBD commitments in the UKOTs. Darwin Plus funding should be linked to compliance with the terms of Environment Charters. (Paragraph 27)
15. In addition to agreeing a timetable with all UKOTs Governments to ratify the CBD, Defra must draw together UKOTs Governments, NGOs such as the RSPB, civil society and research institutions to agree a comprehensive research programme to catalogue the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Paragraph 31)
16. Defra must work with UKOTs Governments on developing planning regimes which value and protect natural capital and which promote sustainable tourism industries and economies. Accordingly, the FCO must direct its Governors strongly to advocate the introduction of effective development controls. In particular, the Governors in Anguilla and Montserrat must prioritise the passage of stalled environmental legislation which, if enacted, would at least provide baseline standards on development control. (Paragraph 38)
28 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
17. Defra has increased spending on protecting biodiversity in the UKOTs since 2007- 08, but a further step change in Darwin Plus funding is required adequately to address the scale of the UK’s international responsibilities to protect biodiversity. (Paragraph 39)
18. The FCO must advance the proposition in negotiations in the European Council that LIFE+ funding should be extended to schemes that protect biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Paragraph 40)
19. The FCO must press the European Commission to build on the pilot and implement a permanent BEST scheme. (Paragraph 41)
20. We recommend that DCMS extends the right to play the National Lottery to UKOTs residents using terminals and via the internet . When this is achieved, DCMS should direct the Heritage Lottery Fund to accord applications for projects in the UKOTs equal priority with applications for projects in the UK. (Paragraph 42)
21. Defra and the FCO must complete the legal protections for the marine environment in BIOT by prohibiting all extractive activities. (Paragraph 47)
22. Defra and the FCO must respond positively to the Pitcairn Islanders’ request to establish a fully protected MPA in line with UN Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020. (Paragraph 48)
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 29
Formal Minutes
Wednesday 8 January 2014
Members present: Joan Walley, in the Chair
Peter Aldous Caroline Lucas Neil Carmichael Caroline Nokes Martin Caton Dr Matthew Offord Katy Clark Mrs Caroline Spelman Zac Goldsmith Dr Alan Whitehead Mark Lazarowicz Simon Wright
* * * Draft Report (Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read. Ordered, That the Draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 48 read and agreed to. Summary agreed to. Annex agreed to. Resolved, That the Report be the Tenth Report of the Committee to the House. Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House. Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134. Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, in addition to that ordered to be reported for publishing on 9 and 16 January 2013 in the previous Session of Parliament, 15 May, 5 and 12 June, 3 July, 4 and 11 September, 9 and 23 October, and 11 December.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 15 January at 2.00 pm
30 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
Witnesses
Tuesday 19 March 2013 Page
Bryan Naqqi Manco, Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Dr Nikki Chapman, Nature Conservation Division, St Helena. Ev 1
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Dr Mike Pienkowski, Honorary Executive Director, UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Dr Chris Tydeman, Chair, UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Clare Stringer, Head of UK Overseas Territories Unit, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Jonathan Hall, Partner Development Officer, UK Overseas Territories, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Ev 13
Tuesday 9 July 2013
Mark Simmonds MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr Peter Hayes, Director, Overseas Territories, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Jeremy Eppel, Deputy Director, International Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Evidence, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Ian McKendry, Deputy Director for the Overseas Territories and the Caribbean, Department for International Development. Ev27
Wednesday 11 September 2013
Darryl Pickthall, Director, Crown Acquisitions Ltd, Jason Pickthall, Chief Executive Officer, Crown Acquisitions Ltd, and Jamie Davies, Accounts Director, Crown Acquisitions Ltd. Ev 39
List of printed written evidence
1 UK Government Ev 49 2 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Ev 53, Ev 143 3 Environmental Management Directorate, St Helena Government Ev 64 4 UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum Ev 68, Ev 92, Ev 112 5 Turks and Caicos Islands’ Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs Ev 87 6 Tara Pelembe, Head of Environmental Management Division, St Helena Ev 89 7 Rt Hon David Lidington MP, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ev 111, Ev 145, Ev 146
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 31
8 Mark Simmonds MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (supplementary) Ev 139
List of additional written evidence
(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/eacom)
1 UK Overseas Territories Association Ev w1 2 National Trust for the Cayman Islands Ev w3 3 Government of Tristan da Cunha Conservation Department Ev w8 4 South Georgia Heritage Trust Ev w9 5 Marine Reserves Coalition Ev w11 6 Pew Environment Group Ev w15 7 Falklands Conservation Ev w20 8 Cayman Islands Department of Environment Ev 23 9 Chagos Conservation Trust Ev w25 10 British Antarctic Survey Ev w27 11 Christine Rose-Smyth Ev w30 12 WWF-UK Ev w33 13 Government of Pitcairn Islands Ev w36 14 Institute of Ecology and Environment Management Ev w37 15 Buglife Ev w39 16 Adrian Johns, Governor of Gibraltar Ev w43 17 George Fergusson, Governor of Bermuda Ev w45 18 Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Director, Department of Environment, Cayman Islands Ev w46 19 Nigel Haywood, Governor of the Falkland Islands Ev w48 20 Nigel Haywood, Commissioner of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Ev w49 21 Boyd McCleary, Governor of the British Virgin Islands Ev w51 22 Alistair Harrison, Governor of Anguilla Ev w52 23 Adrian Davis, Governor of Montserrat Ev w53 24 Duncan Taylor, Governor of the Cayman Islands Ev w54 25 Mark Capes, Governor of St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha Ev w56 26 Nick Rendell, Environmental Officer, Environmental Planning Department, Department, Falkland Islands Government Ev w58 27 Mr Karim V D Hodge, Director, Environment, Anguilla Department of Environment Ev w60 28 Damian Todd, Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands Ev w63 29 World Society for the protection of Animals (WSPA) Ev w64 30 BioDiplomacy Ev w69 31 Edison Baird Ev w72
32 Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.
Session 2013–14 First Report Embedding sustainable development: an update HC 202 (HC 633) Second Report Outcomes of the UN Rio+20 Earth Summit HC 200 (HC 633) Third Report Transport and accessibility to public services HC 201 (HC 632) Fourth Report Protecting the Arctic: The Government’s response HC 333 Fifth Report Progress on Carbon Budgets HC 60 Sixth Report Biodiversity Offsetting HC 750
Seventh Report Sustainability in BIS HC 613
Eighth Report Codes for Sustainable Homes and the Housing HC 192 Standards Review
Ninth Report Energy subsidies HC 61
Session 2012–13 First Report The St Martin-in-the-Fields seminar on the Rio+20 HC 75 agenda
Second Report Protecting the Arctic HC 171 (HC 858) Third Report Wildlife Crime HC 140 (HC 1061) Fourth Report Autumn Statement 2012: environmental issues HC 328 (HC 1087) Fifth Report Measuring well-being and sustainable development: HC 667 (HC 139) Sustainable Development Indicators Sixth Report Energy Intensive Industries Compensation Scheme HC 669 (Cm 8618) Seventh Report Pollinators and Pesticides
Session 2010–12 First Report Embedding sustainable development across HC 504 (HC 877) Government, after the Secretary of State’s announcement on the future of the Sustainable Development Commission Second Report The Green Investment Bank HC 505 (HC 1437) Third Report Sustainable Development in the Localism Bill HC 799 (HC 1481) Fourth Report Embedding sustainable development: the HC 877 Government’s response Fifth Report The impact of UK overseas aid on envir onmental HC 710 (HC 1500) protection and climate change adaptation and mitigation Sixth Report Budget 2011 and environmental taxes HC 878 (HC 1527) Seventh Report Carbon Budgets HC 1080 (HC 1720) Eighth Report Preparations for the Rio +20 Summit HC 1026 (HC 1737)
Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories 33
Ninth Report Air Quality a follow up Report HC 1024 (HC 1820) Tenth Report Solar Power Feed-in Tariffs (Joint with the Energy and HC 1605 (HC 1858) Climate Change Committee) Eleventh Report Sustainable Food HC 879 (HC 567) Twelfth Report A Green Economy HC 1025 (HC 568)
Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee on Tuesday 19 March 2013
Members present: Joan Walley (Chair)
Peter Aldous Caroline Lucas Martin Caton Dr Matthew Offord Mark Lazarowicz Mr Mark Spencer ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Bryan Naqqi Manco, Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Dr Nikki Chapman, Nature Conservation Division, St Helena, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: First of all, on behalf of the Dr Chapman: I think with any development there is Environmental Audit Select Committee, I give a really going to be a trade-off. St Helena is ecologically warm welcome to both of you. I think our paths sensitive. Within the Environmental Management slightly crossed at an event recently, and it is great to Directorate we have a designated member of staff who be able to welcome you to our Environmental Audit deals with the wider airport issues and EIAs, and they Select Committee. Our inquiry is looking to follow on would have more of that detailed information. from the previous inquiry that the Committee held some years ago and to see how we can scrutinise our Q3 Mark Lazarowicz: On the question of the airport own UK Government policy in respect of as an example, what kind of assessment was there of environmental policies relating to Overseas the environmental advantages and disadvantages of Territories. We feel that this is a timely occasion to the airport, both narrowly defined in terms of the put the spotlight on what more could be done, so you airport itself and the area around it, but also in terms are welcome to our Committee this afternoon. We of the impact upon the island? Or was it very much a have a few questions that Members of the Committee given that there would be an airport and it was a will ask of you. We know that there is a lot of interest question of minimising the environmental damage? in the Committee and the recommendations that we Dr Chapman: I do not actually deal with that work reach, and obviously much of our work will depend area. on the evidence and the sessions that we are holding. Mark Lazarowicz: My point is what assessment was there of the environmental positives and negatives Could I begin with you, Dr Chapman? I am sure you relating to the airport, both in terms of where the want to share with the Committee the concerns that airport actually is physically but also in terms of the you have, but I think that in your initial response it wider impact on the St Helena environment? would be nice if you could give us a perspective on Dr Chapman: All I can say is that an environmental what you feel are the major challenges facing the new impact assessment was undertaken and is accessible, Environmental Management Directorate, which has but I could not address the actual detail. This point been established by the St Helena Government. would be better for my colleagues. Dr Chapman: Yes, thank you very much. As you know, it is quite a new department, set up in 2011 and Q4 Chair: You mentioned capacity as well in terms officially launched in April 2012. I suppose the two of your environment department. Do you have enough main challenges that it faces, which are also expert advice? Is there enough access to training? Is challenges across the OTs, would be the long-term that something that you feel that you are properly financial support and technical expertise. We resourced to carry out, this new directorate that has understand the economic climate we are in however been set up, the Environmental Management lots of core and project work depends on external Directorate? funds. We have been quite successful with that, but Dr Chapman: Across the whole EMD or across St some of this funding is short-term, which, as fantastic Helena? as it is, doesn’t sustain conservation efforts in the Chair: Across the EMD. longer term. We also need further technical support, Dr Chapman: Across EMD. Let’s say yes and no. We to bridge the gap between local knowledge and have benefited very well from external support. We delivering on international commitments such as have had technical corporation support, which we are MEAs and creation of environmental legislation. very grateful for. This has included: the EMD director, who is on loan from JNCC, a risk assessment adviser Q2 Chair: We understand that the Department for providing training to local staff, and myself and the International Development aims to help you with Nature Conservation Division have been able to 1 moving away from needing UK aid and that it has access, and a terrestrial adviser. The Nature funded the airport. Is there an environmental cost to 1 Note by witness: The Risk Assessment Adviser and that airport, do you think? Territorial Adviser provide training to local posts. Ev 2 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman
Conservation Division, covering across marine and over limits and undersized turtles. These are all things terrestrial environments, has benefitted from one of that we have some very passionate conservation these posts so that has been supported. and My officers to address, but we just do not have all the background is marine science, so I am directly resources that we need to address them. Also, of providing support for my team, but in the future EMD course, we are a country of 10 inhabited islands, could benefit from if possible which means that we have to be everywhere. Currently, we only have officers on, I would say, three Q5 Chair: One of the things that I was interested in and a half, because I would not consider my office an is this airport that is going to be built in an enforcement office. ecologically sensitive area. Do you have sufficient We have faced some other cross-cutting issues as far trained people to help carry out any assessments of as the environment goes. One of those is the issue of the ecological area that is scheduled for the airport immigration. For the last three years under direct rule, expansion? the immigration law was consulted on and then Dr Chapman: We do, within EMD, but any additional changed, basically to eliminate the possibility of support would be greatly appreciated, definitely.2 attaining citizenship in the territory; that was done after a consultation did not recommend it—sort of Q6 Chair: Are you actually looking at what support unilaterally. The effect that has had is that people who would be needed to provide environmental assessment are passionate about the environment, particularly and protection of that biodiversity? Are you looking members of our department who are from overseas to quantify what staffing resources would be needed? and come to work there, felt a bit hopeless and Dr Chapman: Have we internally? Yes, we have. unwelcome to stay long term. But it has other implications. Between a fourth and a third of the Q7 Chair: Perhaps I could turn to you, Mr Manco; Turks and Caicos population are resident foreigners, thank you for being with us this afternoon. Could you and when you have a country that you know is yours set out what you see as the key challenges, given that in the future and belongs to your children in the you have a new elected Government, and how you see future, you treat it well, or one would hope that one the whole environment aspect fitting in? would treat it well. But if that is not the case, I think Bryan Naqqi Manco: Well, I think we have a number there is less stewardship. There is less of a sense of of challenges that are almost repeated to us, in that importance and urgency to not throw your trash on during the last three years we had some setbacks. I the ground, to not pour bleach into the mangroves to think that the environment had to be set as a lower catch lobster, to not collect as many bonefish as one priority due to the financial severity that the country possibly can at a time to feed their family using a net was under. The key challenges, I think, relate mostly that has been outlawed, and to keep things going a to policies that have been developed in the past, such little bit longer than they would otherwise. That has as the environment charter, that were more or less been a major challenge for our department as well. shelved or sort of forgotten about, or perhaps not We have lost some key staff over that issue of, “We briefed. We would like that to be revived in our have no future here. We have better opportunities Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, but elsewhere and more security in other countries, so at the moment it feels as though for the last three years let’s go away”. It is something I myself am facing. the environment has been set at such a low priority My parents are Belongers, but under the current law I that we have that as a precedent now, whereas before will never able to attain citizenship. we prided ourselves for a while that Turks and Caicos We have also dealt with the larger UK Government was a model of implementation of its environment cuts to some of the societies and the organisations that charter. It no longer feels that way. we work with; just as an example, Royal Botanic We definitely have a challenge in the environmental Gardens Kew, ZSL, and so on. When we work with impact assessment policies, in that developments that those organisations we have to make up that funding are backed or are being done by the Government do within the territory to carry out our work. That was not require EIA, and some of those are very impactful. coming largely from the Overseas Territories Some of them are very necessary and important to the Environment Programme, but we found the new growth of the country, but perhaps could be done Darwin Plus programme to be a bit beyond our better in many ways if they were subject to the same capacity, particularly in that the announcement was processes as a major private development. done around the holiday time. We were unable to put Due to the problems we had, some of the funding cuts in the submissions that we wanted to because of the to the Turks and Caicos Islands Government have timing. We also did not have the capacity within the been severe, and we have lost some key staff over the department to justify spending staff time on the last several years. We have lost a lot of capacity, but development of complex proposals that may or may more importantly, our enforcement capacity is very not have been successful. I think that brings to light low. We have a gigantic remit. About 30% of the another cross-cutting issue in the culture of the Turks and Caicos Islands land area is protected, but territories. Sometimes it is forgotten that it is not we are currently patrolling that with one boat that we Britain; that we have a unique culture in Turks and occasionally have enough fuel for, and that is a big Caicos and all of the territories, of course. Just as an challenge. We have a problem with over-fishing, with example, the Darwin Plus announcement was done the collection of undersized conch and lobster, and right before or right after the holiday season, and more 2 Note by witness: EMD staff undertaking airport related work or less everything shuts down in Turks and Caicos in are not trained in EIAs. the holiday season. We have a small Government. A Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 3
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman lot of our officials take vacation at that time, and we consulting whether or not the public wanted it, the needed consultation and we needed input from other forum set up by the developer was more like, “Do you officials, which we were unable to get, so that was want a 28-storey building in Grace Bay?”, not, “Do delayed. you want it or not?” Of course, the response was, “No, Finally, the loss of the conservation fund has been a we do not want it in Grace Bay”. “Well, where do you serious challenge to us. The Government collects an want it?” “Well, we could have it over there.” The 11% hotel, accommodation and tourism facility tax; public really was not given a choice of whether they restaurants, rental cars, all that sort of thing. One of wanted it or not, and the discussion was just as hectic those 11% went into the conservation fund, and that because of that. had accrued—I do not know the exact figure, but it Another example is the changing of the marine law to was several million dollars, from which projects could allow captive husbandry of marine mammals. This is be written and drawn. In fact, a project that I worked something that was really amazing to me. Turks and on four years ago came from the conservation fund Caicos is a fragmented society. We are a fragmented and led into a much longer-term and more important country geographically. We are fragmented culturally. project. Unfortunately, that fund was not maintained We have people from 70-odd different nations living separately from the general accounts; it was absorbed there. We have three major languages. Everyone exists into the general accounts during direct rule, and used in relative peace but perhaps not yet fully integrated. to alleviate some of the country’s debt. There was no Yet over the last year, two issues have amazed me in further facility set up to collect any more money in how they united the country. One is, of course, the that fund. It has basically been abolished. very controversial and not related to this topic Unfortunately, the tax is still commonly marketed by implementation of value-added tax, which has been a the tourism facilities as an environmental tax, but it is very passionate discussion. The other is the issue of not attainable. I think the amount that was generated, having a dolphinarium or two in the Turks and Caicos. if it was administered correctly, could probably fund I have never seen two issues that united people more the majority of the recurring expenses of the across the board, across the languages, across the department and probably several of the NGOs that we cultures and across the ages. I think that speaks have, and still have money to supply projects, but volumes—that there was probably a lack of attention unfortunately it was not done like that. We have lost paid to what people really wanted. When the election our in-territory funding, our external funding has been was called, the new Government and the candidates made more complicated, and we have a gigantic did not set environment as a priority. I think that was network of in-kind support within the territory. I have because they were so eager to get in and so eager to run my own project basically off fumes of in-kind find jobs for people and recover the economy that it support and good will for the last two years because just was not something apparent to watch for and to our complications in the Government have made it celebrate. But it is our mainstay: “Beautiful by nature” difficult for us to access the payments. We have had a is the Turks and Caicos slogan. People do not come number of challenges and more, but I will leave you to look at garbage and degraded forests. They come with that at the moment. to look at natural beauty.
Q8 Chair: Okay, we will just leave it at that at the Q9 Mark Lazarowicz: On the percentage of the moment. You mentioned the conservation fund. environmental tax, or whatever it is called, that went Basically, you confirmed that although it is still being to support projects, when that 1% was stopped was it collected, its status is that it is not being used for a decision of the direct-rule Government? environmental purposes. Given that in your opening Bryan Naqqi Manco: As far as I know, yes. It was comments you said that you would like more attention done during that time. given to the environment, what do you think it would take for whoever determines policy to really put the Q10 Mark Lazarowicz: Could the new elected environment at the core of what is being done? What Government bring it back if they wished? has changed? Why is environment not at the top of the agenda? Why is there not pressure for it to be seen Bryan Naqqi Manco: I believe so. I am uncertain to be so important? about that. Bryan Naqqi Manco: At the last several elections that I have seen, someone has always put the environment Q11 Mark Lazarowicz: It might link to the VAT as a priority, as a platform. Someone has said it, even issue, I suppose. if it is just lip service or appears to be—as a Bryan Naqqi Manco: I am not sure. I know that our passionate environmentalist everything seems to be lip elected Government has been a bit hesitant to make service to me. During direct rule I think that decisions yet because there have been some issues environment was set at a low priority. I would criticise with the impending by-election and some other issues it as too low, but I also understand that we had much of uncertainty about what will happen. Perhaps it is. I more urgent matters. We were probably on the verge do not know enough about the legal framework of that of economic collapse. I don’t know, but I think at that fund, though, to know who can dictate that. time several developments were entertained— proposals entertained—that were not in the vernacular Q12 Mr Spencer: You have identified clearly that the of our history; for example, a 28-storey building. general population is aware of environmental issues. I Whether or not we wanted it was consulted publicly. wondered if you could give us a feel for where they Our maximum is seven storeys right now. Rather than sit in terms of their priorities, how high on their Ev 4 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman agenda are green issues, or whether they are Bryan Naqqi Manco: No, certainly any time that a completely dominated by economic issues. consultant or a UK-based organisation is brought in, Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think at the moment people as long as they work within the cultural context of the are still coming out of the survival mode of not having country, as long as they work within the local access to jobs. Being a country where the super-rich vernacular and they understand and consult local come for vacation, we never thought that the recession people, then it will work. I have had the pleasure to would hurt us, and it did. I think that a lot of people work with the UK Overseas Territories Conservation are still coming out of survival mode or are perhaps Forum for the last 15 years, and it has always been a still in survival mode, trying to find jobs, ways to really good relationship. The Royal Botanic Gardens support themselves and their families, yet the younger Kew, ZSL, the British Museum, National Museum people in the country are definitely very passionate. Liverpool—a number of organisations have come and We have an active environmental club. We have helped us build capacity, work on our biodiversity, several active NGOs. Our national museum has taken implement policy, and it has always been helpful. on the environment as one of its main issues and, in They have always done it with a territory-driven fact, has got some pretty amazing grants due to its approach so that they said, “We are here to help you. commitment to becoming a green organisation. So it How can we help you? What do you want to do?” It is there, particularly among people who have been was not an issue of them coming in and saying, “Here exposed to the idea of green development. On the is what we want to do”. I should mention more NGOs other hand, we have a power monopoly that has been from the UK that have helped us as well; they are not allowed to develop to curtail any effort to be green, to all in my mind right now—RSPB is certainly one— develop alternative sources of power, and that again and we would like more. We would like to have more sets a precedent that people follow, a bit of relationships with others. hopelessness: “We really cannot do anything about it, so why bother?” Q16 Mark Lazarowicz: You will both have seen the RSPB assessment of the Environmental Protection Framework, which was launched at the event last Q13 Mr Spencer: Is there a generational split week. Can I ask you first, Dr Chapman, do you agree between the younger generation that understands with the assessment that the RSPB made of the those issues and the older population that do not? Is situation in St Helena and, if not, in what ways do that too generalistic? you disagree or think it may be inaccurate? Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think it crosses generations in Dr Chapman: I think the document is a very different ways. The older people in the country have accessible with a clear and simple nice format, and a much more direct connection to the earth and nature there is no jargon. I broadly agree with the content. because they were subsistence farmers 30 years ago. Yes, I think broadly that it is a fair assessment, and I The Turks and Caicos was a subsistence-farming am pleased to see that we have a “strong” for the country. I mentioned a few minutes ago the development category. anachronism of seeing an 80-year-old woman toddling down the road with a canvas sack of sweet potatoes Q17 Mark Lazarowicz: I have some more detailed on her head, a cutlass and a piece of sugar cane in questions about St Helena in a second, but may we go her hand, and on the other hand she is talking on her on to Turks and Caicos? The assessment there is not BlackBerry. Our development has gone exponentially, as good in a number of aspects. Do you think that is and our population has gone exponentially. relatively fair, or do you think it is unfair in any way? Bryan Naqqi Manco: No, I think it was fair. I believe Q14 Mr Spencer: What I am driving at is whether we got a couple of “weaks” and a “moderate”, if I am there is a requirement for greater general public not mistaken. awareness of green issues to drive the political Mark Lazarowicz: Yes, three “weaks” and a agenda, or whether that awareness already exists but “moderate”. there is another way to drive that particular agenda. Bryan Naqqi Manco: Three “weaks” and a Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think there is a lot of “moderate”, yes. It also shows us what we know. We awareness already. The tourist board does an amazing know that those areas are weak, and we know that job of telling people, “Beautiful by nature; we have to they have to be developed. I do not think it is keep the country attractive for tourists”. There is a lot necessarily a reflection on anyone doing anything of environmental education in the schools, but to me wrong, so that is why I do not think it is unfair at all. there is always room for more. Everything we do I think it is quite a fair assessment. It shows us where depends on our environment. Our economy, our food we could be stronger. One of the great things that I source, everything depends on the environment, and it have found working with the Department of is too small a country to play with that. We cannot Environment and Maritime Affairs and several other really go anywhere else if we ruin what we have. Yes, NGOs in the territory is that we are quite ready to we do have a lot of awareness, but we do need more. criticise ourselves internally and respond to constructive criticism from externally and to work Q15 Mr Spencer: You have that strong lobby. I with people to see how we can make things better. suppose where I am going is: would it help if UK- based NGOs stepped in and tried to assist in getting Q18 Mark Lazarowicz: If I could continue with you those messages across, or would that hinder the because there are perhaps more questions about Turks process? and Caicos than about St Helena, but I will come back Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 5
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman in a second. Do you want to give us a bit more detail fact, we have ecologists, myself included, who will on the areas where you think greater legal protections not be part of the EIA process for consultation in are needed and how far up they are on the Turks and Caicos, because we end up looking governmental agenda with the new Government? environmentally terrible because the developer can Bryan Naqqi Manco: Right. We definitely need some throw out whatever they like, and there is very little increased legislation for policy implementation. We push to have these documents more accessible to have a Biodiversity and Wildlife Protection Bill, Government in their full state. which unfortunately was set as a lower priority in the last three years, and that would implement Convention Q21 Chair: What do you think would be needed to on Biodiversity for us. Our CITES legislation is deal with the challenges that you have just set out; the currently under review, so it would be nice to get that fact that it is not being recognised, in terms of that moving, particularly because we have outside entities environmental appraisal? What do you think the actual that are interested in exploiting resources. Luckily, solution would be? when people look for things in the environment in Bryan Naqqi Manco: At the moment, when we Turks and Caicos, botany and animals and whatnot, receive EIAs within the department we scrutinise they often get passed on to me—their contact—so I them very heavily, but we also become part of the have managed to stop some of the interests that we process of developments that are not on the EIA. We have had in exploiting orchids or reptiles and so on. have a member on the planning board so that But we do need that increased legislation. We also developments, whether or not they have an EIA, come require the updated Protected Areas Act to be passed through our department one way or the other. I think to make things a little bit more accessible to our really it needs a little bit more policy work and enforcement officers. Along with that legislation, we legislation to make sure that everything gets an EIA, really need support to implement the management of because it might be a very necessary and good project those laws. for the country. It might provide jobs: the causeway to north and middle Caicos provided an incredible Q19 Mark Lazarowicz: With the new amount of access to people so that they could get administration, is there a sign that legislation and medical care and food without having to get on a support might be forthcoming reasonably soon? once-a-week ferry that may or may not work. That Bryan Naqqi Manco: The team that is in place now— was a huge leap, but it has a major environmental I think so, yes. Like I said, we only had our election impact, so it would be nice to know that we have an in November, and things have been a bit uncertain idea of what we are losing and what we are gaining since then. Both parties seem to have a lot of sensible before it even happens, not just for the environment people in them, and I hope that regardless of which but across the board. I think it is just a wiser way to way our by-election sends us that would be the case. do it. There is a strong push within the Ministry particularly to get these things going. We have a really passionate Q22 Mark Lazarowicz: Dr Chapman, are there any group of people right now. In the past, our department areas in St Helena where you think greater legal was mostly resource managers, but now we have more of a conservation paradigm within the department. protections are needed, and is that likely to happen? Dr Chapman: Yes. St Helena did have legislation covering the environment, but it needed reviewing as Q20 Mark Lazarowicz: I do not think you covered there are quite a few gaps in it. EMD is currently this earlier. If you did and I missed it, I am sorry. Are environmental impact assessments required in Turks reviewing the environmental legislation and and Caicos for appropriately sized developments? addressing the gaps. EMD is also in the process of Bryan Naqqi Manco: For major developments, yes, recruiting an environmental legislation draftsperson, but not developments that are done or driven by the which is quite critical to finalise the works. Obviously Government or public service. For example, an St Helena is going through a process of change with expansion of our airport may be threatening an the airport construction underway; we need to get that underwater cavern system that plays host to an legislation into place. Indeed, especially when— endemic genus and family of crustaceans to that cave. specifically on the conservation side—we have We are right now working with very limited resources, species such as crayfish that could become getting volunteer cave divers to go in and try to map commercial products and if not sustainably managed to find out if the development on the adjacent parcel would disappear quite soon. is going to affect it and, in fact, why the parcel that the cave is on was acquired and whether or not that Q23 Mark Lazarowicz: Can I just be clear? will be developed as well. Just as a sideline, that Obviously, in St Helena there is less local would also affect the only known colony of Jamaican accountability on these issues than in general in Turks fruit-eating bats that we have in the country, as well and Caicos, in terms of, I think, a planning board or as those crustaceans and a couple of shrimp that are something that is appointed by the Governor. Is it very endemic to Turks and Caicos and Cuba. We do need much up to St Helena itself to decide what legislation a better environmental impact assessment process. to bring forward, or is there a role played by UK Our other complication with the EIA process is that Government Departments? Or is it very much up to they are exclusively commissioned, paid for and the St Helena Government what it does, what it brings vetted by the developer, so what is submitted to the forward? Generally on environmental legislation, how Government is exactly what the developer wants. In far is this local initiative and how far is it something Ev 6 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman that to some extent is encouraged or not encouraged Bryan Naqqi Manco: Having trudged through the from the UK end of the process? White Paper myself and knowing that my director, Dr Chapman: Well, the current environmental who has considerably more education than I do, also legislation review was initiated by EMD but did, and so did several other of my colleagues, some incorporated wider St Helena, NGOs and civil with even more education, we all came to the same societies. There are currently other conservation plans conclusion: it was not a very accessible document to that are led from EMD that will feed into the the general public. We felt that it had a lot of good in environmental legislation, for example the marine it but it was not something that most of the people in management plan and terrestrial conservation areas the country could really pull from and sift through and plan. Quite a lot of current policy works are EMD-led access unless they had a really big interest in it. I think but incorporates wider St Helenian. generally, yes, it met expectations, but it is very hard to make that judgment call when it is in a language Q24 Mark Lazarowicz: I think that issue might be and a structure that really makes it a bit difficult to pursued, or I might raise it later on, but my final access. question is how many people are actually involved in this process in St Helena? How many staff are there? Q27 Martin Caton: You mentioned a little earlier the How many people are in the departments concerned? UK Overseas Territory Conservation Forum. They You mentioned your own department of scientists. actually criticised the White Paper fairly strongly and How many people are there involved in this? What certainly said that it lacked substance and also sort of staff resource? certainty. Would you endorse that? Dr Chapman: We have about 30 staff in EMD. We Bryan Naqqi Manco: I would say it is a bit vague. I do not have actually a department of scientists. understand that the territories are all very different and However we have many staff with local knowledge one would have to be a bit vague, but I do not know which is key to inputting in these policies.3 that it really committed and had a lot of teeth in it. A lot of good ideas, but I think perhaps it could use a Mark Lazarowicz: Thank you. I will leave it there. little more power or energy. Q25 Martin Caton: What more should the UK Q28 Martin Caton: Thank you. Again, this is for Government be doing to support environmental both of you if you would. We have heard that the protection in the Overseas Territories? In particular, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does the 2012 White Paper Overseas Territories: in the UK has no dedicated staff working on Overseas Security, Success and Sustainability meet your Territories issues and that Overseas Territories expectations and hopes for UK Government strategy? biodiversity is not even in their business plan. What Dr Chapman: Is that to both? is the message you think comes from that, and what Martin Caton: To both of you, yes. would you like to see Defra doing? Chair: Do you want to go first, Dr Chapman? Dr Chapman: I think you have hit the nail on the Dr Chapman: Well, we had some recommendations head, basically. We definitely would like to see at least on that. We feel the Government should be perhaps one dedicated officer with that remit clearly shown, inputting more as it has a moral and legal obligation otherwise it could send out the wrong signals. Yes, it to protect biodiversity. What we have been looking at would be greatly appreciated if that could be—and if is a more joined-up approach across Defra, FCO, we could have more than one, even better. But one DCMS, in tackling these issues. I am also aware of an would be great to start with, definitely. interdepartmental biodiversity group. I am not quite Martin Caton: Would you agree? sure what its status is at the moment. I was wondering Bryan Naqqi Manco: I agree, yes. We find that there if that role could be expanded, and we would benefit is some policy being made with very little knowledge from further support with environmental protection. on the ground, and I think the other challenge we have We are getting there with the legislation, but we really is that a lot of the people in the UK Government could be doing with some help on the implementation. change every couple of years. There is a very high turnover rate, and it is really difficult to build a Q26 Martin Caton: Are you saying from your constructive rapport with people when they are going observations in St Helena that the different in and out. Yes, it would be very helpful if they had Government departments that could and should have some dedicated staff. a role to play in taking things forward are not working Dr Chapman: Perhaps for those staff to be the OTs’ as well together as perhaps they should be? I do not contact points, to know exactly who they are and have want to put words into your mouth, but it sounded that communication. like that in criticising the White Paper you felt it had Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. not addressed that particular issue. Dr Chapman: It would be more helpful if they were Q29 Martin Caton: That sounds very sensible. more joined-up across the board. I think that is what Given that the Overseas Territories have their own I am saying, yes. elected Governments, are there any actions to promote Martin Caton: Mr Manco? sustainability that the UK Government could or might take that would not be welcomed? I know this is a 3 Note by witness: we have two permanent staff with tertiary level qualification in addition to myself (marine scientist) and big question covering a lot of territories, but can you hence requirement for further technical support to ease the perceive any things that would be resisted by local burden. people? Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 7
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman
Dr Chapman: Sorry, across the Overseas Territories? choose between. I was also surprised—my colleagues Martin Caton: Yes. Obviously, if you have a specific as well—at some of the other things that were thing from St Helena, that would be very useful. Or included in Darwin Plus, such as things that touched is it a matter, as Mr Manco suggested, that the more on environmental health and social health issues important thing is to take people with you and that and climate change, which although extremely you are not imposing solutions? You are looking to important are almost completely separate issues, help. particularly for those of us that only live a few metres Dr Chapman: I think that is key. It is very much as above sea level, because we are talking then about with anything from the outside, it is helpful to have much more economic and social problems. early communication, rather than after the event. Let us work together as we all want the same thing. Early Q31 Peter Aldous: Just picking out one thing you communication: take us with you and listen to the said there, you talked about a big project; there might locals, because they have good ideas and try to be a very sophisticated person behind it coming along incorporate them into the works. and doing a clean sweep at the expense of some other Martin Caton: I nodded; a nod is as good as saying smaller projects, the sum of which might be more something. beneficial. Are there brakes and protections in place Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. We had some good help in to prevent that happening? the past from the UK Government, and it was Bryan Naqqi Manco: I do not know how completely welcome when we had someone in our department likely the situation that I alluded to is, but it seemed in the past who worked alongside people rather than to us—or to me anyway—that the project range was dictating. It was more capacity-building, but it is so big you could ask for £1 or—I do not remember really helpful when we can get expert advice when it what it went up to, but it was quite huge; but then the is needed, but perhaps in a more observatorial role amount of money, of course, is limited. Maybe not and there when we need it. one, but two or three large projects could attract the Dr Chapman: Can I build on that? After you have majority, and particularly for the smaller territories listened to locals, provide feedback that says “I have that might be a little bit of a danger. listened to you”. This is because some feedback Peter Aldous: Dr Chapman? coming from locals is that they provide input to Dr Chapman: The large projects do attract the consultation processes, but they do not hear anything funding. Personally, I think it is good to consolidate after that. Even if all the suggestions cannot be taken the funds in one pot of money. As has been pointed on board, recognise there has been an input and out, we can always do with more, but we are realistic feedback, just to acknowledge the local input. I think in the economic climate. There is competitive funding, that has been missing across not just within and projects have been funded but obviously not quite conservation but across the board, otherwise it can enough and we would really appreciate support in come across as bringing in an expert, or a perceived accessing other sources of funding as well. For expert, and forcing that on people. example, I personally have gone through the funding Martin Caton: Thank you very much. process with Darwin and European bids, and it does take quite a lot of time to complete, to coordinate, an Q30 Peter Aldous: My questions are directed to the application. One area of funding that has been recently two of you on funding and also some capacity issues discussed is the LIFE+ fund, which seemed very relating to environmental protection. As we heard attractive. However the process is quite complex. In earlier, the UK Government has consolidated its St Helena it is usually down to one individual within environmental protection funding for the Overseas each department. For conservation works, it is reliant Territories into the Darwin Plus fund. I think, Mr on myself, so personally it would be helpful to try to Manco, you did express some concerns earlier about make that process as simple as possible, in application the timing of that and the consultation process. Do forms and matched funding requirements. Many of the you feel the Darwin Plus fund is a positive OTs perhaps do not have a lot of funds for development? Is the fund big enough to support the environment works so matched funding can be very work that is needed? difficult for them to access. Any support with Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think that a fund is not big eligibility to addition funding, application procedures, enough as long as there is a competitive process to get or any other aspect of that, would be really to it. This is me being a passionate environmentalist. I appreciated. realise that is probably a little bit over-zealous. We do not always need massive amounts of funding. Q32 Peter Aldous: You have very successfully Sometimes we need little projects and sometimes we answered my next two questions, which were what can make do on some smaller amounts of money, but other sources are open to you and do your with that, perhaps easier accessibility and a little bit environmental departments have the staff and less paperwork. We are happy to report, but some of technical expertise that you need. I think you said you the requirements for the application process are quite have explored other options but perhaps there is a difficult for us to justify spending the time on them. I need for extra capacity and extra expertise. I hope I think it is a well-funded programme, but the way it am not putting words into your mouth by saying that. was explained to us last week, basically somebody Dr Chapman: No. For me, there is a technique to could come along with a very good, very large project funding applications and a certain skill. OTs’ and almost do a clean sweep, whereas we might have environment departments are usually reliant on one a bunch of small projects that they would have to person to do it. For myself personally, I have a Ev 8 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman division of 22-plus staff. A funding application, fortunate to have in this country. What do you see as although essential and necessary, could take a good the key threats to that, or what do you feel are the key month away from other core works. threats to that biodiversity? Dr Chapman: St Helena is going to be changing quite Q33 Peter Aldous: Mr Manco, similar experiences rapidly when the airport opens, and we foresee those yourself? changes. We have a fixed timeframe, and we are in Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes, and because of the the good position of foreseeing those changes so we traditional issue that we are not an independent can act now. As I raised at the beginning, although we country, we do not have access to developing country have a great Environmental Management Directorate funds; and we are not quite part of the UK, so we do and on the ground have a lot of bodies per se, we do not have access to some UK funds, and it is a real not have the technical or the monetary capacity at the challenge. As I said, our department now is much moment to deal with the actual needs across a species smaller than it should be and our capacity is lowered, and habitat—people focused on particular species— so justifying the amount of time spent on these within that timeframe. On St Helena we are only just applications can be quite difficult, especially when discovering some of our biodiversity. We have some with a skeletal staff you spend most of your time exciting projects that have been funded jointly with putting out fires, don’t you? an organisation, Buglife. We are extending looking at our invertebrates, so there are possibly a lot more Q34 Peter Aldous: Just leading on from that, I get invertebrates to be discovered. Currently we are the impression you perhaps feel you are on your own undertaking a marine project, funded again by a little bit. To what extent do other parts of your Darwin, which is really appreciated. That is marine territories’ Governments actually engage in life. We do not even know what is there, and we have environmental issues—the other departments? Do you been discovering new species. We are at the base-line. get good buy-in from other departments? We have to find out what is there and protect it Bryan Naqqi Manco: We have had really good buy- appropriately, within a very short timeframe. We have in. The Department of Agriculture has been a constraints, plus we are only at the start of the wonderful partner from its inception. Environmental documenting and inventory for some of our species Health has always been very good, and the police. and habitats, and I think those two together are going We have a big issue right now with illegal charcoal to need quite a lot of work, effort and in a short production. We are 90 miles from Haiti. We have a timeframe. large Haitian population and a lot of trade. It is a bit frightening to think that Turks and Caicos, where our Q37 Dr Offord: What kind of timeframe are you trees are about 10 feet tall, are exporting charcoal to considering? Hispaniola. We have had some other challenges, Dr Chapman: To understand what we have, how best particularly in the ports authority. Customs is coming to protect it before any potential impact happens, and around now and could do a little better, in order to get so on, we have the timeframe of 3 years for the these things on board. But like I said, our Ministry airport, which is due to open in 2016. has been great. We have had a bit of difficulty in our treasury and financial unit, but I think that is more a Q38 Dr Offord: I am aware that you undertook for capacity issue. I think they really need some help—I that examination to occur before the construction of think they are struggling—in order to produce audits the airport and that has already happened, but I and things like that. I would not be quick to blame the understand the examination of certain species has not staff there. I think there was an issue of reduction of even started. Is that correct? capacity under direct rule, but it has been a real Dr Chapman: Yes. challenge. Other than that the Tourist Board are Dr Offord: So it is time-critical? amazing environmental allies as well, so we have Dr Chapman: It is an exciting time. For example the some really good mainstreaming going on. marine biodiversity project has discovered about 10 new marine species and we have not even looked at Q35 Peter Aldous: Dr Chapman, your own the marine environment in detail. The marine experiences? environment is going to be important for commercial Dr Chapman: I think that EMD and other activities, of course it is, and that is what we want as departments work very well together. We have, as well, but we need to get the balance right. regards funding, joined up with other departments we Dr Offord: Thank you. Mr Manco? see that as a joined-up, more holistic approach to Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think Dr Chapman touched on environment is necessary. For example EMD have a good issue. About 13 years ago my first job out of joined up with civil societies, NGOs and the university, my first real job, was managing a educational department There is a lot of good will on biodiversity assessment in Turks and Caicos Islands. the island, and I think it is quite essential for I think in that exercise we really learned the environment to connect up with a lot of other extraordinary amount that we do not know; just as one departments. I think it works quite well on St Helena example, setting up a light one night and discovering to have that joined-up approach. that we probably had several hundred species of Peter Aldous: Thanks very much. micro-moths, the majority of which had never been described. It is a bit humbling. Our baseline Q36 Dr Offord: You both are representing territories knowledge really needs some help. We need a lot that have greater ecological diversity than we are more of that work. That work continues, but it tends Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 9
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman to continue piecemeal and externally driven. We will knowledge down on paper, into the schools and in our have people come in and say, “I want to do a facilities, museums and NGOs, ecotourism, and so on, monograph on the spiders of Turks and Caicos”. They to disseminate as much information as possible. do it, and sometimes we get good data back and Because if it sits on a shelf, in a jar or in a book, it is sometimes we get things back that are a little difficult fairly useless, but once we get it into people’s minds for us to access. then that is where it can help; I think a decade, Of our other challenges and threats to biodiversity, maybe more. one of the most important is illegal and unchecked development. A lot of development goes on without Q40 Dr Offord: I was going to ask you about the any real permit. There is a lot of development out in extent of recognition by the UK Government of the the bush and areas that have not had planning biodiversity that exists in your territories, but I am approval yet. I believe we have one planning going to turn it on its head and ask: intuitively, do you enforcement officer right now, and he is great, but feel that there is complete lack of recognition of the busy. amount of your biodiversity? Dr Offord: He is a little busy? Dr Chapman: I do not think there is lack of Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. The planning department recognition of the biodiversity. I think there are two has always been under strain because, as an example, things, which we probably keep saying. We would like Providenciales—in 1960, I think they had about 220 increased capacity to help protect our biodiversity, and people; something along that line. They now have I think there could be more awareness-raising in the about 27,000, and the majority are from immigration. UK. I think in St Helena there is quite a lot of raised It is a situation where it was not a bunch of kids being public awareness, although focused on certain species born that needed cribs to live in; it was a bunch of and habitats. Within the UK the public are probably adults coming in that needed homes to live in. There unaware of the level of biodiversity. Support with that are pieces of the bush being taken away slowly. There recognition would be greatly appreciated. are areas of the reef being taken away slowly by over- Bryan Naqqi Manco: Well, I was relaxing on the fishing; invasive species are another big problem, Tube on the way here and a lady next to me said— particularly lion fish, casuarina along the beaches, and sorry, I am going to tell you the story. She said, “Oh, several other plants that we have trouble with. Feral you look so calm”, and I said, “Well, I should not be. cats are a big problem to our endemic reptiles and I do not really get nervous, but I am going into this birds. parliamentary inquiry”. She asked where I was from, Back to the illegal development, as I mentioned and I said, “Turks and Caicos”, and I was so proud before, we have a lot of charcoal production, which that I finally met someone in London who knew what aims at the tropical hardwoods, many of which are Turks and Caicos was and where it is. Knowledge of endemic to the Bahama archipelago, which includes our biodiversity is a bit of a back-burner issue when the Turks and Caicos, or are endangered, such as it comes to the knowledge of the territories in the UK. mahogany and lignum vitae. These are CITES-listed I meet very few people on the street here; everyone I species. Along with that, there is our capacity to deal with professionally knows who we are and where monitor and to manage and to know what we have: we are, but I think we need a little more—I would right now I am working on red-listing with Royal love Attenborough to do a series on the OTs. I do not Botanic Gardens Kew, and we are dependent on know that he will any more, but I hope so. downloading information from my head of, “Okay, Peter Aldous: That could be our recommendation. here is where I have seen the endemic slender- Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. stemmed pepper-grass; here is where I know it is.” Dr Chapman: Sorry to interrupt. A dedicated series of But this is an ephemeral plant that only appears after OT conservation programmes would be very helpful, heavy rains. I have not been everywhere after heavy because—you have programmes, for example, on the rains, so we really have to step up our baseline Falklands, and on South Georgia—which are very knowledge and our capacity to get it into place. That popular, but the programmes are not linked up under way we will be able to better adjust our threats. Those OTs, and I think something like that would be are the threats I know that we have—development absolutely amazing. It would catch the audience. TV particularly; illegal development and unchecked is the main media. If you did have a series like that, development, invasive species and our capacity to even if these programmes had the label Overseas manage it. Territories or preferably a new independent set of documentaries covering biodiversity in the OTs, I Q39 Dr Offord: Can I ask you also the same think that would actually hit the nail on the head. question? When do you feel that your baseline Bryan Naqqi Manco: Within the territory, our assessment will be completed, or to the best of your recognition of biodiversity is great for me, especially ability? with the young people. When they tour our nursery I Bryan Naqqi Manco: Well, as a scientist, never, but ask them about the endemic plants, and they know as a policy person, I would hope within the next 10 that the national flower is the Island Heather and that years. I say that generously, because I am a bit worried it is endemic; that the Caicos Pine is our national tree about the financial climate recovering as quickly as it and it is a unique variety; that the Rock Iguana is an will in other places. I would hope that within 10 years endemic species to Turks and Caicos. They know we know a lot more about what we have. Like I said, what we have, especially the children, and of course that requires an increased capacity. It requires an the children are telling their parents. The parents internal drive and an internal purpose to get that recognise that. It is a lot to remember. If the territories Ev 10 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman have 90% of the UK’s biodiversity, I do not think we support with wider-based assessments so we can help can expect everyone in Great Britain to know all of write and implement that policy. our endemic species. I would like that, but I Bryan Naqqi Manco: I would not say we are doing understand you do not. I do not know all of the much to prevent it, in as much as we know that if endemics to Britain. I think we need increased climate change is indeed an anthropogenic recognition of the territories for what they are as well. exacerbated issue, 30,000 people are not contributing The biodiversity will go along with that, because to the problem as much as our great big gas-guzzling people are interested. neighbours and our other territories in the Caribbean basin and the surrounding area that tend to use a lot Q41 Dr Offord: The UN Convention on Biological more fuel than we do. Of course our emphasis would Diversities charged the UK with the responsibility for have to be on adapting and we have not done as much biodiversity in the Overseas Territories. How would as we should. We have done a little bit of social you react to an assertion that the UK Government is adaptation, identifying problem areas. Most of it has discharging that responsibility well? been risks to the economy and to tourism because of Dr Chapman: I feel that we have covered some of coastal development. Unfortunately we have not those aspects; the funding is fantastic. Could we do slowed down really on coastal development except for with more? Yes. Could we do with more support to the economic downturn. There seems to be a general various areas? Yes. With a few bits of additional idea among coastal developers that you can just support, that would be very helpful. continue to put in groynes and breakwaters and Dr Offord: Do you have anything to add, Mr Manco? replenish beaches and that that will be okay; whereas Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes; just generally more if you talk to any people who have been around the support. We really require additional policies and sea for a long time, they will tell you that if you move recurrent funding, particularly conservation funding, sand from here to there it is going to go back to where to address those things, because without long-term it was, or more sand is going to come in and less is recurrent funding to protect biodiversity, we can have going to go out. a lot of projects—we always have projects, and I have We also have the complication of our own been working on projects for 13 years, and it is contribution to carbon emissions being great—but in the end I have to move on to something disproportionately higher than it should be because we else. Some of the things we work on do not work on use electricity generated by fossil fuels and we do not the same time scale as financial years. For example, I need to. We have huge resources of sun and wind. am working on a tree conservation project right now. We have large shallow banks that could probably be Trees do not care that we only live 90 years. They are adapted. That would have other environmental not interested. They require a little more funding than implications, particularly for birds, but we could a three-year project can offer. The key is that it is probably develop some wind or solar power long-term and that it is recurrent. It is taken as an elsewhere, and private citizens could do it as well. issue that is of vital importance for the long term and Unfortunately, as I mentioned, we have a power one that will be increasingly important as population monopoly that does not permit that, so if you are rises. connected to the grid or if you are in an area connected to the grid, you are not actually allowed to Q42 Dr Offord: Many people are concerned with make your own power directly. climate change, and that is going to mean different things to different territories. I am aware of things like Q43 Chair: Is that as a result of statute or as a result acidification of the seas, which kills coral, and of the agreement with the private developer running invasive species, which you mentioned in regard to it? the Caicos Pine that has been attacked by a non- Bryan Naqqi Manco: I am pretty sure it is the invasive species. Beach erosion is another one. We do agreement with the power company. sure. not experience climate change in the same way in this country, but what would you say that you are actively Q44 Mark Lazarowicz: Is it a private company or a doing to prevent climate change because you have state one? specific symptoms, shall we say, of climate change Bryan Naqqi Manco: Actually, it is a Canadian- that we do not? How do you do things differently? owned conglomerate. I would be very happy to be off Dr Chapman: Within EMD we have a division that the grid myself, but it just is not practicable. I am in has a remit to deal with and create policy on climate a rented apartment, and I cannot install it myself. My change. This is another area that needs support; we landlord would not have an incentive to do it, but we need support to undertake the assessments, so we can do have energy coming down on us every day from build the findings into policy. We are aware there has across the Atlantic and out of the sky, but we are not been general support in Overseas Territories on really working on it very hard. climate change, particularly in the Caribbean but not so much the Atlantic, so again we are at a starting Q45 Dr Offord: I am trying not to put words in your point with that. We will not know some of the impact mouth. You did say in your earlier evidence that because we are at the baseline stage, particularly in climate change is particularly affecting the economic marine environments, but in the terrestrial and social issues you have just illustrated. Would you environment we do have information and we can say there are environmental areas that you feel need make a starting point, but again we would like to have more support as a result of climate change? Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 11
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman
Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. I think one of the things long-lining, etc, and we will fund this with the fish we are looking out for—particularly with sea-level that we catch if you can give us the permits to do rise—and that I have noticed within the last 10 years, that”. Later it was found out that this body was given is a changing forest structure in lowland areas, with something to the tune of $100,000 through the an increase of inter-tidal trees—mangroves, Governor’s Office to fund the study. This is a study buttonwoods—in areas that used to not be inter-tidal that is going to result in data that will only be and now are. Probably about a quarter of our land, accessible to people who have the sort of sophisticated maybe up to a third, is just barely above sea level, and equipment that such a conglomerate would have rather it is not arable—it is mostly a Ramsar site—but it is than the local fishermen. It will not be of any benefit a large area. It is utilised mostly by wildlife. It is very to the economy. I think it was done with an idea to difficult to access, so our ability to do something diversify the fishing economy, but we really need to about it is limited and our capacity to do something protect and know about what we are doing right now, about it is very limited. We have one boat, and it what we have—lobster, conch and finfish from cannot get into that area. I think, environmentally, we inshore—before we look at the larger EEZ and the really have our work cut out for us on that. We need exploitation of those resources. to know more about what is going on and how it is We have poaching from other countries; we have the changing. It is just not something we can do with the Dominican Republic and Haiti coming into the waters current number of people and the capacity we have. to poach, so we need a realistic knowledge of what Dr Offord: That is great, thank you very much. we already have before probably we spend lots and lots of money on an external company that wants to Q46 Chair: Can I just come in on a follow-up to one make money out of it. That is something else. of the questions that Dr Offord asked about the UK Government and how it is discharging its Q48 Caroline Lucas: I wanted to pick up on one responsibilities in relation to the UN Convention on issue, which was that we have been told by the Pew Biological Diversity? In respect of work to do with Environment Group that there was little evidence that CITES, does the UK Government interfere? How does the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group, which it pick up issues to do there? Would it come in and Defra chairs, has made any contribution to improving interfere with what is going on? Would it wait for you biodiversity. The Pew Environment Group have been to tell them or does it not really engage at all? very outspoken about this—very strong: they have Dr Chapman: I am fairly new in post, so I do not said that there is no evidence that Defra really have experience of the UK coming in and interfering. genuinely assumed joint responsibility for the I do not feel that that is the case at all. I know you Overseas Territories. are looking for CBD specifically, but looking at MEAs You have both been very polite, and that is very nice, in general, they need to be translatable for the but I want to invite you to consider being less polite— Overseas Territories so we can feed in a report and if it is appropriate; it may not be. You have talked link into that, but I do not feel there is any over- about how more capacity would be helpful, more negative interference from the UK Government. funding, more support. This is just one last Bryan Naqqi Manco: Our position is a little different, opportunity to say anything else you might like to say coming out of direct rule. Like I said, our CBD about what you think the UK Government could be legislation was shelved. I think it will be brought back doing more of in support. I was particularly shocked up. Our CITES legislation has been delayed, but we to hear what you were saying about the unrealised did have a recent event that was odd. We export potential for renewable energy. I understand you Queen Conch, which is a CITES Appendix II species. explained part of the reason for that, but is that an We are one of the few Caribbean countries that still area, for example, where you think it would be useful has a fishery considered sustainable, but we have to to have some more leadership from the UK do assessments every year to generate our maximum Government, or are the Pew Environment people not sustainable yield for our CITES obligations to really reflecting your views on this? If I have put you calculate a quota for export. My director and others in in an awkward position and everything you have said the Ministry have asked for funding to continue the stands and you do not want to add to it, that is fine. conch assessments, because we know they are Bryan Naqqi Manco: Thank you for calling me declining; we know that Queen Conch is getting polite; I appreciate that. I am nice; I am not harder to find. The fishermen are telling us it is getting diplomatic. harder to find. We have been told that there is no Keeping in mind that we see Defra through the funding available for this. This is something that is Governor’s Office, and we see the FCO through the going to have to wait. Governor’s Office, to us it comes down to one post, one position, because that is mostly who we are Q47 Chair: Is that funding from Defra? dealing with for these things. I think there is a lot of Bryan Naqqi Manco: Through the Governor’s Office, room for improvement, but, knowing some of the according to my director; I was not directly involved people in the positions, there is also interest and even in it. This is an issue that she mentioned to me. passion in some instances. Yes, there is a need for Interestingly, we also found that a private fishing increased capacity within Defra, I think, in dealing company, a foreign-owned fishing company, came to with the OTs, but I think there is a general need in us and said, “We would like to develop an increased capacity dealing with the OTs in general. investigation into the feasibility of a pelagic fishery in Colleagues of mine from the French and Dutch Turks and Caicos and deep-water marine species, Antilles think that it is absolutely crazy that we are Ev 12 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
19 March 2013 Bryan Naqqi Manco and Dr Nikki Chapman handled though the Foreign Office in the UK, and they bit more leadership to send out the correct messages. wonder what is going on. They keep asking me, “Do I suppose I keep returning to the two main issues for they really want you guys?” and I say, “I’ll decline to St. Helena; funding and long-term support to address answer that right now. Give me a couple more years environmental issues would be fantastic. Thank you. to figure it out”. Chair: I think we have reached the end of our session, I think I can be comfortable to be polite, honestly and so could I give a big thank you to each of you for genuinely with Defra, but there is just need for more coming along this afternoon. I hope it was not too in general and for dedicated staff, as we mentioned, much of an ordeal, and I hope that our inquiry, when too. we publish it, will be able to contribute to improved Dr Chapman: I concur. I would sum it up slightly environmental legislation and operations in both of shorter, but yes, we would like dedicated staff and a your territories. Thank you both very much indeed. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 13
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Members present: Joan Walley (Chair)
Martin Caton Caroline Lucas Zac Goldsmith Dr Alan Whitehead Mark Lazarowicz Simon Wright ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Dr Mike Pienkowski, Honorary Executive Director, UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Dr Chris Tydeman, Chair UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Clare Stringer, Head of UK Overseas Territories Unit, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Jonathan Hall, Partner Development Officer, UK Overseas Territories, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, gave evidence.
Q49 Chair: I would like to give a very warm biodiversity in the territories was something that they welcome to each of the two organisations with us this shared responsibility for. They worked with our afternoon and to thank each of you for very network, with conservation workers, both NGO and comprehensive and detailed written evidence. What I governmental, in the territories to plan and fund would like to do, in this our second session on the solutions. This has changed progressively, so that now inquiry into overseas territories and environmental the attitude is more that conservation is the issues and biodiversity, is not to ask you to give responsibility just of the territory and the territory can background information—because I think it is all become a supplicant to HMG for funding, which does there in the evidence that we have received—but to not seem to us a constructive approach. start off by saying that the White Paper that has There has been some success in bringing more UK recently been published is the first one since 1999. Government Departments into involvement, but this There has been a 14-year gap. Does that mean that all has resulted in a good deal of passing the parcel rather either was or is now well with overseas territories, and than co-ordinated action and the loss of anyone does this White Paper address the concerns? In terms accepting leadership of the issue. Perhaps I should of the timeliness of the inquiry that we are doing, what break there, because my colleagues from RSPB might recommendations should we be looking to make to want to say something. make any White Paper an effective document? I do not know who would like to start off. Q50 Chair: Your analogy of the game of two halves Dr Pienkowski: Shall I kick off? is very useful and your kick-starting of all of that. Just Chair: Please do, Dr Pienkowski. before I bring in the other colleagues, you mentioned Dr Pienkowski: I think I have been elected because I this issue about the different personnel. Can I ask how am not quite the oldest but I recall some of these much the change in attitude was an issue of activities. The 14-year period has been something of professionalism or an issue of Government policy? a game of two halves, really. For the first seven years Was it the individuals and the Departments of the period from the 1999 White Paper we thought concerned? I know you make quite extensive there was quite major progress. For example, the reference to that in paragraph E24 of the evidence that Foreign Office agreed Environmental Charters with you gave us. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? the territories, as the White Paper wanted. It supported Is that the view that is coming down from our forum and others to facilitate the territories to Government on high, or do you think it is the lack of develop strategies to implement them. It started a understanding by the individuals concerned? small-grants programme to help conservation in that Dr Pienkowski: It is obviously very difficult to talk framework, and it worked collaboratively with from outside. I think there are a variety of factors. frequent meetings with our network and supported the One is there is high staff turnover. That is policy in workshop conferences for practitioners in the FCO, and it is fairly frequent in other Departments as territories. That was all good. well. That was certainly exacerbated by the abolition However, some time after that, we felt that HMG’s of the FCO’s Environment Department in about 2006, interest in the area seemed to decline somewhat. and the delay of several years before—in fact, Support for strategic environmental planning and following the intervention of this Committee in integration with other economic sectors declined until 2008—Defra picked up on some aspects, at least for very recently. Meetings with our network were a while. One of the areas that suffered particularly in reduced—effectively ended eventually—and support that context was the Environmental Charters. We think for the workshop conferences ended. We felt that that, guided by our partners in the territory, they Government officials became disinclined to work with remain very highly relevant tools for conservation. our network of NGOs. I think a major change taking They are certainly aware that there is a framework, place in that period, at least as we perceive it, is a which does not go out of date rapidly so it does not change of attitude from Government personnel. At the need a lot of maintenance, and they are enabling and earlier stage, FCO environment personnel—and have set out some clear commitments. effectively FCO was the only Department involved What is more, there has been a recent investigation by closely then—considered that conservation and the Bermuda Ombudsman, which we refer to in our Ev 14 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall written evidence. She has analysed clearly that these environmental management. We would like to see the are legally binding, with similar status to the anti- recommendations that we have put together in our money-laundering regulations that we think HMG are legislative review document—which was part of our still quite keen on. In fact, even some of the Crown written evidence—followed up, so that we can also dependencies, which of course were not included in say that the environmental governance framework in the Environmental Charter exercise, are currently the territories is much improved. What we are looking looking at the possibility of doing something with for is HMG taking concrete action to match the fine those, and some other foreign Governments are words that we are seeing in these documents. copying too. I think the fact that loss of interest in There is also another White Paper in 2006 that has Central Government, which is apparent to us, may some objectives in there for the overseas territories, have impacted on that and gave a total lack of which are stronger than anything that has come out in continuity. Whether that is something that was set this White Paper; it does build on the 1999 White from a high level, a political level or at more official Paper. level, we just don’t know. Equally, it is something that has not been limited to one administration or another. Q53 Chair: Is that the White Paper that was from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Q51 Chair: Just picking up on what you said about Dr Tydeman: That is right, yes. It was the priorities the Environmental Charters, you mentioned Bermuda. for foreign affairs. They do not seem to be mentioned in the White Paper, do they? Are they relevant now? Should they be in Q54 Chair: So, you would be advising us to look at the White Paper? what was specifically set out with outcomes going Dr Pienkowski: I think we may have missed that one, back to that 2006 White Paper? actually. Yes, certainly, I think Bermuda may have— Dr Tydeman: The detail is already there, and what as a previous Minister pointed out to me—a higher this White Paper appears to do is to weaken what is GDP per capita than Britain, but it does not have that in those two previous White Papers. In terms of the many capita. It has no economies of scale, so it does Environmental Charters, this White Paper does not need involvement. We find it very helpful in the sense mention them at all. It relies on the biodiversity that, because it does have some more capacity than strategy. But, as we have already said, the biodiversity some of the other territories, it is quite good at setting strategy is deficient in not having clear objectives to an example and helping those out, but there is no meet what it has as an overall relatively good goal. reason that we are aware of to exclude Bermuda. I There is a gap between what the high level is and know that when you are talking in the European what needs to be done on the ground quite Union context, Bermuda opted not to be an overseas considerably, and I guess we will come back to that a country or territory, but that is not really the same bit later. thing as dealing with matters within the UK. Clare Stringer: I would say 14 years is a long time between White Papers and we really welcomed the Q55 Chair: Yes, we will. Thank you. Mr Hall, did 2012 document. We think the language that is used, you want to come in at all? talking about exemplary environmental management Jonathan Hall: No, I think my colleagues have and setting world standards, is actually appropriate for covered everything, thank you. what the UK should be aiming to do in the overseas territories. We think that is really good. But we do Q56 Chair: That is fine. One more thing about this think that the White Paper is also a missed White Paper before I move on. The Government opportunity, because there are no measurable makes a distinction between inhabited and objectives. There is no way for us to actually measure uninhabited territories in this 2012 White Paper. Is whether this ambition has been achieved and there is that a reasonable distinction to make? Is that how you no work plan set out to do this. There is a similar issue think policy should be set out in this White Paper? with the overseas territories biodiversity strategy, so Dr Pienkowski: I think it is a reasonable this document that Defra put together in 2009. We see classification. It is what you do with it. I concur with this as an outcome of the last Committee report where my colleagues. One of the difficulties with starting off Defra were pushed to take the lead for biodiversity in looking back is that you forget what has happened the territories. Again, we welcome this document. We recently in a sense, and I agree that there are some think it is a great starting point, but without an very good words in the recent White Paper. I should implementation plan and resources to implement it it also acknowledge the fact that we are pleased that, is just a nice looking document on people’s following our written evidence, the FCO has started bookshelves all over the country. referring to the Charters again, and we welcome the new Director of Overseas Territories, who seems to Q52 Chair: Dr Tydeman, would you like to respond? be taking a much more positive role. Dr Tydeman: We would like to see work plans Your particular question on the uninhabited developed for how the aspirations of this White Paper territories—of course, HMG is the Government and will be achieved, so that we can come back in 10 so it can act without having to work with a locally years and say, “Yes, we have world-class elected Government. We would like to see it act environmental management in the overseas strongly on that. For example, we cannot see why it territories”, especially the uninhabited territories has not already included all those uninhabited where HMG is the lead organisation guiding territories in its ratification of the Convention on Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 15
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall
Biological Diversity. A good action would actually Clare Stringer: In the Caribbean? just do that. Jonathan Hall: Yes, certainly on major development Dealing with the inhabited territories, clearly that proposals. That would not be across the board, but in needs agreement between the local Government and each of those cases there would be at least one major HMG. We would like to see a more proactive loophole of either Government-driven or private approach by HMG. All our colleagues in the developers not needing environmental impact territories we talk with—officials and NGOs—would assessments for their major developments. welcome that, too. For example, staying with the Clare Stringer: We do think that, unfortunately, there international convention context, in the 1990s our are still quite a few situations where immediate forum worked a lot with the territories to get a total financial gain can be taken at the expense of the future sign-up to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and for these territories. This is not happening everywhere, the designation of various sites. All we needed to do because some of the territories are very good and that was to spend some time talking to decision- responsible in managing their environment, so I do makers to explain what it was about. That sort of not want to come across as if we do not think anyone approach works, and I do not see why it shouldn’t is capable of managing their system sustainably. Some work with the Convention on Biological Diversity as of the territories are exemplary and very, very good, well. but there definitely are issues.
Q57 Simon Wright: Thank you. I would be Q58 Chair: Did you want to come in, Dr Tydeman? interested in your general comments on attitudes Dr Tydeman: Yes, please. In terms of the funding towards environmental protection from the arrangements, for example, if you look at the EDF populations of the inhabited overseas territories and to from the EU, the overseas territories have to make a what extent you think that these issues are considered prioritisation as to what they would seek funding for. a priority or whether, for example, economic It is very rare for them to do that for environment, for considerations will always take precedence. the very reasons that RSPB have just been suggesting Furthermore, whether you think there is any more that infrastructure is much easier to show that you work that could be done to raise public awareness of have a result on. That is true not just for overseas some of these issues within the territories. territories; it is true for virtually every bit of funding Clare Stringer: Our view is that the local populations under the EDF. for most of the overseas territories are incredibly I work on this for water provision in the rest of the dependent on the natural environment. However, world and very few countries prioritise water. If you sometimes they are not in a position to influence some talk to the general populace, they will put water as of the biggest potential threats. With small their top priority, whereas the Government will put populations, they are not major contributors to climate down they want a hospital or a road or a quayside or change. They may not be doing things like over- something like that. Although the people in the fishing. Those territories that have, for example, overseas territories are very close to the albatrosses, are not the ones who are driving by-catch environment—much closer than most of us are—and usually. It is happening outside, so they are very almost just accept that it is there, they do not make a vulnerable to external pressures. big thing about it like we do; therefore, they do not They are also vulnerable to the offers of large cash treat it in a way as we do as something special. They incentives; I am not talking about anything improper, just treat it as something everyday. When it comes to but the offer of new employment opportunities, of the funding, as I say, they do not prioritise it. new industry that could bring economic revenues into Dr Pienkowski: If I could just build on that, we have territories. Those are very enticing offers. I think it is a lot of experience of speaking with local people in very difficult to balance those appropriately, looking community meetings as well as with their leaders. It to a sustainable development path, without having is clear that if you said, “Do you value biodiversity?” robust legislation and transparency systems in place. they will probably look at you pretty blankly. If you Our recent review of environmental governance then talk about things like sustainable fisheries, which showed that in a lot of the territories those things are very important in Falklands and Tristan da Cunha, simply are not in place. or vegetation and soils as a water reservoir in Very few of the territories—if any—have transparency Montserrat or Saint Helena, or natural storm surge legislation, so freedom of information does not exist. protection in the Caribbean, or small-scale tourism, Decisions are made by either Foreign Office- then yes, they want it. Because, as my colleagues said, appointed governors or by elected council members in some cases they are very close to the land having but often behind closed doors, so it is very difficult to within their own memories been working on know why decisions are made the way that they are. subsistence farming, then there is that very close That does leave these administrations open to association. You are starting off with a plus there, but, corruption, and we have seen that in the Turks and as my colleagues have also said, there are pressures. Caicos in recent years. The fact that these decisions We are dealing with small communities whose are not made openly means that it leaves an governmental bodies are more on the scale of parish atmosphere or an environment where corruption can councils in some cases than others, so it is really very occur. Jon, do you have the figures on how many difficult for them to negotiate or avoid legal but territories do not have environmental impact excessive influence by international companies whose assessments? economies are much larger than theirs. There is a big Jonathan Hall: There are at least five. pressure for them to deal with. As we said, there are Ev 16 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall some problems in openness, particularly around to you last month about welcoming outside bodies, accountability in their systems. provided that these are guided by the wishes and needs of the local bodies. That is something we have Q59 Caroline Lucas: I think Clare mentioned that certainly tried to follow, without imposing an outside some of the territories were exemplary and some were agenda on these things. Their message was the more less so. Is it possible to say whether it is to do with the merrier provided that is the approach used. the structures that have led to that outcome, or is it to Jonathan Hall: One of our core priorities is trying to do with the individuals, in terms of trying to learn build up local and sustainable overseas territory what it is that has allowed some to be exemplary, and NGOs, and there are many passionate conservationists so to bring up the rest? Is it possible to say? among them. But there are some difficult structural Clare Stringer: I think it is a combination. One that I factors that a lot of these NGOs do face. Building am thinking of—which is very good in terms of on Dr Pienkowski, a lot of these NGOs do rely on sustainable fishery management—is Tristan da Cunha, Government subventions for a significant proportion where they have learnt from past experience where of their income. There is a fear that if they do some the fishery was over-harvested and they are now very meatier advocacy on a high-profile development or conscious that that fishery is fundamental to the issue that their subvention could be jeopardised. Also, survival of the community. The fishery manager is in some cases there are expatriates leading these very well qualified. He is always looking forward and NGOs whose main worry—justly or unjustly—is that takes a very good approach to making sure the quotas even their immigration status could be threatened if are set at an appropriate level, not over-harvesting. He they do speak out. We certainly know of at least one looked at some of the other fisheries in the overseas overseas territory NGO that wrote evidence for this territories, and he said to me, “I look at this and think, Committee but then decided it would be wiser not to ‘What are they doing?’” I am not going to name any submit it as it was too fearful of local repercussions. of those, but I think it is often individuals and also the These are very small communities, so it can be very experiences that they have had in such small personal. communities. As Mike was saying about companies having a lot of influence, individuals in some of the Q61 Simon Wright: Thank you. I would like to small communities have massive influence, far more move on to legislative matters. Do the overseas than in a community like we have here. territories have the appropriate legal tools in their own Dr Pienkowski: If I could follow on, on that, Cayman domestic law to protect the environment? has a pretty good freedom-of-information model. Furthermore, is the existing environmental legislation Bermuda has, as I already mentioned, a very good enforced effectively? ombudsman system. You are depending on particular Jonathan Hall: If I can start, one of the big pieces of individuals almost in particular posts, which is a feature when you are dealing with small communities. work that we have recently completed is a review of That tends to have a bigger effect than when you are the biodiversity and development legislation in the dealing with larger systems. territories. It did reveal that there was some very good practice. Gibraltar was strong across the board, and Saint Helena, for instance, had very good Q60 Simon Wright: How effective are the locally based NGOs, and would it be beneficial or not to have development control procedures in place. But it did greater engagement from British NGOs? highlight that there are major and some systemic gaps Dr Pienkowski: We think one of our prime successes in many cases. Only four territories have strong has been to help local people form conservation terrestrial protected-area networks, seven have NGOs in territories where there weren’t any, and also moderately strong marine protected-area networks, to help both the NGOs and the small official while four still have none at all. There is this issue conservation bodies to increase their capacity. But with the environmental impact assessments not being they do have particular challenges. As we were just required and transparency and accountability often alluding to, they have small pools of people to draw being weak. So, there is a difficulty on that from both in terms of their officials and their legislation side. membership. There is a lack of understanding in some Many territories do have processes in place to try to territory Governments that a different opinion by civil strengthen these, and one of the most interesting society is valid and potentially constructive rather than revelations that we found from the report was how something that is over-negative. Obviously, that also many stalled environmental Bills there are in the gives a risk to any local funding. They have territories. At least five major Bills that would fill a difficulties overcoming the erroneous assumption— lot of the gaps in environmental governance have been which I think we have managed to largely get past in drafted and then through various—sometimes political Britain now—that environmental protection and or bureaucratic—blockages have not been passed. In development are necessarily in opposition. We also some cases, these date back all the way to 2001. So, have the problem, which we alluded to elsewhere, that there is a big gap on the legislative side and then, also, they are dealing with hugely important global on the enforcement side. Certainly, in trying to biodiversity on the basis of a tiny human population enforce marine protections, these small islands often base. So, they are all given bigger challenges than the have vast exclusive economic zones and very small bigger bodies. populations. So, for instance, funding patrol vessels to In terms of working with them, I would probably refer prevent illegal harvesting, fishing or even sand mining you to the evidence that Bryan Naqqi Manco gave is difficult. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 17
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall
I think the recommendations that we would make Q63 Zac Goldsmith: Do you know what the costs would depend on the scale of the territory with the would likely be for Pitcairn? What kind of funding various issues. In the uninhabited territories the gaps would be required to make it work? can be remedied much more directly by the UK Jonathan Hall: I am afraid I do not have that to hand Government, which has much more direct control. In but could— particular, some of the transparency and development control gaps but also finishing off protected area Q64 Zac Goldsmith: Just one last question on that: networks. Then we have some of the smaller do you know what it is actually that they voted for, territories. For instance, in the Pitcairn Islands they Pitcairn islanders? What type? Was it just in principle do have an Environment Department, but the overall approval for a marine protected area— population is only 50 people, and the woman, who is Jonathan Hall: It was quite a specific detail looking excellent, who leads the Environment Department is at a core area for recreational and some sort of internal only paid for 5.2 days a month to lead that department. commercial fishing, I believe, around the core Pitcairn Again, it requires the UK Government to do proactive Island and then looking at a very large no-take zone policy support there. In particular, biosecurity in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). legislation has been a long-time priority of theirs, but they simply do not have the capacity. Q65 Zac Goldsmith: The Government is looking to Then in the larger overseas territories, and particularly find a way of generating the funds from that area— in some of the Caribbean ones, there are much more that seems to be what you are suggesting—if there is local capacity and local processes. This is where there a basis of a commercial operation there that could is more of a political role for the UK Government, in fund the policing of the marine protected area? particular via the governors, the FCO-appointed Jonathan Hall: I am not sure one would definitely officials who normally chair Cabinet meetings and lead to the other in the UK Government’s eyes, but I have a lot of soft power as well as some quite hard think as Pitcairn does require an extensive subsidy power, and to use them to advocate for strengthening from the UK Government, before closing off the EEZ that legislative framework. to a lot of the fishing they want to be certain that they cannot have sustainable funding derived from fishing Q62 Zac Goldsmith: You just mentioned two issues in that area. that I want to come to later on: Pitcairn and capacity. Chair: Perhaps that is something we can take up I understand that there was a vote among Pitcairners, when we get Ministers before us; but, Simon, back to you with your questions. which I believe was unanimous, calling for the establishment of a marine protected area. As I understand it, the British Government is supportive, Q66 Simon Wright: Yes. Jonathan has already answered part of this, but are there any further but I suspect we will hear about that later with the comments in regard to the extent to which the UK evidence session with Ministers. But the reason given Government can influence legislation and for very little progress so far is about capacity, and it enforcement in the overseas territories? comes down to funds. Is that your understanding? I Dr Pienkowski: Yes. Just picking up on the point suppose more broadly it would be useful to know about Pitcairn before I move on to that, my whether or not there are any lessons that we can draw understanding is the emphasis of the Pitcairn protected from the other two big overseas territory marine area would not be on take but on viewing, because the protected areas, the British Indian Ocean and Georgia Pitcairners don’t do much fishing in the area at present and the South Sandwich Islands. Is there anything that and don’t license fishing. As I say, I think that could we can learn from those two initiatives, which would be explored further. make it easier in places like Pitcairn to establish large In terms of Mr Wright’s general question, I back up marine protected areas? I suppose what are the what has been said on the other matters about obstacles? legislation and delays to them. We also have Jonathan Hall: Certainly enforcement is the biggest indications from overseas territory personnel, both challenge, and making sure that this marine protected governmental and NGO, that again more area is more than lines on a map and isn’t just subject encouragement from Britain would be useful. It is an to uncontrollable illegal fishing. Working out how to area that is already included within the Environmental fund that in a sustainable manner is a serious issue. Charters as helping. Also, my understanding is that there is a desire on the In terms of enforcement, there are major problems in UK Government’s part to look again at alternatives enforcement, and, sadly, the problems identified by for that exclusive economic zone, and looking again the Bermuda ombudsman are by no means limited to at trying to develop a sustainable fishery or being Bermuda in terms of enforcement. Sadly, I have to say certain that there isn’t something commercially viable there also seems to be a problem when HMG is in there that could provide funding for a research vessel. direct control of a territory or certain aspects. We have With regard to the other two large marine protected indicated that in our written evidence, and also the areas, they are different in that they did start with a oral evidence from territory officials makes some viable commercial fishery providing income, again, mention of that. In the Turks and Caicos, the direct generating a need and funding for patrol vessels. They British Government rule for three years effectively have that infrastructure in place, which simply does abandoned the line previously promoted by HMG, for not exist in Pitcairn, so it is hard to translate from one all the territories, of taking a long environmentally to the other. sustainable view in favour of short-term finances, Ev 18 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall which is a threat to the environment. I suggest that we it very, very mildly. My question was actually about could update our written evidence to you on that capacity, which you have touched on a couple of times matter if it would be helpful after this. already. Jonathan, the person—you were giving the Chair: Yes, we will come to funding in a moment. example; was it 0.5 of a day or five hours? Dr Tydeman? Jonathan Hall: 5.2 days a month. Dr Tydeman: I want to link all of those answers and questions to the dreaded word “Gibraltar”. In the Q68 Caroline Lucas: 5.2 days a month; so, she has RSPB study, it came out as strong on every level for 5.2 days a month, and then in your evidence you were legislation in Gibraltar. Unfortunately, the saying that Defra, which is the lead Department for enforcement is not good, and that is largely down to OT biodiversity, does not have a single staff member the fact that the British Government is utterly resistant with full-time overseas territories responsibilities. We to using the Royal Navy for fisheries protection. This have DfID, which was not much better. FCO—we was covered years back in a 1999 Foreign Affairs have one, but it might not be full-time. No wonder Committee report on Gibraltar, which suggested that you say it is a chronic lack of capacity there. Can the Royal Navy should be used for fisheries protection you say a little bit more about the impact that that in Gibraltar. I have been working there since June last is having? year on the fisheries issues between Gibraltar and Jonathan Hall: Certainly. The person at the Foreign Spain, and it was quite clear that the British Office is full-time and very good. With Defra, the lack Government will do anything to avoid having any sort of dedicated capacity there is possibly the single of conflict and upsetting the Spanish Government. It biggest roadblock to progress in the environmental is less than thinly veiled hints that I have received that management of the overseas territories. It means that my report should allow Spanish fishing, that we no strategic work can happen from the UK should go back to the days of a Foreign Office Government side. Every time that promising policies Minister in 1999 suggesting that the Gibraltar do start—for instance, last month a review of this Government should do away with their 1991 Act overseas territories biodiversity strategy, or some very protecting the marine area around Gibraltar, which to good environmental mainstreaming projects that have me is pretty scandalous. I hope that that line is not gone on in some territories—it means that there currently followed by the present Government, cannot really be any follow-up or implementation, as although it is not clear exactly what the situation is. Defra doesn’t have anyone there to do it. So, it is I have spoken to the Commissioner of Police in immediately chopped off at the knees. Our view Gibraltar, who is responsible for implementing the would be that, as the territories have 90% of the legislation there, and he said, “Why should I send my threatened biodiversity for which the UK is guys out in white shorts with not even truncheons responsible, Defra does need several dedicated people. against Guardia Civil boats with automatic weapons, The idea of doing this really complicated trans- who are helping Spanish boats break the law, and the national cross-jurisdictional area off the side of the Navy is not called in?” That is contrary to the answer desk is simply not possible. that was given by a Minister in the House on October 16th. Mr Lidington said that the Navy was called in. Q69 Caroline Lucas: Any other comments? I would be very interested to know on how many Dr Pienkowski: Yes. We think perhaps the biggest occasions the Navy was called in in the last couple of change since your 2008 report is the reduction of years, because it is less than a couple that I know of effective communication between the British and the Spanish boats are coming in quite regularly. Government and our network and, it would seem, There is a real enforcement issue in Gibraltar on the within the governmental Departments. In 2008, Defra fisheries side when the legislation is actually very set up a one-stop shop for inquiries about the overseas good and has been in place since 1991. I can give you territories conservation. It never really worked, and chapter and verse on that. Unfortunately, the report is recent emails to that address were found to bounce not out yet, but it will be in a couple of weeks, and as undeliverable. As our colleagues have said, it says we will supply it to you as a supplementary. everything about their approach that for several Chair: We would be very happy to have a copy of months they have not filled the half post they allocate that. to the overseas territories, so even when they do they Dr Tydeman: Yes. will have lost all continuity. Chair: Thank you. I will turn to Caroline Lucas. They also tend to devolve things to JNCC. But that lacks capacity and is now prevented by Defra from Q67 Caroline Lucas: The more I hear the more getting into policy work, so that will not get us very shocking just generally the whole situation seems to far. DfID’s lack of commitment to joined-up be. We are sitting here listening to the description you Government is rather well illustrated by moving its have just given of the Navy not acting to enforce overseas territories department to East Kilbride. I have legislation. We have heard about other legislation that nothing against East Kilbride, but it has caused a loss has been stuck there since 2001, blocked in some of ability to link up with other stakeholders and a loss weird way, which has not yet gone through. We have of corporate memory because all the staff changed. heard about organisations that are afraid to give They did not want to move there with family evidence because of the repercussions that might commitments and so on. Again, their environment in happen. I do know where it will fit in our report, but overseas territories depends on one officer, and there I do think somewhere we need to be talking about is no overlap when that post is vacant, as at present. something that is constitutionally not working, to put Again, the lack of such an officer— Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 19
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall
Q70 Chair: Which post is that? Departments, FCO have an overseas territories Dr Pienkowski: That is the environmental post directorate with a director, whereas with Defra you dealing with overseas territories in DfID. When you have a one half-time post sitting in a biodiversity unit do not have that post, like the earlier loss of the within a bigger directorate. In terms of level and scale, Environment Department in FCO, there is no one FCO for us would be the one to go for, but I know my internally arguing the case for environmental aspects colleagues have a slightly different view from what— in development projects. We indicated in the written Chair: I am going to bring in RSPB to have their say evidence that FCO had some problems, but, as I on this. mentioned earlier, we do see recent signs of Clare Stringer: We do favour Defra as the lead on improvement following the new director, and we hope biodiversity in the overseas territories, because we that is correct. I think there are some major challenges think that Defra is a huge resource for the overseas there in the capacity of the British Government to help territories that they are not able to access at the in these areas. moment. There is a huge wealth of technical expertise Dr Tydeman: Can I follow up on that? and policy expertise within Defra, and we would like Chair: By all means. to see that opened up to the territories. We would like Dr Tydeman: If you read the Government’s written to see territories’ issues mainstreamed across Defra, response to your Committee, it says that there is an so that everyone within Defra knows that this is the overseas territories biodiversity group, which is Department that is responsible for the overseas responsible for making sure the biodiversity strategy territories, it is part of all their strategic documents, it is implemented. That committee barely functions, if I is part of their planning, and we would like to see am being kind. It has no authority to make decisions, their capacity substantially increased in terms of and it does not report to Ministers, so I wonder how dedicated staff working on this issue. on earth it is supposed to make sure things are I have to say that we—RSPB—as an organisation are implemented. It is also quite narrow, in that it has doing this ourselves now. We have just gone through DfID, Defra and FCO on it and not the other a new strategic planning process, and, I am happy to Departments. I have raised with the FCO the say, overseas territories are mainstreamed throughout possibility of expanding it, given that the White Paper our strategy. Our capacity on overseas territories has suggested all Government Departments now have a grown from one full-time person seven years ago to responsibility to include the ones that are most likely three now, so we at RSPB have more full-time posts to have been. For example, MoD is responsible for dedicated to overseas territories than Defra. I do think the Cyprus sovereign bases and a great chunk of that that is something that perhaps the Government Gibraltar as well, and I am sure elsewhere in the world could improve. as in the Falklands. You have them completely out of Also, we have 1 million members in the UK, and this the loop as far as I can see, unless they are drawn in is an issue that they really care passionately about. for ad hoc discussions. Every time we engage with our membership on Local Government—when DoE dropped local overseas territories we have a really positive response. Government and Defra took over—Local It is something that members of the public here in the Communities and Government Department: where UK do respond to. does that sit in terms of providing planning advice to, Dr Tydeman: Perhaps I could just clarify what we for example, EIAs and planning advice in overseas would like is the FCO to make sure things happen but territories? I do not see any evidence. There might be Defra to do them; not that Defra shouldn’t do them evidence, but I do not see it. It is something I think and the FCO should but that the FCO, as the lead the Committee might wish to follow up on, as to how agency, should be responsible for making sure that this co-ordination across Government Departments is these things happen, which currently is not the case. effected. Q72 Chair: I am just trying to establish whether Q71 Caroline Lucas: Thank you for that. In a sense, there is a difference of opinion between you; because it pre-empts my next question, which was, given that you seem to be saying that FCO does not do the responsibility is split between so many different conservation and Defra does not do FCO, but if bits of Government, I was going to ask you about constitutionally the responsibility rests with FCO for the challenges for joined-up Government. You have overall co-ordination, presumably there is common already indicated that there are severe challenges to ground that if that was there, then the Defra expertise joined-up Government, not least because the capacity could fit in with that? is not there and, even if it was, you need better ways Dr Tydeman: Yes, exactly. of working. If you were to make any Clare Stringer: Absolutely. I don’t think we are far recommendations about how co-ordination could be apart. improved, beyond the obvious one of having some Dr Pienkowski: We try not to be. If I could add—I posts to co-ordinate, is there more you would say think another big change that has taken place since about that? your 2008 report—which I alluded to briefly before— Dr Tydeman: I think my colleagues differ slightly on is the decline in contact between governmental bodies this, in that I think RSPB would favour Defra to still and our NGO network. It seems to me this is a loss be the main part responsible for environment. I think of resource because if resources are tight, which they we would tend to go for the FCO, since they have clearly are at present, it would be better to pool effort ultimate responsibility across the territories. If you and keep contact going. So, we would like to restore look at the level of responsibility within the two that in a more flowing basis than is the case at present Ev 20 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall and get back to something that works rather more Dr Tydeman: Can I just take it up a level? We have effectively in pooling effort and information. referred several times to this overseas territories biodiversity strategy, which lacks objectives, as we Q73 Caroline Lucas: I was just noticing as well in have said. If you put it into the bigger picture of the evidence about DfID—of course, because DfID biodiversity in the UK, it is now more than a dotted would have lead responsibility for international line away from the rest of how biodiversity is climate change adaptation, so the lack of resource strategized in the UK. In each of the country there is deeply worrying. That is just an obvious territories the devolved responsibilities now have their reflection, but I had forgotten that they took the lead own strategy. There is no longer even a UK for that rather than Defra on climate change. biodiversity strategy but four strategies that are pulled Dr Pienkowski: DfID also has in its constitution the together by the Chief Scientist or relevant agencies. requirement to give some priority to the legitimate That strategy sits somewhere out there. I have demands of overseas territories, but it does not seem discussed this several times with Government to be very manifest in its actions at present. agencies, and each time they say, “It is a dotted line”, and every time I see the document the dotted line is Q74 Caroline Lucas: My last question is if we are missing. If you are going to make choices about talking about trying to strengthen the capacity in the biodiversity, you need to have everything in the UK Government, in order to be able to put a higher picture at the same time. At the moment that is not the case. You have the devolved responsibilities here emphasis on environmental protection, do you think and the devolved responsibilities in the overseas that is something that the governors in the relevant territories, and those that the Foreign Office are places would welcome? Is there a danger of the UK responsible for are completely separate. To me, that Government being perceived to be sticking its nose in does not make any sense at all. If you are going to and being unhelpful, or do you think that if HMG look at priorities for biodiversity, you look at them in were to be taking a closer interest in environmental the round, not each individual bit separately, and protection, it would be welcomed? decide within them what they are. Clare Stringer: Recently, at the workshop Jonathan Dr Pienkowski: Can I just add a note on governors, mentioned to review the overseas territories because how locals react to governors tends to vary biodiversity strategy, JNCC co-ordinated a workshop with a lot of factors. It is not an easy job. A common held at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and that was feature of the successful ones seems to be that attended by many of the overseas territories, by governors need to be of a calibre to demonstrate by representatives of their Environment Departments. their actions, as well as their words, that they support Quite a few of the attendees from those Environment the territory, its environment and people without, of Departments said that they would welcome the course, undermining the HMG priorities as well. It is governors giving them some clear leadership on this not an easy task but one that does work when you and supporting them, because often in the territories have those combinations of things together. the Environment Departments are effectively weaker than some of their corresponding business colleagues. Q75 Chair: I just wonder, in terms of specifications They would actually welcome the governors saying, in respect of governors who are appointed, what “We think this is important”. It would give them would you say should be in there? some support. Dr Pienkowski: It certainly will require proven It is often the case that, when we talk to the UK wisdom, an empathy with local people, the judgment Government about environment in the overseas of Solomon probably, and a very good briefing in the territories, we are told it is a devolved responsibility key issues. In the environment we always used to offer and, therefore, the local Governments have to lead it. a briefing to governors before they took up the post, But in fact if you look closely at the individual and we are very happy to keep doing that. It is slightly territories, governors have huge influence and erratic whether it happens at present. That is only one responsibility, and their behaviour, the things they aspect of many others, because we are talking about support, the events they attend, the speeches they give the environment here. If we have further thoughts on can all be very influential. In some territories, they do job specification, we will send them straight away. make the laws. Obviously, in the uninhabited territories but also some of the territories with smaller Q76 Chair: Just before I move on to Martin Caton, populations they are very, very influential. DfID can can I ask RSPB—because we heard just now from Dr also be very influential in those territories where they Pienkowski about how difficult it was to get access to supply a lot of the budget. They can also support the the point of contact, either with Defra or with DfID— development of robust environmental legislation. I do you have similar problems contacting Government think we can say on Saint Helena, where they are Departments here? supporting the development of the airport, they have Clare Stringer: It depends on the Department. We do supported as a priority the development of good not see DfID very often. I must say part of that has environmental legislation, and that is really very, very been the relocation to East Kilbride, although we have good to see. seen some of the officials who are based here in However, that is not always the case in all the DfID- London on the Saint Helena desk a bit more regularly. supported territories, so we would like to see all of We do talk regularly with the Foreign Office. We find the Government Departments showing leadership in them very open and generally very good to deal with. this area and standing up for the environment, really. Because the overseas territories post is currently Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 21
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall vacant, we are not having much contact with Defra at the research funding for biodiversity. They can access the moment. In general, we are in a privileged position some funding through our European Development as RSPB because we have other reasons to meet with Fund, and they have accessed that funding. What they Government and we can often raise the overseas definitely cannot access at the moment is LIFE+ territories at those meetings. So, I accept that we are funding, which is the European Union’s largest in a different position to smaller organisations. instrument for funding nature projects. The French outermost regions, or their DOMs, which are sort of Q77 Martin Caton: You have touched on funding part of the EU—they have a complicated for environmental protection. Can we move on to look constitutional relationship, just like all these places— at the UK Government’s responsibility in that field? since 2007 have been able to access LIFE+, and they As you know, the UK Government has consolidated have projects running. However, the UK’s overseas its environmental funding for the overseas territories territories cannot access that funding. That funding is into what we call the Darwin Plus fund. Is this a step on a scale that would allow some of the bigger in the right direction, and are the resources enough? projects to be carried out, so it would be fantastic to Dr Pienkowski: Obviously we welcome the get access to that funding. The UK Government has restoration of the level of governmental funding to been very actively trying to enable access to that what it was before the sort of gap year, but we do have funding line, but that process is still going on. I think some reservations about Darwin Plus. In particular, it all of us would like to see that happen. Interestingly, is a further move away from the shared-responsibility in the 2011 allocation for LIFE+ funding, the UK used approach that used to dominate the funding approach only half of its allocation of funds. So if there had by HMG. Again, rather than a situation where HMG been good projects from the overseas territories, and is viewing applications relating to the territories’ work they had been eligible, it would not have taken as something they share responsibility for, or indeed anything away from other UK projects. That money helping to build those applications, it is now treating was reallocated to other projects across Europe them in just the same way as if they are foreign because it was not used in the UK. countries where HMG does not have responsibility. Although we think Darwin generally is an excellent Q79 Martin Caton: You have mentioned the programme, we are not sure it fits very well with the difference between what is happening with UK overseas territories’ role. overseas territories and the French ones. What about Jonathan Hall: We were certainly very pleased with the Dutch islands in the Caribbean; are they managing the announcement of this Darwin Plus funding line to access more? and, in particular, bringing the three departments Clare Stringer: They cannot access LIFE+, but they together into one fund, thereby consolidating all their have a different relationship with their lottery from inputs and we hope making it harder for any our territories. Dutch territories can access lottery individual department to cease its funding. We would funding to fund a lot of nature protection work there, note also that £2 million for each round can go an whereas our territories cannot access lottery extremely long way in the territories. The funding funding—or officially they can, but, in terms of remit of Darwin Plus is not only biodiversity—which policy, it is basically impossible for projects in the is estimated to need about £16 million a year in the territories to be funded. My colleagues from the territories—but also climate change, also water Forum might have a bit more to say about that. management, also waste management. This single fund does have a vast remit and at that level of Dr Pienkowski: Just on the detail of that, the Dutch funding can only begin to scratch the surface of the territories are changing their constitution at present, issues required. We would also recognise a place for partway through this. They will eventually end up having more overseas territories’ expertise on the rather like the French, in two categories: one which is funding panel. Overall, we think the flexibility that part of the metropolitan Netherlands—as with Darwin Plus has to fund smaller projects and larger metropolitan France—which will be eligible for these projects is very good. This first round that has just things; and one like the French territoires, the been announced appeared to fund a good range of Netherlands territories and all our territories, which very promising-looking projects. won’t.
Q78 Martin Caton: Can the UK overseas territories Q80 Martin Caton: Would a way of overcoming the access European Union environmental funding at all? problem with accessing lottery funding be for people Clare Stringer: They can access some but not all. In in the overseas territories to play the lottery? We the last couple of years there has been what was called understand that there are people in Spain playing the the BEST programme, which was for biodiversity in UK lottery online. the EU’s overseas countries and territories and Dr Pienkowski: We have investigated the lottery quite outermost regions. That was set at €2 million per year, a lot. If you wanted to make it link to the ticket and there were two rounds of that, but that was only purchase—which in fact it isn’t in law at present— a pilot funding programme. That can continue only you would have a lot of legal changes to make. We for three years, and this year will be its final year have spent some years dispelling some of the myths, unless it is found a permanent home. There is no sign including that there isn’t a legal bar on spending in that that will happen, so we assume that this year will support of the territories. In the White Paper and be the final year. The overseas territories can access associated documents, it is clear that the Heritage some funding from the research from DG Research, Lottery Fund can make grants to UK bodies in support Ev 22 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall of the territories, but in practice this does not happen, where they were, what significance they have to the and we tried this to work out what the problems were. UK; the history, the stories—they are all fascinating. Basically, the fund chooses to make support of I have to say I am a New Zealander myself and I have territories low priority. It also requires that any come to work on the territories here, and I have found application made goes to a local UK office where the that the stories about the territories are some of the organisations have a base. What local office knows most interesting things. You could go on for hours anything about overseas territories and is going to about them, which I won’t, but they are brilliant give them priority over a local application? If we are places, and I think most people here would love to going to get past this problem, two things are required. hear about them. One is for DCMS, as a sponsor Department, to accept The level of visibility is in contrast to France, where that the Prime Minister’s comments on the White they have the month of the overseas territories, where Paper apply to them too and issue a ministerial they have programmes on the television, and, when directive, so that funds in support of work in its they give the weather on the radio, they cover their territories is given the same priority as in Britain; and overseas territories at the end. When you buy a Sat two, that applications relating to overseas territories Nav for Europe, the DOMs—the French territories should go to one point, whether it be a specially that are part of France—are on there. The French briefed local committee or one specially set up for that territories are fundamentally part of France, and I purpose. Without those two measures, it is not going don’t see that here. The Falkland Islands are well to happen. known, and most people would know that that is British, but most of them are virtually invisible. Q81 Martin Caton: The well-informed and What is really disappointing is that when there is high- committed members of the RSPB may well be very profile media coverage—for example, the recent Spy concerned about biodiversity in the overseas in the Huddle programme, which featured the territories. I suspect that many of our constituents, if Falkland Islands—not very much is made of the fact they realised that money was going, would say, “Why that it is an overseas territory. These are British on earth is money going to these islands miles and penguins that we are watching here alongside miles away from us?” Do you think there is a need penguins from Chile and penguins from other places. for increasing the awareness among the British public So there is a lot more that can be done, and having of a lot of factors about the overseas territories but, some publicly funded documentaries made that are particularly, its global significance in terms of branded as about overseas territories—it would be biodiversity, and, as organisations, are you doing brilliant to feature them on Springwatch or something. anything to promote that awareness? We speculate a lot at RSPB whether that could be Dr Pienkowski: Before both of us have a go at that, I done, because I think people would be fascinated to should possibly question one of the assumptions in see, while we are having spring here, what is that. There are, at any one time, a high proportion of happening in the Caribbean, what is happening in the populations of overseas territories living in the UK, sub-Antarctic on British territory, linking up with which is not surprising because they are UK citizens. schools. There is just so much potential; I think it So it seems quite likely that a proportion of those and is brilliant. their friends buy lottery tickets. Someone asked me We are doing our bit in a small way, so when we why a bloke in a pub should want lottery money to be published our State of UK Birds report this year, there spent in support of overseas territories, rather like was an overseas territories bird on the cover, a your own question. But over the country as a whole rockhopper penguin. That is the first time that we have there is a chance of one in 2,000 that that bloke in the done that, but we have been including overseas pub is actually from an overseas territory, or an even territories information in that report for a few years bigger chance that they know someone from there. now. We will also launch a state of nature report, What is more, if you happen to be in London, which is about nature across the UK. Again, we are Manchester, Leicester, Southampton, Birmingham, including a chapter on overseas territories in that Slough or Crawley, then there is an even higher report, which is brilliant, and we have done that with chance than one in 2,000 that the bloke—or lass; I our partners from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew should not be sexist on this—is from an overseas and with our other partners in the territories. One of territory. They are part of the community, and we the issues with that is information. For the state of UK should not assume they are totally separate in that biodiversity, we have lots of information that has been regard. Also, I don’t in any way dissociate myself collected over years. For the overseas territories, the from the idea that we need to raise their profile. In level of information that we have, despite the amazing fact, our test exercise to the National Lottery was to abundance of unique species, is just the tip of the expand some of the work we are already doing on iceberg. We can kind of see that there is something raising awareness in Britain of the overseas territories’ big under the surface, but we don’t know what it is environment, but sadly that was unsuccessful too. yet, and I think that is a real challenge to making these However, we are doing what we can in that capacity places more visible, just the lack of information. and RSPB are doing a lot as well. Chair: Dr Tydeman, I think you want to come in. Clare Stringer: We would say yes, absolutely there is Dr Tydeman: Yes, I do, please, just on this and to go a real imperative to raise the profile of the importance back to funding in the EU for a second. It happens of the biodiversity of the territories. As you were that one of my former assistants is a television saying, Mr Caton, a lot of people in the UK would presenter now. I have spoken to him about whether it not be aware of how many territories there were, would be possible to do a programme on the overseas Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 23
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall territories. However, if you look at the cost and the knowledge or information about the status of time it would take to get to each of the territories to biodiversity in overseas territories and not much do a programme about each of them, it is just beyond prospect that that is going to change. Do you think the bounds of possibility in terms of the available that is a long-term, ingrained notion at UK funding. You might manage to do it by using existing Government level that this is not something that needs footage from those sorts of places and pull the thing to be addressed, and that the fact that there is very together, but it wouldn’t be like a David Attenborough little information on threatened species and diversity going to each place and saying how wonderful it is. within the overseas territories is something of no That is a real constraint, in terms of the remoteness consequence? of these places, getting new footage and making new Jonathan Hall: Yes. I don’t think the UK programmes and so on. Government has fully appreciated what it has signed up to and the implications of, for instance, the Q82 Chair: I want to go back to LIFE+, because it Convention on Biological Diversity. As to the overall is a bit of an issue for me, and because—as you have goal of the strategy, it does have to help the overseas rightly pointed out—the amount that the UK could territories meet their international commitments, but, claim is just nowhere near what is available. Can you in practice, there is a lack of knowledge and capacity clarify for me, because you have raised this in the at many levels. As we have observed, for many RSPB evidence: is the fact that the overseas territories territories we do not even know what species are are not accessing that funding a matter for the UK, or there. There might be data in different places, but the is it a matter for the politics of what is going on in UK Government has never collated it. There are no Europe; and what would need to happen for that species lists, and then, of the species that we do know LIFE+ funding to be put to good beneficial use as far are there, many are known only from one specimen as the overseas territories are concerned? or have never had their populations assessed to see Jonathan Hall: It is primarily a matter at the EU what their conservation status may be. The level under level, and the UK Government has been lobbying to that would be identifying and implementing the increase access. The European Commission seems conservation actions required. very anti extending it to the— So there is a lack of strategic overview for Chair: But not for other countries. biodiversity and a lack of strategic science programme Jonathan Hall: At present, half of France’s outermost to fill that. The initial steps are quite simple, in terms entities have access, so France has also been joining of simply collating all that existing widely scattered in lobbying with the UK Government with the data into one place. We could then say, for instance, Commission. We have also been working with the UK “Okay, the birds in the Falklands are well known and MEPs, who have taken this up as an issue, but the monitored, but we don’t know anything about the Commission do seem to be the central roadblock and moths and butterflies on Montserrat. There are a lot have been actively lobbying against it. of pressures there, so probably that is where we should put the limited resources that we have”, and Q83 Chair: The rules are about to change; or there is put funds in there. a new phase of LIFE+ funding coming up, isn’t there? There would be a big role, in particular, for the Joint Jonathan Hall: Yes. Nature Conservation Committee—JNCC—which to date has not had a very strategic science programme, Q84 Chair: Is it likely to change in the new guidance despite its role as the scientific adviser on the overseas that is going to relate to the LIFE+ funding? territories. There is a lot that could be done, even at a Jonathan Hall: Potentially. There have been some desk-based level, without even funding the required positive votes in the European Parliament, and on the research trips to try to put that baseline knowledge in European Council, that would lead to opening it up. place on what biodiversity there is and what its threats But under the tripartite decision system, they still have may be, so that the next levels above, of identifying the European Commission not only opposing it but actions and implementing them, can be done. actively trying to peel off proponents within the Clare Stringer: We should say that the Foreign and Parliament and within Council. So, it is an ongoing Commonwealth Office has funded the RSPB to do an piece of work over the next six months, in particular, initial piece of work, a desk study, to collate existing that is going to dictate whether that next seven year records of species in the overseas territories. By the tranche is open to the overseas territories or not. There middle of this year, for the first time, we should have are some concerning rumours coming out at the a database with information listing all the species moment that France may have cooled somewhat on known to be present for each of the overseas the idea, and we hope very much that the UK territories and assessing whether they have been Government will be able to keep up the pressure. assessed against the IUCN’s criteria for global threat; whether they have been listed on the IUCN’s red list, Q85 Dr Whitehead: I suspect some of my broader and also looking at whether there is any monitoring questions have been addressed this afternoon, but programme in place for those species. I do think it is could we just be specific for a moment on appalling that this is the first time this has been done. biodiversity? We have the biodiversity strategy from As Jonathan said, I think it would have been the UK Government, which I have seen was being appropriate for JNCC to have taken this on as the noted as effectively a memorandum of agreement—I science adviser to Government and provider of think you mentioned that in your evidence—more technical information. It is great, and we are very than a strategy. At the same time there is very little thankful to the FCO for funding us to do it. Ev 24 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall
Jonathan Hall: One further thing that has emerged are very happy to work with us because they recognise was that last month DEFRA published 31 evidence the problem. It is the same with Tristan. The RSPB plans. Only one included any mention of the overseas has worked on Tristan da Cunha and Gough for a long territories, and that was just one detailed sentence. time—about a decade—and we are planning, The amount spent on research in the overseas hopefully, to eradicate the mice on Gough in the future territories last year was in the region of £165,000, so and to do that jointly with Tristan. We recognise that there is much more scope to develop a proactive the burden of the technical planning and the evidence research programme; then also to change the fundraising for that cannot be left with Tristan, mindset of the UK Government, so that they identify because with a population of around 270 people, there the priorities needed to meet, for instance, the Aichi just isn’t the resource there to dedicate to doing it. Targets. At present the UK Government doesn’t have So it is very important for the overseas territories that any vision of what may be required, and instead does the support is there from the UK, and the rest of the some rather scattergun funding and support rather than world, to assist in conserving their biodiversity. As Dr taking a more strategic approach, having the priorities Pienkowski said earlier, it is also important to and working out where that limited funding should recognise that our involvement, as outside be targeted. organisations, needs to recognise the local situation and be done in partnership with local organisations Q86 Dr Whitehead: Presumably, because of the and the local population, because, in order to be diverse nature of the overseas territories, and the sustainable, the local people have to believe in what relatively small populations in each of them, with they are doing. We cannot foist this on them even if some exceptions, the diversity remains a central issue, we wanted to, which we don’t. It has to be in i.e. as you mentioned, where do you start, what do partnership, and it has to take people with us. you start with, how do you prioritise any work and Dr Pienkowski: I support all that. You put your finger what then happens to the domestic Governments of on the essential problem: it is the lack of a strategic those territories. Is there a relationship between approach. We have tried to encourage a strategic development, threatened species and relative isolation, approach for some time. For example, a couple of for example, which you can perceive? years ago we had a workshop, with wide Clare Stringer: In terms of more isolated places representation, about how we start applying the Aichi having more threatened species, you mean, or in terms Targets to the territories and help the territories of development threats? develop their strategies. However, you also need a Dr Whitehead: I am thinking, if you are concerned strategy for UK Government and UK NGOs to be able about the correlation between the fact that there are to deploy their resources to help. It is a frustration that a number of very isolated places under that headed we don’t have that yet. While we don’t have that— category, which by definition are likely to have rather and obviously all the resources that were identified are more threatened endemic species because they are not needed—we are firefighting. Less than five years ago, anywhere else, then perhaps in one or two places you a new family—not just a new species or a new have a particular combination of that and a population genus—of shrimp-like creatures was found in a cave of a few hundred, so the priority and the burden of on one of our territories. Within five years, it was dealing with that is out of all proportion to the proposed for there to be an airport over it, so there is resources that are available without a great deal of a real crisis of these things. Although we need to keep additional care and attention. firefighting, it would make the future firefighting a lot Clare Stringer: You are absolutely right. There are easier if we could develop some strategies to do that. two very good examples in two of our highest Earlier, when we were talking about funding, although priorities for conservation in the overseas territories you focused on justifying the lottery, what we would at the moment and going forward, Gough Island and like to do—and perhaps, given the time, I should do Henderson Island. Both are incredibly isolated places, it in writing afterwards—is to talk about some of the both are World Heritage sites, and both are examples other reasons it would be appropriate to support the of where the values of those sites are threatened by overseas territories by the general tax burden. introduced invasive species. On Gough Island, it is mice that are eating albatross chicks alive on the nest, Q87 Chair: By the general tax moneys in the and on Henderson Island, it is introduced Polynesian overseas territories themselves? rats that are eating seabird chicks and driving the Dr Pienkowski: No, within the UK’s tax burden. I endemic Henderson Petrel towards extinction. The know it is always a challenge, but we have some RSPB are working with the UK Government here and thoughts on that, which, if you are okay with that, we with the Pitcairn Government and with funders, from could write to the Committee about. trusts and foundations to individuals. We raised money and attempted to eradicate rats on Henderson Q88 Chair: What about the issue of tax havens? Island in 2011. Unfortunately that attempt was not Dr Pienkowski: I am an environmentalist, not a tax successful, but we remain committed to trying again. expert. With other colleagues from other organisations and the Pitcairners, hopefully we are going to go back Q89 Dr Whitehead: A mini-transaction tax perhaps. again and learn what we did wrong and be able to On an associated issue, the effects of climate change take that work forward, because it is so important. on those territories—again, because of their There is no way that the Pitcairners can do that by positioning around the world, I know that they are in themselves and they welcome our partnership. They the front line on a number of those issues. How Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 25
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall engaged do you think those territories are themselves should be very careful that anything we advocate in on those matters, and to what extent might there be terms of these approaches, the development should active discussions, for example, on adaptation within have a full impact assessment. There is other and around those territories? potential. For example, in Montserrat there is quite a Jonathan Hall: The variety would be the first thing potential for geothermal energy. They suffer the to note between the different territories. With many of disadvantages of a volcano; let’s help them get the these populations being much more closely connected advantages as well. Wide, flexible thinking could give to their environments than we would be, say, in a lot of potential before you start getting into London, in terms of their fish stocks and all their potentially conflicting situations. water resources on small islands, there can be a good Clare Stringer: In our written evidence, we talked a awareness of processes already underway of changing little bit about an example in the Pacific where New climates. The scale of the challenge is enormous, and Zealand funded one of their territories, Tokelau, to the first steps have been taken in some places. Then become the world’s first solar powered territory. We there are still countervailing forces, which are, for think there could be potential for that for some of the example, developing mangrove forests, thereby smaller territories. I would echo what Dr Pienkowski jeopardising the climate change adaptation provision said about making sure that any proposals had a full that such a forest would provide in terms of environmental impact assessment and were preventing storm surges as well as providing a nursery appropriately sited. The last thing that we would want for fish stocks and the like. is to compromise the biodiversity by trying to reduce There is still a lot of work to be done to make sure that diesel use. It is important for energy security, as much the UK Government itself does not end up exposed to as for climate, because these places are so small and what could potentially be vast financial liabilities, and remote, and if they run out of diesel, then everyone’s also for the livelihoods of the people themselves, of power goes off, so it has a huge impact on people’s course, who are dependent on their natural lives and their ability to communicate with the environments and find themselves on the front line. outside world. Dr Pienkowski: If I can just add to that. For example, the routine clearance of vegetation—as happens for Q91 Chair: We have almost reached the end. One developments, by things just being bulldozed—has final question from me; in the White Paper there is impacts, not just on the natural environment but also a reference to Chevening Scholarships and students on the capacity to hold carbon in the system. coming over and studying. Are you aware that there Obviously, the sheer scale of territories means they is an opportunity for students to get that kind of access are not going to be the major contributor to this issue, to environmental education for sustainability, as part but, equally, they should address their things at home. of that Chevening Scholarship scheme? As was given in evidence to you last month, there Dr Pienkowski: I believe it has been done in the past. are some blockages in the system to moving to more I am not sure of any recent examples. sustainable energy. What the UK Government could do is encourage the overseas territories Governments Q92 Chair: You would support that being available? to try to make sure that those regulation blockages Dr Pienkowski: Yes. and any perverse incentives are removed, so that at Chair: It is very much the capacity issue that you least things can be addressed from that side. talked about earlier. That could be a means of Obviously, the adaptation side is more difficult growing capacity. because many of these territories are a metre or two Clare Stringer: I am not sure about the Chevening high, so they have a very big challenge. Equally, the Scholarship, in particular, but I do know there have factors of protection from storms by mangroves, coral been some very good students studying in the UK reefs and so on are important, and these should be from Saint Helena, for example, who have achieved protected for the benefit of the human community as environmental qualifications and have then gone back well as for natural communities. to work on Saint Helena. Also, through the OTEP programme—the precursor to Darwin Plus—there Q90 Dr Whitehead: There is, is there not, a potential were a couple of rounds of what were called OTEP conflict? Bearing in mind the preponderance of small Fellowships, which provided funds for overseas island territories here, one could envisage very early territories students to undertake a master’s degree at successful endeavours on the complete mass, balance the University of Exeter. A lot of the graduates of type, energy carbon neutral economies, using tide and that scheme have gone back to their territories and are solar, some wind, as the main modes of power. But holding very influential positions in Government now. then we have heard already from Turks and Caicos So the alumni of that sort of programme are very representatives about the possible conflict between influential now in the territories, and there definitely low-carbon energy and some of the issues relating to is a demand for this type of education. conservation on those islands. How do you think that Also, JNCC with UKOTA—the UK Overseas might work? Territories Association—I think funded a studentship Dr Pienkowski: There is a tremendous potential, in for an undergraduate programme. That is something particular, for solar energy. They have quite a lot of that has come to our attention. Masters’ programmes sun there—which again I am a bit envious of—which are great, but you need to have the people who already tends not to be a big problem in that context. Clearly, have an undergraduate degree to come into a master’s once you get into wind systems, you have quite big programme or people who can study at that level. For impact assessments to take account of. Obviously, we some of the territories, that is not achievable because Ev 26 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
17 April 2013 Dr Mike Pienkowski, Dr Chris Tydeman, Clare Stringer and Jonathan Hall their schooling locally does not continue through, environment. There are good things happening in even to the end of our high school, and then they don’t most of the territories, but it would be great to see have the opportunity to do an undergraduate degree more. because of their incomes and their access to education. Chair: I think you have all been very generous with Education is fundamental—education and good your time. Thank you very much indeed for coming governance—and all these things that we consider along this afternoon. fundamental are fundamental to the protection of the Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 27
Tuesday 9 July 2013
Members present: Joan Walley (Chair)
Peter Aldous Caroline Lucas Neil Carmichael Dr Matthew Offord Martin Caton Dr Alan Whitehead ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mark Simmonds MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr Peter Hayes, Director, Overseas Territories, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Jeremy Eppel, Deputy Director, International Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Evidence, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Ian McKendry, Deputy Director for the Overseas Territories and the Caribbean, Department for International Development, gave evidence.
Q93 Chair: I would like to begin this joint session, environments. While each constitution is different, in which I am very pleased we have, involving Defra, all cases in all inhabited Overseas Territories they are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID as responsible. As it relates to uninhabited Overseas well, by apologising for the cramped conditions in this Territories, then we are responsible, but we do work particular committee room. Certainly, it was not our in partnership providing technical advice and support intention for us all to be so cramped up, but we will as they need to make the importance of the do our level best to get through what I hope will be environment a priority. an interesting and informative session relating to our We have done this through a series of mechanisms, current inquiry in respect of Overseas Territories. A whether it be Darwin Plus or environmental very warm welcome to Ministers and officials for mainstreaming, providing technical advice and joining us on this occasion this afternoon. We felt in support. We also listen. I have travelled extensively terms of our inquiry, which is the second inquiry that in the inhabited Overseas Territories and listen very the Environmental Audit Select Committee has done carefully to the challenges that they face in terms of on Overseas Territories, that we really want to try to capacity. Certainly, we should not underestimate that, look in respect of the current White Paper how we can particularly bearing in mind some of the other flag up the whole issue of the environment in terms of challenges that many of the Overseas Territories are Government policy relating to Overseas Territories. I facing at the moment, but it is part of our role in this just wondered if between each of you—and perhaps partnership to assist them with prioritising the you will decide who goes in which turn—you could environment. set out for us the United Kingdom’s environmental responsibilities in respect of the Overseas Territories Q94 Chair: Okay. I will bring in Mr Benyon and just as a starting point. DFID in just a moment, but in response to what you Mark Simmonds: Shall I go first? have said there, Minister, can I just ask why does the Chair: Please do, Mr Simmonds. United Kingdom report to the Convention on Mark Simmonds: Thank you. I know that both Biological Diversity on behalf of the Overseas Richard Benyon and myself are very pleased that you Territories then? are looking again at the Overseas Territories and their Mark Simmonds: We are responsible for their foreign importance to the relationship to the United Kingdom. affairs, but not for their domestic and environmental. It is something that we are both very heavily engaged with and the importance of the environment and Q95 Chair: So does that or does it not include the environmental issues to the Overseas Territories. They Convention on Biological Diversity? Perhaps your are among the world’s greatest environmental assets official could clarify. and I think I am right in saying that of the total Dr Hayes: Yes. We are the signatory to the CBD. The biodiversity that exists within the UK and the territory governments would have to ask to have that Overseas Territories 90% of it is to be found within extended to them as they would in other areas of the Overseas Territories, a very significant part. multilateral agreements. In other areas where we are Chair: Indeed. signatory to it, they ask for it to be extended to them Mark Simmonds: We, alongside Defra and also or not and that is part of the process of partnership the DFID, work very closely together as part of the new Minister referred to, is to try to encourage and partnership that was set out in the White Paper that persuade them, where they have the capacity to was released in June last year. We have a significant implement it, to have it extended to them. commitment to the Overseas Territories to support them in their work as it relates to the environment. I Q96 Chair: I will in a moment look at the just need to say upfront, if I may, Madam Chairman, constitutional commitments or arrangements that there that territory governments are constitutionally are. When the UK signed the Biological Convention, responsible for the environment, for environmental did it do so on behalf of the Overseas Territories or protection and for conservation of their natural not? Ev 28 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry
Richard Benyon: I might be able to help here. Helena and the Cayman Islands. There is work going Chair: I just wanted to clarify the Foreign and on with some others, five other Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Office’s position first of all, if I may, on the possible extension of not only the CBD but five and then I will bring you in, I do promise. other multilateral environmental agreements to them, Dr Hayes: The CBD is only open for signature by so the possibility exists that they do that. I think the sovereign states and so the Overseas Territories cannot key point is that it is up to them to become part of the sign it in their own right. They can only do it by CBD or any other multilateral process if they wish extension of our legislation. and we will help them do that, but it is not something that we insist they do. Q97 Chair: So did the UK sign it on behalf of the Overseas Territories? Q100 Chair: Can I just ask how that is consistent Richard Benyon: I led the delegation to Hyderabad, with Article 4 of the Convention on Biodiversity? where we had a representative of the Overseas Jeremy Eppel: I do not have it in front of me. Could Territories in our delegation. The CBD is extended to you just remind us what it says? four Overseas Territories: the British Virgin Islands, Chair: Article 4 of the Convention imposes Gibraltar, St Helena and the Cayman Islands. accountability on each signatory for processes and Chair: I know that Dr Offord is very much a activities, “Carried out under its jurisdiction or control distinguished authority on these matters so I will bring within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond him in. the limits of national jurisdiction”. Is that interpretation that you have just given me consistent Q98 Dr Offord: I will try to bring some light to the or not with that? issue. I draw particularly the FCO’s attention to Ian Jeremy Eppel: I think it is, because if the Overseas Hendry and Susan Dickson’s law book, British Territories concerned do not wish to have the Overseas Territories Law, which clearly states, “The particular convention extended to them at any given United Kingdom is responsible for compliance by the point it is not something that I think the UK Overseas Territories with obligations arising under Government has chosen or wishes to impose. External international law, whether deriving from customary, relations are obviously overall the responsibility of international law or from applicable treaties. In our FCO colleagues, but I think that is the reason why practice, this responsibility arises far more often in that interpretation is consistent with it. respect of obligations under treaties and other Chair: I think we will be coming on to this in a little international agreements that have been applied to the bit more detail in a moment. territories by the UK Government. The territories themselves have no international legal personality and Q101 Dr Offord: Before we go on, I just want to no international legal treaty-making capacity separate bottom some of this out, and I will be brief. Within the from that of the United Kingdom. The United UK Government, Defra is responsible for providing Kingdom is therefore, as a matter of international law, support to the UK Overseas Territories, particularly responsible for the external relations of the territories, on biodiversity issues, and as such Defra is ultimately which includes responsibilities for concluding treaties responsible for CBD. and for compliance with the international obligations Jeremy Eppel: That is correct. We lead on CBD and under them.” the Minister led the UK delegation at Hyderabad at Chair: Who wants to respond to that? the last COP, yes. Richard Benyon: As I say, it has been extended to Dr Offord: Okay, that is helpful, thank you. four Overseas Territories, but the external relations of Particularly I would like to ask Defra one— the Overseas Territories is the responsibility of the UK Government. As I said, at the CBD in Hyderabad we Q102 Chair: Sorry, just before we move on, if I may, did take along a representative of the UK Overseas I just wanted to go back to the starting point for our Territories and very much wanted them to be current inquiry, which is the Overseas Territories considered as part of the decision-making process. White Paper of 2012. Can I just ask why it does not mention that the United Kingdom is ultimately Q99 Chair: But just listening to the response that we responsible for compliance with the CBD, the have had so far, could I be forgiven for thinking that Convention on Migratory Species and also the maybe some of the Overseas Territories were in a little Convention on International Trade in Endangered bit of a no-man’s land in terms of where that Species in the Overseas Territories? Mr Benyon. responsibility for the environment was? Richard Benyon: I have just written to every Richard Benyon: I might bring in Jeremy Eppel. governor and government of our Overseas Territories Chair: Please do. Mr Eppel? making sure that they are compliant with CITES and Jeremy Eppel: Yes. The reality is that the UK does offering any assistance they might need in order to not insist or impose any particular multilateral achieve that and giving them a longstop date, I think environmental agreement, whether it is CBD or in September, for when we want to see that in anything else, on the Overseas Territories, but if they place.1 That is one example of where we are wish to become a party to it through the UK’s working with them following the COP in Bangkok, ratification of it, we are very happy to help extend it the CITES one, to make sure that we are compliant to them through any technical or legal assistance they 1 Mr Benyon wrote only to those Territories to which CITES need to do that. As the Minister said, only four of has been extended and that have legislation which is them are currently in that position: BVI, Gibraltar, St classified as not meeting the basic requirements of CITES. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 29
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry not just in the United Kingdom but across our up in the White Paper. I am just trying to understand Overseas Territories. where those— Richard Benyon: I don’t think your Committee Q103 Chair: If I may, just coming back to the White should read into that any omission of determination Paper itself, given that the UK does have the by ourselves to do what is right. responsibilities over those international agreements, it does seem slightly odd that that is not flagged up in Q107 Chair: Okay. So you would not expect to put the White Paper itself. Would you not agree? a major responsibility into a White Paper? Presumably, it is the Foreign and Commonwealth Richard Benyon: I would not expect to do it treaty Office that is responsible for taking forward the by treaty, but perhaps I am straying on to Mark’s brief. White Paper. Mark Simmonds: The other thing I would just say, Richard Benyon: Can I just clarify? Have you out of the White Paper came the first Joint Ministerial identified areas where Overseas Territories are not Council that was held in November. Out of the Joint compliant with— Ministerial Council came the communiqué, and out of the communiqué, which was agreed with all Overseas Q104 Chair: We will come on to that in a moment, Territories, was this point that you are making about but I think we just wanted to try to get what the the importance of implementing the multilateral starting point is. Given that there is a White Paper environmental agreements. and hopefully that will follow on with more proactive Chair: Right, okay. I think I must move on. regulation action or policy in some way or another, given that our concern—like the Foreign and Q108 Dr Offord: We keep going off on a tangent. Commonwealth Office’s Minister said—is about the Let me jump in and say the JNCC is an independent 90% biodiversity of the UK, we wanted to make sure scientific adviser to Government, which raises a that it is absolutely embedded in the White Paper that question to me about governance if you think it is is going forward. We just really wanted to get a handle really an appropriate body to make policy and direct on who recognises what responsibility they have and departmental spending. how we get this cross-cutting agenda going forward. Richard Benyon: JNCC? Mark Simmonds: The White Paper was never Dr Offord: Yes, the JNCC, the Joint Nature intended to contain every single aspect or every single Conservation Committee. detail of the relationship between UK Government Richard Benyon: They are our key adviser. Departments and the Overseas Territories, but I think Dr Offord: Indeed. it very clearly puts the environment at the forefront of Richard Benyon: On Overseas Territories. the importance in the relationship. Certainly, there was a significant amount done prior to the White Paper Q109 Dr Offord: You feel it is appropriate for them emanating from the previous White Paper that relates to make policy and to implement spending decisions? to the environment, but also since June 2012 I think Richard Benyon: Can you give me an example of significant progress has been made. where you think they have made policy? Dr Offord: I might have to come back to you on that one myself. Q105 Chair: As Dr Offord says, we will come to that Richard Benyon: later. You see, if I look at the first inquiry that the No, this is a serious point. Environmental Audit Select Committee did on Dr Offord: No, it very much is. It very much is. Overseas Territories, it related to a previous White Richard Benyon: Because they are a key element of Paper where environmental responsibilities were very our delivery—I hate this word; I am talking like a management consultant—landscape. There, I said it. much part and parcel of it. We do not quite see the We are trying to make sure that what we are doing is same reference to that in the current White Paper, so evidence-based and therefore using a range of I am sure that you will understand our wanting to get different sources across Government. JNCC are the the foundations of this inquiry and see whether or not ones that co-ordinate that. I have never thought of there has been any reduction of commitment to them in terms of developing policy. They are environmental issues in terms of how the Government implementing it. is taking policy going forward. Richard Benyon: I would put to you that the reverse Q110 Dr Offord: That is really useful, that has happened, that we have a very clear and discussion between us, because it shows how difficult determined commitment. It is one of the most it is; we have been trying to bottom this all out. Can important and fulfilling— I move on to my question? You can see the problems Chair: In the White Paper itself? that we have experienced in trying to work out where Richard Benyon:—parts of my job, to implement responsibilities lay. To come back on your previous what we said in the White Paper and make sure not point, I want to ask you particularly, Mr Benyon, in only that we are continuing to put considerable regard to Defra what assessment of environmental resources, and the commitment we gave then we sustainability has the Department made of the have fulfilled— Overseas Territories? Richard Benyon: A variety. We work with them in Q106 Chair: Sure, but can I just interrupt? I am so terms of the way we spend the £2 million a year on sorry, Mr Benyon, but just in respect of the treaty our Overseas Territories, whether it is through Darwin responsibilities, that does not seem to me to be flagged or through other funding streams. We cannot spend Ev 30 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry public money without making sure that it is properly of that territory about how we could assist them in evidence-based. To take that one example of the mitigating that effect. I would say that the cause of it, Darwin Plus initiative, which I think is a great benefit, the cause of that pollution, was more a function of the where we have amalgamated different funding relationship between FCO and the Department; trying streams, the Overseas Territories or stakeholders to improve the environment would be with us. representing interests on those will come to us with a project. That is rigorously examined by the committee Q114 Dr Offord: That is helpful because it answered and if funding is allocated, we can be certain it is for my question. In our evidence from the RSPB—they a very good purpose. I think that is one of the best are obviously an NGO—they note that in the Overseas examples of collaboration between an overseas Territories many feel disconnected from Defra and territory government, very often NGO interests and find it very difficult to access support and advice. I the UK. have met the Cayman Premier and others in the Cayman Islands, and they said they could not get any Q111 Dr Offord: Let me expand on that slightly, support from Defra particularly around issues such as because you mentioned a figure of £3 million— waste management, which were leading in turn to Richard Benyon: Two. water pollution. Dr Offord: £2 million—sorry, you did, but it is £3 Richard Benyon: It is, first of all, their responsibility million. A number of reports have suggested that to to sort out. They are governments of these territories. meet our biodiversity agreements we need to be They have responsibility for such matters. If they want spending a lot more than that. The question I wanted specific advice from us, some issues are being raised to ask you is Defra’s business plan does not mention not just at the JMC, but also directly. If you can give the UK Overseas Territories at all. Given that the me specific examples of where the Cayman Islands or White Paper says that Defra is responsible for the any other government felt that they were getting a maintenance of biodiversity, do you think that is an “computer says no” response at the other end, that is error? not my experience. I have had really strong words of Richard Benyon: No. Our business plan is an over- support and thanks for the services that we have arching strategic document, which looks at a whole provided across a range of different things. Jeremy range of activities that Defra does. It does not set out might be able to give us some more. in precise example that level of function. That is not Jeremy Eppel: Perhaps I could just add a little to what the purpose of departmental spending plans. the Minister said. In terms of the range of priorities for Defra and the Government as a whole, but Defra Q112 Dr Offord: Where could we find out the in particular, on Overseas Territories the over-arching objectives of the Department for the UK Overseas framework is clearly the White Paper, the Territories? This comes back to where there is a lot environment chapter of the White Paper, the Joint of confusion. Ministerial Council communiqué, which sets out a Richard Benyon: We have a clear view about how range of priorities, which is shared between the UK we see our responsibilities for biodiversity. This was Government and the Overseas Territories themselves, developed through Defra policy and the Natural which was only last December, but also in the kind of Environment White Paper, the National Ecosystems material we put out on particular areas where there Assessment, and the Overseas Territories are a are opportunities for the Overseas Territories to access function of the biodiversity within Defra. You cannot funding. I am thinking in particular of Darwin Plus, as really talk about the Overseas Territories as a we call it. The proper title is the Overseas Territories collective because they are so different. Some of them Environment and Climate Fund. Now, the terms of are uninhabited. Some of them are very small. Some reference for that clearly gives an opportunity for of them are very large, highly-functioning economies Overseas Territories to come in with projects that are in their own right. The only way to do that is cross- priorities for them, but will also meet our broader government, through the Joint Ministerial Council that priorities that have been set out. I attended and other Ministers from other departments On the issue of waste management, one of the ideas attended, being part of the approach that is led by the of creating this tri-departmental fund, which was FCO and making sure that our commitments under launched in Hyderabad, indeed, at the CBD last international agreements are fed through to some of October by the Minister, was the idea that it could go these very valuable habitats—the marine policy, for beyond just biodiversity, because although example—many of these things led by the biodiversity is extremely important in Overseas governments of these territories asking for our Territories, the interaction with other environmental assistance and we follow it through. issues is clearly important too. For instance, if territories want to apply for a project that is waste- Q113 Dr Offord: Just to expand on that again, if it related, it is for them to put that forward within the was recognised that one of the Overseas Territories terms of the Darwin Plus funding. That is not to say was behaving in a way or something was happening— it is going to solve the whole problem, but the for example, as you know, water pollution I am very opportunity certainly exists. I was at a meeting of the interested in—what would you do as a Department if Overseas Territories governments—not one that you realised that was occurring? Ministers were at—a few months ago where we had Richard Benyon: If it was brought to our attention in a range of dialogues around things, including issues a way that was directly impacting on biodiversity, we such as waste management, so I think the dialogue could be having a conversation with the government does take place. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 31
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry
Dr Offord: Okay, that is very helpful. Thank you. everything that the respective Overseas Territories’ Mark Simmonds: Can I make one more point, if I governments do, the environment is at the heart of may? I think the implication of the line of questioning their decision-making. here is that there seems to be reluctance within the territories to engage with this important agenda. I just Q117 Dr Offord: It is very interesting that you bring want to make sure that the Committee understand that up the framework for fiscal responsibilities. Perhaps that is not the case. Certainly, the territory you could speak about that a bit more and give us governments that I have ongoing dialogue with are your reasoning behind why the UK Government felt very engaged about the importance of environmental that it was important, for example, that the Cayman sustainability and are very grateful for the support that Islands decided to introduce that. the UK Government, particularly Defra, has provided. Mark Simmonds: It comes out of the spirit of That of course does not mean that everything can be partnership in the White Paper. It was felt that it is solved in the shortest possible timescale and there are important that a fiscal and financial framework in each ongoing issues that perhaps we could get into, if there overseas territory was put in place to make sure there is time, where I think there is additional support that is responsible and prudent financial management; is required. there is a fair balance between revenues coming into Chair: We are going to come on in a little bit more the Exchequer and expenditure going out. If I can give detail about the actual support and what it constitutes you one example where that did not happen, it was in each of the Departments represented here, but do back in Turks and Caicos Islands back in 2007–08 carry on. where obviously the Government had to be suspended Mark Simmonds: I just wanted to say that I think that and an interim Administration had to be put in place, there is a real appetite and awareness of the effectively run by the Governor. Subsequently, there importance of environmental sustainability, not just have been elections and the TCI now have a relatively because it is important in itself, but because it is new Government who are running TCI. It is important important for their economic viability as well, for the that those responsible financial frameworks are put in tourism industry and to remain there. Even when there place. We also wanted as part of that to make sure are discussions taking place about, for example, that particularly government procurement was done improving the infrastructure, it is absolutely essential transparently and properly. and they do thorough environmental impact assessments to build that into the projects that they Q118 Dr Offord: Are you talking specifically about are considering. the Cayman Islands? Mark Simmonds: No, this applies to all territories, Q115 Chair: The Overseas Territories do full but there is a very good example in the Cayman environmental impact assessments? Islands where the procurement of the port was not Mark Simmonds: That is part of the framework being done in a way that met international agreement that we put in place with all of the transparency and international procurement standards. territories. I am very concerned about what you have Now the financial and fiscal framework is in place, it said about Cayman, because that is certainly not the will not be possible for a future Government of discussions I have had with people. Cayman to go down that route.
Q116 Dr Offord: Chairman, if I could jump in, Q119 Chair: Can you elaborate a little bit? Are you because I wanted to turn to the Foreign Office now talking about the port that would have extended and to ask Mr Simmonds, how does your Department capacity to take in the cruise liners? ensure that the UK Overseas Territories implement Mark Simmonds: Yes. effective environmental legislation? Mark Simmonds: I presume you are referring to the Q120 Dr Offord: If I can refer back to my original RSPB? question, how do you oversee environmental Dr Offord: I am not. legislation? Because you have taken a particular Mark Simmonds: If you have not seen this, you interest in financial issues and the economy of the should. They came up with a very good report, which islands, how do you look at environmental across the detailed in all the Overseas Territories where the Overseas Territories? legislative structures are at. We provide support in the Mark Simmonds: Mr Benyon has answered some of sense of assisting, where it is required or where it is that. In terms of the specific environmental legislation, requested, building capacity inside territories to that is a matter for individual territories to deliver these environments. One of the things that we implement themselves. put into the fiscal frameworks that we have now agreed with the territories is that any procurement Q121 Dr Offord: Can I stop you, because I don’t over and above I think it is a lifetime of £8 million in believe you are correct. Indeed, in your own White terms of value, so it is quite de minimis in that sense, Paper you say, “The UK Government has a there has to be an environmental economic assessment responsibility for the overall good governance of the that takes place. It is becoming an integral part of their territories and take a close interest in how the developmental processes. This is the point of territories’ governments discharge the functions mainstreaming, which is why the White Paper moved devolved to them. Those territories which choose to on from the charters that were enshrined in the remain British should abide by the same basic previous White Paper to trying to mainstream, so in standards of good government as in the UK.” During Ev 32 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry our investigations into areas, including the Cayman They impose an environmental tax on people visiting Islands and others, we found certainly bad practice in the island. It is currently standing at something like governance and I am sure that you know that the £40 million. Do you not agree with me that if there former Premier, McKeeva Bush, appeared in court for was better governance arrangements, people like the second time last Friday on charges again. Now, a myself, as a UK taxpayer, would not be as aggrieved lot of this was known by the Governor, who in our that we are spending money on things like the Darwin meetings with him had said he had referred it to your Plus initiative when they have a bank account full of predecessor and the British Government was aware of £40 million that they could be using for their own irregularities with the former Premier, which he has environmental initiatives? now been removed. We are certainly aware of the Mark Simmonds: We want to see the Overseas environmental conditions where roads were removed, Territories have as much responsibility as they can for possibilities for constructing hotels on lands of natural their own legislative and regulatory structures. That habitat, of species involved in CITES and others were applies to the environment economics as well. I do all occurring with the knowledge of the Governor. He not detect any appetite in the Overseas Territories to was very concerned about this and said to us he had move to the French model, where effectively all their referred it to the British Government and it is the Overseas Territories are part of mainland France, direct responsibility of the FCO to ensure good because of all the implications that would go with governance in the Overseas Territories. I don’t believe that. that happened. In theory, we could impose from the outside Mark Simmonds: There are legal constitutional environmental legislation on the Overseas Territories arrangements between each individual inhabited but we do not think that that would be constructive. It overseas territory and the FCO. Clearly, we have to is certainly not in the spirit of partnership and I detect abide by those constitutional arrangements. We stick whether it be in the Caymans, particularly with the by the rule of law. We don’t run the Overseas new Government, or elsewhere that there is a real Territories from Whitehall. appetite to put the environment right at the forefront of their policy development with the support of the Q122 Dr Offord: Excuse me, Minister, let me UK Government. I think that there is nothing wrong interrupt you. The constitutional law of the Cayman with the UK Government providing support, whether Islands says that Her Majesty’s Government has it be on a financial basis to assist with research and ultimate responsibility for good governance of the development and the other aspects through Darwin Overseas Territories, and we know that did not occur. Plus, or through building capacity to enable them to Mark Simmonds: I cannot get into and I am not going become even more responsible for their own to get into the detail of the previous Premier. That is livelihoods and their own political and economic an ongoing court case. Clearly, the matters are set out development than they are already. in the individual constitutions. There are legal procedures that need to take place. There are police Q125 Dr Offord: I am happy to leave that there, but procedures that need to take place where relevant. just by saying that certainly the framework on fiscal Where you are correct and where in the FCO we feel responsibility was not introduced through a measure there has been very significant evidence of poor and of co-operation with the Government and I see no bad governance, we will—as we did in 2008–09 in difference between some of the environmental TCI—suspend local governance and impose initiatives— governance from outside, but that is not the same as Mark Simmonds: I am not sure I agree with that, I a potential environmental impact. It is not the same am afraid. It has to be passed through the Cayman as very severe and significant maladministration, and Islands legislature. indeed corruption, as was evidenced by some of the Chair: I think we are going to have to move on to reporting that was done around what happened in TCI. precisely that area of expertise and capacity and support that might be available from the UK Q123 Dr Offord: I have one more question. That Government to the Overseas Territories. was why the UK Government insisted on the fiscal financial framework being introduced. McKeeva Bush Q126 Peter Aldous: Dr Offord has taken quite a lot was described as having his arm pushed up his back of my line of thinking and he has done that very to sign it. He did not do it voluntarily. effectively. Just looking in the two Departments, I Mark Simmonds: The financial and fiscal framework would be interested to know how many permanent from the Foreign Office perspective is a positive fulltime staff are employed on the Overseas Territories development in the Cayman and elsewhere because it in each Department. creates an architecture and rigour for prudent financial Richard Benyon: We have an international and fiscal management. biodiversity team, which acts as a focal point for overseas territory-related issues. There are four Q124 Dr Offord: Okay. I will be very brief with my members of the team, whose roles specifically include final question. If we are talking about better working on overseas territory issues, including a governance, which I believe the FCO has a newly appointed head of the international biodiversity responsibility to introduce, I believe that would be team. They are supported by a legal adviser, who able to identify organic sources of funding within the provides advice on issues such as the extension of UK Overseas Territories. Again, I go back to the treaties to Overseas Territories and by Defra’s Cayman Islands because I have some experience of it. international biodiversity evidence team, who deal Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 33
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry with research projects related to the Overseas organisations and just focus them on the Overseas Territories. In addition to the staff at Defra, JNCC has Territories. If there are specific communications issues two members of staff working fulltime on overseas with specific territories, I want to know about it, but I territory-related issues supported by other staff do think that we offer a better service by being much members. At present, one JNCC staff member, a St more broad. Helena national, is on a two-year secondment to St Helena as the director of the new environmental Q131 Peter Aldous: Do they ever visit the Overseas management department. In her absence, a marine Territories to see the situation on the ground and liaise expert from Bermuda has been seconded to JNCC for with the Governments? nine months. Richard Benyon: The first point is we have had a recent hiatus of churn, as there is with everybody Q127 Chair: Can I bring in Mr McKendry in terms across the civil service. Those posts are now filled and of DFID? there may be an opportunity for some of them to visit Ian McKendry: Our staffing is around 30. It varies a some of the Overseas Territories, but I have no little, but around 30 working on the Overseas detailed knowledge of visits. Territories overall, yes. Q132 Chair: There have not been any visits? Q128 Chair: Specifically designated as such? Richard Benyon: There may have been, but I don’t Ian McKendry: Yes, on our various aid programmes know of them. to the Overseas Territories. Richard Benyon: Sorry, can I just come back? The Q133 Peter Aldous: The Foreign Office? ones I listed are not designated purely for Overseas Mark Simmonds: We have 70: 35 in the UK, 35 in Territories. territory. Chair: I think our question related specifically to designated on Overseas Territories. Q134 Chair: Is that only environment? Peter Aldous: Yes, fulltime employed on the— Mark Simmonds: No, that is in the Overseas Richard Benyon: They work on a range of different Territories directorate. biodiversity issues and some of that time is dedicated to Overseas Territories. Q135 Peter Aldous: I think Mr Benyon was saying he did not want people working in silos, but if we Q129 Chair: How many are just designated on just look at joined-up government, when was the most overseas? recent cross-departmental meeting on the Overseas Richard Benyon: We don’t have any specific— Territories, and which Departments attended that? Chair: You do not have any? Richard Benyon: Jeremy can talk about it at official Richard Benyon: I would think it wrong, frankly, if level, but at the JMC in December, I was there we did, because what Defra provides to the Overseas alongside Mark Simmonds, who was chairing it. I Territories is a huge range of expertise and I want to think DECC were represented, DFID. be able to draw from that kind of expertise right across Mark Simmonds: Eleven other Government Defra’s skills. Departments. Richard Benyon: I have been there with Transport Q130 Peter Aldous: You mentioned that Defra do Ministers. There really is a good cross-working on have an expertise on that, which the Overseas these issues. Territories draw on. In this inquiry, we have heard a Mark Simmonds: There is quite a comprehensive criticism that some departments in the environment in follow-up between the respective Departments and a the Overseas Territories do find it difficult to flow of information. communicate with Defra. Is that a criticism you have Richard Benyon: Absolutely. heard or not? Mark Simmonds: Certainly, there are all sorts of Richard Benyon: Going back to what we were talking discussions that are taking place, both officially and about earlier, the JMC, the message I got from First unofficially, at ministerial and at official level to make Ministers—who are not shrinking violets, neither are sure that the agenda is being driven forward. Governors; they are quite happy to criticise when they Jeremy Eppel: If I may just add on this, there really want to—they have said there is a very good is a lot of cross-departmental working and it does not relationship. One of them used the phrase “a breath of always have to take place, or indeed is not always fresh air” at the first JMC meeting I went to. There most effective because you have to wait for a set piece was a real belief that the UK Government was taking meeting to take place in the context of that Overseas them seriously and it was considered to be quite long Territories biodiversity group. The next meeting of overdue that that took place. that is happening on 23 July. I will be chairing that. I really would not want my Department to be focusing The last one I did not chair but my team leader, who people just on narrow areas of activity. We are trying was there at the time, chaired it and it took place, I to get away from this sort of little empires dotted in think, about last December, shortly before he left. The little offices doing one particular area of work. What communication is continuous, as and when necessary. we do for the Overseas Territories we also do for the If I might just very briefly on the point about United Kingdom in vast measure and it would be dedicated staff as against numbers of staff, and you totally wrong to take really good, well-qualified have heard the numbers, as it were, somewhat more officials either from core Defra or from the wider operational, some of them in the other two Ev 34 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry
Departments. My own team covers international contact where they would know who to contact and biodiversity, ecosystems and also evidence. If we had how to get into the Defra system? a single person just dedicated to Overseas Territories, Jeremy Eppel: I am satisfied that there is such a we probably would not be able to have a particularly person. Whether every individual in the Overseas senior person doing that and they would need to pick Territories necessarily knows their email address I up a lot of information and knowledge from a lot of cannot guarantee, but certainly there is that person, other people. We think it is more efficient that part of who is my new team leader on this, who is the person my time, part of a number of senior team leaders’ to contact. time, is available to do that and that we are able to access everybody. My total team is about 35 as well, Q140 Chair: If I was either a Minister for the but it covers the whole range of biodiversity, Environment in the individual state of the overseas ecosystems and evidence. The evidence team, the territory or a chief environmental officer wanting to scientists, the economists, the person who looks after make contact on something like waste management the Darwin work, if they were working only on to try to get that expertise, how would I go about Overseas Territories there would be times when they making contact? were twiddling their thumbs. I think it is much better Richard Benyon: I think the governments tend to deal the way it works, that a number of people know that first point of contact with the FCO and they may well they need to contribute to our total effort on Overseas refer them to my Department if it is something where Territories as and when the need arises. we have particular skills or an organisation we are responsible for has particular skills. Q136 Peter Aldous: Do the two members or two staff on secondment from the Joint Nature Q141 Chair: So the first point of contact is with the Conservation Committee work exclusively on FCO on environmental issues? Overseas Territories or not? Richard Benyon: Not exclusively. Jeremy Eppel: Yes, they are in Overseas Territories and although I am not personally in touch with them Mark Simmonds: Not exclusively, but there is a day-to-day, members of my team and the scientific constant flow of information that is coming from our side are in contact with them whenever there is useful governors on the Overseas Territories from contact to be made. discussions that they have had with Ministers.
Q137 Peter Aldous: Just taking on the issue that Dr Q142 Chair: Sorry, from our Government to the Offord raised, they are not directing policy as such, is Overseas Territories? that correct? Mark Simmonds: Both ways, but particularly from Jeremy Eppel: No, I think their role is to support the Overseas Territories back to the UK. I am very particular requests and needs of the Overseas keen outside this room to pick up the comments that Territories in which they are embedded where a push you obviously found in the Caymans, because that is is being made, let us say, to enhance their capacity certainly not my experience of dealing with either and to improve their management of the environment, Cayman or other Overseas Territories. There are including biodiversity. JNCC people have the clearly challenges in trying to ensure that Overseas expertise to do that. Defra individuals would not have Territories’ governments, both Ministers and officials, the expertise to do that, so it is right that that expert have the capacity and the expertise to deal with quite body is able to provide those. We also fund a JNCC a lot of these important issues. person to help do that, so that is how it works. Q143 Chair: Just a hypothetical question: say Q138 Peter Aldous: Those two are specifically in somebody in one of the Overseas Territories wished two Overseas Territories? to consider, say, a world heritage site, their first port of Jeremy Eppel: Yes. call would be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Peter Aldous: Which ones? Mark Simmonds: The governor’s office and then the Richard Benyon: One is St Helena and the other—2 governor would probably contact the Foreign and Jeremy Eppel: Bermuda and St Helena. Commonwealth Office on something like that, or the Chair: I think Mr McKendry wanted to come in. governor would advise who should be contacted Ian McKendry: Yes, just to clarify on the dedicated inside Defra if Defra was the appropriate Department environment support, ours is one fulltime equivalent to contact. on environment, albeit the other staff, the number I quoted of around 30, is for the totality of our aid Q144 Chair: Would the governor be trained on all programme management. matters to do with environmental issues such as world heritage sites? Q139 Chair: Okay. Can I just go back to the point Mark Simmonds: Pass. I am not sure about the that Mr Eppel was making about if you had a high- specific on the world heritage site, but certainly ranking officer it would not provide the service that incoming governors do receive briefings— you wished to provide? Are you satisfied that if Chair: On environmental issues? anybody in an overseas territory wished to make Mark Simmonds: Not just from inside the Foreign contact with Defra for the purposes of getting advice and Commonwealth Office, but from appropriate or building capacity that there would be a point of NGOs that might be relevant to that individual 2 One staff member is in St Helena; the other is from Bermuda. territory. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 35
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry
Q145 Chair: I am just thinking in terms of fulfilling but also at the same time wanting to enable them to the Government’s environmental treaty develop their capacity to develop the policies that are responsibilities and commitments. relevant to them as individual Overseas Territories. To Richard Benyon: Could I give an example perhaps that end, last year we had something called the Jubilee on marine conservation? We have developed some programme, which was a UK-funded programme that quite good working on marine conservation both at enabled there to be exchange of senior officials in the home, which is work in progress, as you are aware, Government so they could come to the UK, see how and in certain Overseas Territories, including British capacity was built and assist them with their own Indian Overseas Territories. The skills that were developmental process both in terms of policy, but involved in that designation reside in large measure in also in terms of running Government Departments. places like the JNCC. We can refer them, as we have, to other Overseas Territories where they are Q149 Neil Carmichael: Because this discussion developing similar marine protection and that is a could get a bit complicated if we then started service that we can provide. imposing comprehensive absolute rules on the Mark Simmonds: Can I just add to that just for the Overseas Territories, and that is not what we want to record? do. Instead, it is really facilitating localism to some Chair: By all means. extent as well. Mark Simmonds: World heritage is DCMS rather Mark Simmonds: Yes. than Defra and we as the Foreign Office are Chair: I think we must move on. I am going to move facilitators, putting relevant Overseas Territories’ on now to Martin Caton, if I may. government ministers or officials in contact with the relevant people here in Government Departments. Q150 Martin Caton: Mr Simmonds, you mentioned earlier about improvements in transparency with Q146 Dr Offord: I don’t think the issue is which regard to procurement. Can we focus on transparency Department it is, it is what the mechanism is if a and scrutiny in a little bit wider sense? Of course, in country comes forward, how they are directed. the White Paper that has already been referred to, the Mark Simmonds: But I did not want the record to UK Government made clear that it is keen to see demonstrate that it was Defra responsible for it. enhanced transparency in the Overseas Territories. I Chair: I must bring in Mr Carmichael. would be interested to hear how you intend to set about pursuing that, and in particular, I would be Q147 Neil Carmichael: Yes, I just think it is grateful if you could say what work the UK important to clarify this point, because obviously it Government is doing or considering doing to makes sense to have one Department that is the lead encourage the Overseas Territories to implement basic Department. From what you have said, it does appear freedom of information legislation. to be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is Mark Simmonds: Yes, of course we are keen to see quite obviously the right approach, but in order to enhanced transparency. Obviously we believe it is in satisfy people’s concerns about the role of Defra, presumably there are perfectly good linkages between the essence of good government in this country and the FCO and Defra, and indeed DCMS, which we certainly we feel that anything that is applicable to us have just heard about. in this country we should be encouraging the Overseas Mark Simmonds: Absolutely right. The other aspect Territories to implement as well. As you will have that we are very keen to encourage is Overseas seen on the G8 agenda with the tax and transparency Territories talking to each other and helping each other agenda, those Overseas Territories that have financial and learning from the excellent things that are taking services sectors responded very positively as part of place in some territories but not yet in others. That is that transparency agenda. Yes, we will encourage something that has not always happened. them, but again we encourage them to develop their Richard Benyon: Chairman, in the three years I have important transparency agenda not just in terms— been in this job it has never been reported to me or I although it is very important—of procurement, have never had an overseas territory complain that making sure that procurement is done to they have not been able to get through to anyone in internationally-recognised standards to remove any my Department. If you have evidence to the contrary, possibility of inappropriate behaviour taking place, again I would like to hear about it. but also to make sure that people in those respective Chair: That is very helpful. territories get the best value for money that they can through proper procurement procedures. Yes, we Q148 Neil Carmichael: Obviously, to extend this would encourage them, but not impose from the point, it is not just questions of contact between outside the issues like freedom of information and Overseas Territories and one or two Departments, but some of the other UN conventions that go alongside it is a question of policy formulation as well. that. Presumably, there again the Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes the lead and you would Q151 Martin Caton: I can understand encouraging clearly want to formulate policies in conjunction with freedom of information. Do you have any examples the other Departments as the needs arise. of practical support that you have offered to any of Mark Simmonds: Yes, but there is a balance to strike the Overseas Territories to enable them to basically between not wanting to necessarily impose policy introduce freedom of information legislation or at from the outside where we do not have responsibility, least freedom of information practice? Ev 36 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry
Mark Simmonds: I think the straightforward answer route to the similar situation they have in France, you to that is no, but that does not mean that it is not would have a different arrangement. an issue that is important. Certainly, we should not underestimate the lack of capacity that exists in some Q154 Martin Caton: These are not foreign of these Overseas Territories’ government structures countries. These are part of the UK and they all have and certainly the essence of the support that we are a governor from this country who does, as far as we trying to provide is aligned with their priorities, understand, influence policy. helping them build capacity where it is relevant. Now, Chair: Would the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the point I am making is that while an overseas like to respond? territory may be desirous of implementing a type of Mark Simmonds: There is a distinction that needs to freedom of information structure, they may feel that be made to that last point, Mr Caton, you have made. there are other priorities with their limited government They are not part of the United Kingdom, they are capacity that should take precedence. part of the realm. There is a distinct difference and Dr Hayes: If I could just refer to the White Paper, that difference is set out in each individual chapter 4 talked about the legislative framework and constitutional arrangement that exists. the priorities as we saw it for the territories. In that, Chair: Mr McKendry, did you want to come in on you will see there is a very broad sweep of areas that? Okay. where we would like to see legislative development in the territories: many of the core human rights Q155 Martin Caton: One suggestion that has come legislation, the UN Conventions on Civil and Political up in this inquiry is: should there be an environmental Rights and so forth, so supporting the territory ombudsman appointed for the Overseas Territories governments, safeguarding children, restorative who would report back to the UK Parliament? Is that a justice. There is a broad work programme ahead of way that Parliament could help move things forward? us. Freedom of information very much I am not Mark Simmonds: I would say that the Overseas suggesting it is not important, but there is a very broad Territories are engaged with the UK Parliament both engagement we have through our own Attorney through the very active all-party parliamentary group General, Dominic Grieve. We have a meeting of law that exists and also through the Overseas Territories’ officers that tries to help the territories deal with their representatives who are here in London. That does not capacity constraints on implementing all of these mean there is not perhaps more that could be done, various bits of legislation. We would be very happy but I think that— to suggest to Dominic Grieve that he might mention freedom of information specifically at the next Q156 Chair: Sorry, can I just clarify which overseas meeting as something that has been raised by this representatives in London you are referring to? Committee, but I just wanted to flag there is a lot of Mark Simmonds: The overseas representatives of the work to do across a lot of very important areas. Overseas Territories. There are representatives here in London of the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and so Q152 Martin Caton: I appreciate that, Mr Hayes, on, who are based here in London. and clearly your remit is far wider than this Committee’s, but ours is a focus on the environment Q157 Martin Caton: Yes, we have taken evidence and sustainability. It seems to have come across in our from them, thank you. Have you considered extending inquiry freedom of information is one of the things the UK’s ratification of the Aarhus Convention to that if it was improved, it could move things forward. encompass the Overseas Territories? I think this question is for you, Mr Benyon, and Mark Simmonds: They need to ask to have it perhaps Mr Eppel. Do you think that political scrutiny extended to them. of environmental policy-making by governments in Jeremy Eppel: The Aarhus Convention on access to the Overseas Territories is fit for purpose? environmental information and justice? Yes. It is a Richard Benyon: These are in many cases elected UNECE treaty, the Economic Commission for governments where they have responsibility for Europe, so I think—I may be corrected by my legal environmental policy. It is not for me to try to second- adviser—it is only available to territories or guess that level of political accountability. In other geographical spaces that are within the ECE region. I areas, in the uninhabited islands and islands where am not sure the Overseas Territories would qualify in there are very few people, where there is more that situation. I may be wrong. capacity required from the UK Government, then that is one of the reasons I am sitting here being held Q158 Martin Caton: Can I ask you to check that? accountable to Parliament. Jeremy Eppel: We can certainly check. Martin Caton: We have had different information Q153 Martin Caton: I am thinking of the populated and perhaps you could write to the Committee to Overseas Territories and of political accountability to clarify. the populations of those Overseas Territories. Is there Jeremy Eppel: We could certainly do that, yes. no way we can help enhance that? Richard Benyon: These are elected legislatures and if Q159 Martin Caton: Mr Simmonds, I do see the we believe in that kind of governance, then they sensitivities of dealing with the governments of the should be the primary place where political UK Overseas Territories so I am not diminishing the accountability lies. As Mr Simmonds said, if we were size of the problem. It just seems sometimes perhaps to go down what I think would be a very unpopular the UK Government—and I do not think it would be Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 37
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry taken wrongly by the governments of the UK to do environmental impact assessments for Overseas Territories—could sometimes be a bit more development, but as this was a very sensitive area it proactive, like discuss with them what Aarhus means was deemed appropriate to carry out a landscape and and the value of it. If, as Mr Eppel says, it is not open ecological mitigation programme. The development to them, something similar where that right of that has been taking place for 18 months now. Has that sort of information is available. programme been put in place? Richard Benyon: We will certainly write to the Ian McKendry: First of all, could I pick up your point Committee on this and maybe it is something that we about environmental impact assessment more could discuss at the next JMC, but could I just say generally? I think you said there wasn’t one done. that talk of ombudsmen and greater accountability, I am not in any way complacent and nothing is ever Q162 Peter Aldous: As I understand it, in St Helena, perfect in this world, but as I go round in my mind or in their planning legislation, there is not a need to with officials the Overseas Territories, there is carry out an environmental impact assessment as there fantastic success happening in environmental is in Britain, but as this is a very sensitive area, it was management. There are extraordinary projects being done in South Georgia, in St Helena, on Gough Island, accepted that mitigation measures had to be put in on Henderson Island, right around the world. I would place. I am just really looking to see how those hate your Committee to be concerned that there is an measures are working or are not working. environmental vacuum happening in these territories, Ian McKendry: First of all, if I can pick up the point because totally the opposite is my estimation. about environmental impact assessment, you are Chair: I am sure we will come to some independent referring to the airport in particular, aren’t you? judgment on that. Peter Aldous: Yes. Ian McKendry: The point I would make there is that Q160 Martin Caton: I am sure there are lots of good there was indeed an environmental impact assessment examples, but one of you commended the RSPB carried out in the period 2005–07 and that has then report, which is really an eye-opener. If what they are been updated more recently in 2011 to reflect possible saying about the quality of environmental protection design changes because there were some design in many, many of the Overseas Territories is right, changes to the airport. So there was indeed an then we have something to worry about, or at least the environmental impact assessment done. That world has something to worry about, considering 90% produced a six-volume environmental statement and of UK biodiversity is in the Overseas Territories. one of those six volumes was an environmental Richard Benyon: I have also had very warm words management plan. I think overall there has been a by the RSPB on our support of eradication of pest very thorough and fully responsible approach to the projects on a number of different Overseas Territories environment and the impact assessments. and the funding that we have made available in Richard Benyon: Can I just come in? It may well be extremely difficult circumstances. I am sure, as I said, worth, if you are concerned about this particular nothing is ever perfect. I am certainly not complacent, project, to get a detailed analysis from the St Helena but I am also proud of what we are achieving in representative in London, because she would give you partnership with NGOs, but most of all in partnership great detail of the mitigation that has happened around with Overseas Territories governments. the airport project. An enormous amount of mitigation Chair: I think it is fair for me to point out that any has taken place, particularly around the St Helena Committee inquiry would probably wish to wirebird, which is a very rare endemic species. concentrate on where the gaps are, by its very nature. Richard Benyon: Obviously. Yes, I completely Q163 Peter Aldous: I will let Dr Offord come in in understand. a minute, but it is our understanding that 18 months Chair: Just in response to your response to Mr Caton, after that construction programme started, which is a I think it might just be helpful to perhaps have a note £250 million construction programme, that mitigation from either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or Defra or possibly even DFID in respect of the Aarhus plan has only just been implemented and it should Convention because I am aware that some of that have been implemented right from the start. applies to France, but it may be that they have Richard Benyon: DFID may have more information different constitutional arrangements with their on this. equivalent of Overseas Territories. It would just be Ian McKendry: Yes. I think you are referring in very helpful to have some clarification on the Aarhus particular to what is called the landscape and ecology Convention, if we could. mitigation plan. I think that is the one. I think we are going to have to move on and this time Peter Aldous: Yes, that is correct. I will move on to Peter Aldous. Ian McKendry: It is true that that has been subject to a number of delays. I can explain the main reasons for Q161 Peter Aldous: One of the things that Mr those and these are all to do with the procurement Simmonds did mention was the importance of doing processes and making sure that we achieve value for environmental impact assessments for development. A money, both the St Helena Government and the UK particular development I wanted to look at was the Government. In summary, there have been delays due development of the airport on St Helena on first of all to the requirements of the lengthy EU Prosperous Bay Plain. I think this, Mr McKendry, is procurement processes, which we are obliged to a DFID responsibility. In St Helena, you do not have follow for projects of this size. It is a very large— Ev 38 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
9 July 2013 Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry
Q164 Chair: So EU procurement processes apply is a project management unit that has an there? environmental responsibility as well and an individual Ian McKendry: Yes, we are bound by EU working on these issues. As I say, there are a number procurement processes. There was a single tender that of ways in which the environment is very much came out of this and there were then difficulties and covered. I am very confident that any issues that arise, protracted negotiations with the single preferred we have ways and means of dealing with them. bidder to provide the comprehensive services that we wanted. When the negotiations did not work out in a Q168 Dr Offord: I certainly share Mr McKendry’s satisfactory conclusion, we then had to subsequently view of his confidence about this project on St Helena. design and gain approval for an alternative The reason I feel very confident is because, one, it is management approach. We are now at the point of being built by the British Government through DFID, recruiting a landscape and ecology mitigation plan and secondly, because of the strong environmental and manager, who I believe is to start by the end of development control on the island of St Helena. August, we hope. At that point, we will then be able Where I am concerned, and we come back to the point to put in place the LEMP, as it is referred to. But you about good governance, is that when you look at some are right, regrettably, due to an unfortunate series of of the other Overseas Territories, including St George events—and we were bound by these processes to and the South Sandwich Islands, it has absence of follow them—it has taken longer than we would development control. Tristan da Cunha has absence of have hoped. development control; Turks and Caicos is very weak; Anguilla is absent; Ascension is absent; Bermuda is Q165 Peter Aldous: I think construction has been moderate. The British Antarctic Territories is very going on for 18 months. Do you feel that there has strong. That is quite a surprise. Again, the British been a negative impact on diversity and the ecology as Indian Ocean is absent, but we can understand why a result of not having this in place in those 18 months? that is. The British Virgin Islands has moderate Ian McKendry: The particular plan we are discussing development control; the Cayman Islands it is weak; at the moment is the landscape and ecology mitigation Cyprus it is weak, for obvious reasons; the Falklands plan, and that is mainly about the visual impacts of is weak; Gibraltar is strong; Montserrat is moderate the airport and also about increasing biodiversity, and the Pitcairn Islands is also weak. I go back to my ecological value and habitat interest. In answer to your point about good governance and I have seen question, I think we still have the environmental examples of a lack of development control where impact assessment and the environmental developers have been able to buy up vast tracts of management plan, so I would say it is not all about land to sell them to UK taxpayers in the full this. It is unfortunate that those delays took place, but knowledge that they will never be able to realise that we do have the environmental impact assessment. asset and they are just using it as a land bank. That is where my concern comes in and I refer that back to Q166 Peter Aldous: Leading on from this episode, the FCO. does it give you confidence that the St Helena Mark Simmonds: I don’t share necessarily that Government has the capacity to run this project in analysis as being fair. I am not quite sure what you a way that implements the necessary environmental are quoting there. The final thing to say is that is one mitigation measures? of the reasons why environmental mainstreaming is so Ian McKendry: Very much so. I think we have great important, which is the engaging with senior confidence. politicians and civil servants about the value of Peter Aldous: You are completely confident? ecosystems, supporting economies, the need to take Ian McKendry: Yes. If the Committee would like, I account of these value and economic and physical can run through the various management levels and planning— layers and responsibilities or I could write to the Chair: On that point, I think I need to bring our Committee, whichever you prefer. proceedings to a close because of a vote in the Commons, but just before I do, we did have a couple Q167 Peter Aldous: DFID have their own measures of further questions that we did wish to raise. We may in place to oversee the project to ensure that works perhaps do that by correspondence, if that is in order. out satisfactorily? I am conscious it has been a lively session, an Ian McKendry: Absolutely. That is right. There is a interesting session, all in the interests of joined-up project board that has the UK Government and St government. Thank you all very much indeed and Helena Government and other representation on it. particularly our Foreign and Commonwealth Office They have oversight, but then within St Helena there Minister for a long session. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 39
Wednesday 11 September 2013
Members present: Joan Walley (Chair)
Peter Aldous Caroline Nokes Neil Carmichael Dr Matthew Offord Mark Lazarowicz Dr Alan Whitehead Caroline Lucas Simon Wright ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Darryl Pickthall, Director, Crown Acquisitions Ltd, Jason Pickthall, Chief Executive Officer, Crown Acquisitions Ltd, and Jamie Davies, Accounts Director, Crown Acquisitions Ltd, gave evidence.
Q169 Chair: Mr Pickthall, Mr Pickthall and Mr business is essentially land banking or developing real Davies, I would like to thank you very much indeed, estate or is it both? all three of you, for coming along and helping us Jason Pickthall: It was always the intention to understand a little bit more about overseas territories develop the real estate. First of all, a developer never and the issues that we are trying to deal with in respect wants to sell his core assets because it is not where of biodiversity. We greatly appreciate your coming they make their profits. We make our profits out of along to our Committee this morning and for giving building and developing houses but, because of what evidence to our inquiry on sustainable development in happened in the market at the time, that was the route the overseas territories. We have a very limited that we took. However, all of our clients are of the amount of time but, in the short time that we have, opinion that at some point they want to build. We have we would be grateful if you could explain to us how hundreds of clients and certainly 50 plus are already your business works and what interests you have in in negotiations with us to start building. We presume the UK Overseas Territories, just as a starter, and that the majority of them will build in the end because perhaps a little bit of background about how that all that is how they are going to get their profit out of works and operates. I do not know who is going to be their investment. your spokesman. Darryl Pickthall: Jason. Q171 Chair: You mentioned that the phasing you Chair: Mr Jason Pickthall. were at meant you were ready to build but, in terms of who you are selling the property to, is it largely an Jason Pickthall: Almost 10 years ago we set out to overseas clientele or is it something that people on do some smaller developments in the Cayman Islands. Cayman are interested in purchasing? Have local We have some in other territories, over in the people bought into the development? Caribbean as well, but we saw the Cayman Islands as Jason Pickthall: We have a worldwide audience. We a great opportunity and very shortly into our planning have been marketing the Cayman Islands now for process came this huge collapse in the market. So we nearly 10 years. We do shows throughout the world. had to think of a different way of doing the business We have never asked for any assistance from any that we were planning on doing, which was building Government there. We have never had any help, but houses and apartments; putting that on hold, which we we have been marketing those sites to a worldwide have done until around now—we are just about to audience. We have clients from Cayman, America, start building any day now—and then developing the Dubai, England, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Spain, land and selling the land plots off with a view to Italy, Pakistan. We have a worldwide audience. people building at a later stage. That came at a time when everything else was Q172 Chair: In terms of where Crown Acquisitions collapsing; stocks and shares and currencies and banks is headquartered, could you clarify that for us, please? and so on. So it was very desirable for clients to hold Jason Pickthall: Our head office is in Knutsford now. their monies in these land lots wherever in the world. We bought a building there recently. We have sites all over the world: Australia, Denmark, Chair: Knutsford, Cheshire? Spain, England, Jamaica and America. That has been Jason Pickthall: Yes. very successful for us and we put the build on hold because there weren’t the clients to buy. That is Q173 Chair: Just for our understanding of it, do you changing a little bit now and we are just about to start have any connection with Crown Acquisitions Inc of building our first couple of show homes and we are the United States? just about to start building 14 townhouses on Grand Jason Pickthall: Yes, that is one of our companies. Cayman. Chair: What is the relationship between the two Chair: Sorry, building? companies? Jason Pickthall: Show homes. Jason Pickthall: We obviously have to abide by the various laws of the various countries. To hold land in Q170 Chair: It was interesting what you said about America you have to have an American company. We the economic climate at the time. Just for clarification have some fairly large sites over there that we are it would be helpful to know whether or not your developing at the same time as everything else that Ev 40 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies we are doing. It is the same with Australia. We have Caroline Nokes: So the photographs that I have seen a company in Australia that holds land there. on your website of actual properties are CGI, taken Mark Lazarowicz: Is the American company a from somewhere else, and do not exist? wholly owned subsidiary of your own company? Jason Pickthall: The beach villas? Jason Pickthall: Yes. Caroline Nokes: Yes. Jason Pickthall: As I have just said, we launched the Q174 Chair: In terms of the use of the word beach villas in March and we only just started selling “Crown” in the title—this is just a little bit of them in March. Yes, they are CGIs. That is what most interest—are you a bit concerned that people might be developers use to sell their product. misled into thinking it has something to do with UK Crown land? Do you see any advantages or Q179 Caroline Nokes: Okay. I just wanted to pick disadvantages in the use of the word “Crown” in the up on a particular statement on your website. It says, title? “We believe that it is our duty to operate in a manner Jason Pickthall: Not at all, no. We have never had that maintains a balance between the economy and the any assumptions from any clients that, in any way, ecosystem.” Have you done any environmental impact shape or form, think that we are aligned with the assessment of your schemes on Little Cayman? Crown. When people decide to buy a unit from us, Jason Pickthall: Yes. We have instructed a company whatever that unit might be—whether it is a piece of called DDL Architects, which are LEED certified, and land or an apartment or a house—it is a lengthy we decided to do this three or four years ago now. All decision that they take. It is not a decision that they of our new sites are fully LEED certified and make in minutes. Most people do all their homework. controlled by DDL Architects which make sure they point us in the right direction for everything that Q175 Dr Offord: Can I ask you if you have any links needs— with Oasis Land? Chair: Did you say “fully certified” Jason Pickthall: Not at all, no. Jason Pickthall: Yes. Dr Offord: None at all? Chair: Could you tell us what that means? Jason Pickthall: No. Jason Pickthall: There are only certain architects that Dr Offord: Is it correct that the CEO used to work are LEED certified, that can justify what they are for you? doing and explain how you are supposed to develop a Jason Pickthall: Yes. site for it to be eco-friendly. All of our new sites are Dr Offord: Okay, thank you. eco-friendly now.
Q176 Caroline Nokes: I wanted to ask some Q180 Caroline Nokes: That is the architects, but you questions specifically about Little Cayman. I think have not done a separate environmental impact you have referred to projects on Grand Cayman, but assessment? can I just ask how many residential plots with extant Jason Pickthall: We had an assessment done by an planning permission you have on Little Cayman? external third party a couple of years ago. Jason Pickthall: Approximately 200. Chair: Would it be possible for us to have a look at that? Q177 Caroline Nokes: Have you built any Jason Pickthall: Yes. properties there? Chair: Thank you. Jason Pickthall: We are just about to start digging in the ground as we speak. We just had the final planning permissions a few weeks ago which have given us the Q181 Caroline Nokes: I just wanted to ask a go-ahead to start. Originally you get outline approval question to follow on about the infrastructure on Little to go and do the sites and then you have to take it Cayman. Unlike some of my colleagues, I have not through further planning applications to get to the been there but I just wondered what assessment there point of building. You have to build to their standards had been of what infrastructure there were on the and so on, which we have only just had approved island that would develop the scale of development recently. that you are proposing. Caroline Nokes: Presumably you are building a show Jason Pickthall: I don’t quite understand that home there in that case? question. Jason Pickthall: We are building a few, yes. Caroline Nokes: You are planning—what did you say—200 plots on Little Cayman that you are about Q178 Caroline Nokes: Your website—and I have to build. What assessment has there been of the had a quick look at it—describes your beach villa capacity of the road network, the healthcare system development on Little Cayman as “a collection of and so on to be able to support that level of stylish, contemporary, oceanfront properties”, but development and influx of residents? there are no buildings, are there? Jason Pickthall: It supports thousands of people Jason Pickthall: No, obviously we are describing coming a week to stay in the five or six hotels that are what we are about to build. there and there are months of the year when they are Caroline Nokes: How long have you been describing completely empty. If it can sustain those couple of what you have been about to build on your website? thousand people, I am sure it can sustain— Jason Pickthall: The beach villas we launched in Caroline Nokes: So the answer is, “None”? March this year. Jason Pickthall:—a couple of hundred homes. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 41
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies
Caroline Nokes: There has been no assessment of Jason Pickthall: Yes. what additional strain— Jason Pickthall: No. Q186 Chair: Did you wish to come in, Mr Davies? Caroline Nokes: Okay, thank you. Earlier when Caroline Nokes was asking a question I thought you did, but if you don’t that is fine. Q182 Peter Aldous: Mr Pickthall, you have Jamie Davies: There are a couple of points. I think explained how you bought these sites with the Peter just picked up on your point about a client intention of developing them, the market collapsed building whatever they so choose on a site. That is and, therefore, to get money in, you have sold plots. not possible with Cayman Planning. The plots that we In selling those plots, do you have master plan of what sell come with outline planning and that is a specific the developments will look like? type of property. It does not exceed 25% of the site. Jason Pickthall: Yes. It can’t exceed over two storeys and it has to be built Peter Aldous: That is helpful. You do not think you within a style that is graced by the Cayman are going to get a piecemeal scheme arising with Government or Cayman Planning. For them to go and hotchpotch, different properties on different sites and build a four-storey apartment block is not feasible. not looking— They have to adhere to those outline plans. If they Jason Pickthall: No. choose to resubmit plans and they put it forward to Peter Aldous: You are happy with that? Planning and it gets approved then that is down to the Jason Pickthall: We have a brochure here if you want client and the Planning Office, but we have very tight to have a look at the master plans. barriers as to what is allowed to be built on those sites. It is not a big-storey block of apartments. That is not Q183 Peter Aldous: In selling the plots, have you what we are looking to do. imposed any covenants as to how the plots might be Chair: Right. Okay, thank you. developed? Jason Pickthall: Yes. They do not have to use us as Q187 Dr Whitehead: Has the Cayman Islands the developer, but they have to get our permission to Government expressed any interest or view on your build. So we have a say in what they are going to developments and, if so, what is the word from the be build. Government? Jason Pickthall: Obviously there is a new Q184 Peter Aldous: If a site was overdeveloped or Government just come in recently, I think in May. you thought it would have a negative impact on the With the old Government we did not have pretty much environment, you have the ability under the legal any correspondence whatsoever. The new agreement or the contract for sale to say, “Hang on Government has been a little bit more proactive. They a minute, you should not be developing the site in have contacted us. We have been and met them. They this way”? are very impressed with what we are doing. They Jason Pickthall: We have the authority to advise the obviously want to see us build because that creates client of not doing a particular thing, yes. They have jobs, although we have already created hundreds of to get landlord’s approval. If we wanted to stick our jobs in the infrastructure that we have already put in. heads in the ground then we could say— We have our next meeting at the end of October with Peter Aldous: If you had concerns— the Deputy Prime Minister, Moses Kirkconnell. Jason Pickthall: They could appeal that decision and say, “Well, it is unreasonably withheld”. They have to build according to the Cayman Island laws and there Q188 Caroline Nokes: This is probably completed are certain things they have to do and can’t do. unrelated to what Alan has just asked, for which I apologise. Can I just go back to the question about Q185 Peter Aldous: Obviously you have sold these LEED certified? There are different levels, as I plots. The provision of services to plots—I am talking understand it, of certification. The basic level where about the laying out of state roads, extending sewers, you have to achieve 40 to 49 points of the categories connecting electricity—how is that provided for in the that they assess you on, then silver, gold and then contracts of sale? platinum. Which ones are your buildings working Jason Pickthall: All of the developments that we towards? started are all finished now. The roads are— Jason Pickthall: We are going to obviously work Peter Aldous: On these developments, the road towards platinum because that is the best you can get. infrastructure— Whether we get that at the end of it, who knows? It Jason Pickthall: Is all there, yes. is all on a cost basis whether it is sustainable for us Peter Aldous:—is in place and the sewers and the to put those monies in to develop the site, but we will electricity are extended? certainly be trying for the top category. Jason Pickthall: Electricity is extended. Sewage is Caroline Nokes: But at the end of the day it is going treated at this present moment by septic tank. to be an economic decision, not an environmental Although, with all of the new developments that we one? are doing, we are doing a central sewerage system, Jason Pickthall: Of course. which is the first on the island, which is one of the things that you have to do to be LEED certified. Q189 Dr Whitehead: The previous Government, Peter Aldous: In British terms, these are serviced that is the McKeeva Bush Administration, you had no sites you have sold? contact with them. Is that because they were Ev 42 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies disinterested in what you were doing or did not want Jason Pickthall: I think the interest that the Cayman to talk to you or— Government recently took in us is—they know how Jason Pickthall: It was a decision that we made early many sites we have. They know how much income on. We were always advised not to create any we bring to the islands. They know how much stamp allegiances with any Governments for various reasons. duty our clients pay. They know how much stamp First, they come and go and, second, it can be frowned duty we pay. They know how many jobs we are upon or seen as if you are doing something untoward creating by employing road builders and electrical with them. So we pretty much stayed clear of the people and local architects and local lawyers. They Government Departments and ran everything through are not stupid. They know what we have created and our own legal department and the planners, as any they know that we are about to build some fairly large developer should do. projects. We are probably the second-biggest developer on the island after Dart. Q190 Dr Whitehead: But you are now in some reasonably close dialogues with the new Government, Q193 Dr Whitehead: From your point of view as a which seem to suggest that you changed your view responsible developer, what is your view on the on that. objective status of the planning regime in the Jason Pickthall: Well, we are at a different phase Caymans and Sister Islands in terms of what you find now. Seven or eight years ago obviously we needed elsewhere in the world or indeed in this country? Is it to get planning for these particular sites and we have fit for purpose in terms of the sort of things you would 35 or 40 sites in the Cayman Islands alone. We are expect a planning regime to encompass? now at the phase of building and when you start to Jason Pickthall: My personal view is that they are build in the Cayman Islands it is very expensive and beautiful islands and both Cayman Brac and Little you can ask for certain concessions and we will be Cayman need more development. They need to be asking for certain concessions, but we didn’t need the more independent and they can’t be independent while Government at that particular time when we were there are no revenues coming from anywhere. It is applying for planning permission. We didn’t need any almost like the 100 people who live there have the favours, if you like. Now we want to start building beauty of their own private island subsidised by the and, just like the Dart Corporation ask for various UK Government. As that changes, more revenue will concessions on work permits and building material come in and the UK Government will not have to duties and so on, we are going to be asking for the subsidise them anymore. That goes for Little Cayman same. and Brac and, to a certain extent, Grand Cayman. The Dr Whitehead: Would you say that— financial services industry is not what it was and one Jason Pickthall: To ask for that you have to ask the of the things that attracted us to the Cayman Islands Government. They are the people who are going to eight or nine years ago was that it had not had any approve it or disapprove it. other development that most of these other islands had had, like Barbados or Jamaica or Antigua or British Q191 Dr Whitehead: Yes. Asking for a number of Virgin Islands and so on. concessions from the present Government or from a There was very little development going on because Government in the Cayman Islands also suggests that they depended on the financial services market. That the nature of the rules and regulations and planning has pretty much collapsed and it is not what it was, regime there is somewhat flexible, I guess. Would that so they have to look for other revenues. One source is be fair to say? developing and attracting tourists, wealthy people. We Jason Pickthall: I don’t think the rules in planning have in excess of 25 or 30 clients who took are flexible. As far as I am concerned—and I deal with themselves out of other tax-free jurisdictions, Dubai all of the planning applications—they have a pretty for example, and moved there. Some of them are rigorous system of what you can and can’t do and they English, some of them are American, some of them have a governing body that vote on it, whether you are German, but that all brings extra revenue to that are going to get it or you are not, but there are certain Government and it is all from the hard work that our things that you have to do to get that planning company has put in to market the Cayman Islands permission. There is certain land that is zoned for for the last 10 years, because no one else has been hotels or zoned for residential. Cayman Brac and doing it. Little Cayman have no zoning, so it is all on the say of the board on the day whether you get planning or Q194 Dr Whitehead: In that context, you could be not. In terms of the concessions that we are asking described as sort of self-creating a development plan for, that is a completely separate scenario to the in terms of what you have been doing. Would you planning. It is the Government that has the discretion have preferred or would you prefer for the future to to give or not to give those concessions. It is not the perhaps work with something that is more familiar as Planning Board that can give those concessions. a wider development plan and encompassing power, transport, waste management and that sort of thing, or Q192 Dr Whitehead: In terms of developments on do you think that your self-development efforts are the Caymans, how significant would you say your something you draw towards in the future? company is compared with other companies that are Jason Pickthall: No, I think most developers know doing similar sorts of things? For example, are you a and understand that there are always going to be small tree on the horizon as far as the Cayman issues with planners or Governments on how you Government is concerned or something rather larger? build stuff and what you are building. Pretty much the Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 43
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies whole world is against developers whatever they do, headquartered in the UK and Crown Acquisitions Inc good or bad. We understood a long time ago that, once in the USA. You said that was a subsidiary of your you start to get in the limelight of having a huge company. Is that the right way round? Do you own amount of stock on your books, we have to do things them or do they own you? that keep everybody happy. Three or four years ago Jason Pickthall: No, the PLC company owns the two we decided that all of our new developments were American companies. going to be LEED certified and that is what we have Mark Lazarowicz: Right, the UK based company done. The next four sites that we are about to launch owns the American company? any day now, which you will not have seen because Jason Pickthall: Yes. they are not on our website, are all that. Chair: Where are they? Q199 Dr Offord: I just have a couple of points I Jason Pickthall: We have a brochure here if you want to pick up from that. That is a useful introduction would like to see it. as well. You are saying they are American companies. Jamie Davies: We have three sites: one on Grand Is that correct? I understood they were registered in Cayman, one on Little Cayman and one on Cayman the Grand Cayman. Brac. So three master plan sites, which are all eco- Jason Pickthall: No, I think you are confused. This sites, which will have central sewerage systems in colleague of yours is talking about some American place. companies that we have that own American sites and Jason Pickthall: This is a first for the Cayman Islands you are talking about some Cayman companies that because no other developer has ever done that and no we have that own Cayman Islands sites. developer is doing that. There are no other developers that are doing small sites with a central sewerage Q200 Dr Offord: Crown World? system. Jason Pickthall: Correct. Well, Crown Acquisitions Worldwide Ltd. Q195 Peter Aldous: When you bought these various Dr Offord: Yes. You own those? parcels of land were there any leasehold interests in Jason Pickthall: Crown Acquisitions Worldwide Ltd. existence on them? Dr Offord: Yes. Are they located in Grand Cayman? Jason Pickthall: No. Jason Pickthall: Yes. Peter Aldous: You bought fully with vacant Dr Offord: They are? They are registered in Grand possession? Cayman? Jason Pickthall: Yes. Jason Pickthall: Yes. Dr Offord: So they are a Grand Cayman company? Q196 Mark Lazarowicz: I am not fully clear, so if I Jason Pickthall: That is right. may just pursue in a bit more detail your company’s approach to environmental sustainability around the developments that you have been involved in or that Q201 Dr Offord: Leading on from that, as you are you are planning, how do you make an assessment? I headquartered in Grand Cayman you will also have a don’t mean for planning purposes but for your own trading business licence. Is that correct? purposes, but how do you ensure that there are no Jason Pickthall: Yes. environment-damaging results from your activity? Jason Pickthall: There are certain stipulations that Q202 Dr Offord: The Department of Commerce and have been put upon us not to use major heavy Investment would have asked you for a local equipment on these new sites. Things like that have companies control licence as well. As you are not already been put in place by the Cayman Islands owned by 60% of Cayman Islanders, how did you get Government and then it is for us to instruct our that licence? architects. As your colleague said before, we want to Jason Pickthall: We left it to our lawyers to get it strive towards that platinum status. If we can do that, for us. we will, but obviously it has to be profitable to us Dr Offord: But your company is not owned by 60% as well. of Cayman Islanders. Jason Pickthall: We offered it to Cayman Islanders Q197 Mark Lazarowicz: Basically your and that is what I believe is the stipulation you have environmental approach is you do what the Cayman to follow, which we did. We advertised in the Government requires you to do, but you don’t have a newspaper on three occasions. If any Cayman Islander particular company approach beyond that? wanted to invest in the company—at the time it was Jason Pickthall: No, we do a little bit more than that. a very stressful time for most people, so we didn’t get The Cayman Islands Government didn’t request that anybody coming forward and, therefore, we didn’t we put in a central sewerage system. We did it out of need that investment. the kindness to the environment and it makes a huge Dr Offord: The Department of Commerce who give difference to have a central sewerage system where this licence does not explain how they give it. You you can re-use your waste as opposed to having 200 say they just put an advert in the paper? septic tanks on site that all have to be emptied once Jason Pickthall: No, they didn’t put an advert in the every couple of months. paper. We had to put an advert in the paper. Dr Offord: My understanding is the Trade and Q198 Mark Lazarowicz: Just to clarify, I now want Business Licensing Board sits and considers an to ask about the relationship between the company application. They do not put it in the paper. Ev 44 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies
Jason Pickthall: I didn’t say that they put it in the Dr Offord: No, thank you, Mr Pickthall. I do want to paper. I said one of the stipulations to get a Cayman hear what Darryl has to say because I am aware he Islands company is you have to offer a Cayman hasn’t had an opportunity to speak. Islander the option to invest in your company. That Darryl Pickthall: I agree with what Jason is saying was offered. The lawyers put the advert in the papers and I will let him carry on speaking. themselves on three separate occasions. They had a Dr Offord: No. I am asking you. couple of inquiries. It didn’t lead to anything. Once Jason Pickthall: But I just have one more point. you have been through that process then you do not Dr Offord: No, excuse me, Mr Pickthall. need a local Caymanian to invest in your company. Jason Pickthall: No, I just have one more point because I want to answer your question because Q203 Dr Offord: But you still need a licence. Darryl has not answered it in the manner that it should Jason Pickthall: You still need a licence, but now you be answered in. have your Caymanian company. Just as long as you Dr Offord: Well, with respect, Mr Pickthall— are adhering to the rules of the Cayman Islands you Jason Pickthall: Hang on a minute. get your licence and we have to renew our licence Dr Offord: No. Mr Pickthall, with respect, that is because I would like to hear him answer the question, yearly. not you. As you said, he has not answered it. So I would like to hear him answer it. Q204 Dr Offord: I am happy to leave it there Jason Pickthall: All right. Well, I am just going because we can come back to that. I am acutely aware further on to what he is saying. One of the reasons that Darryl Pickthall has not said anything and as why no one has built on that particular site yet is it director of the company I wanted to ask, because I am takes years to do the infrastructure. We have been a bit confused about how many properties you own, doing that infrastructure and it is not finished yet. how many acres do you own across all three islands? Dr Offord: Okay, thank you. Darryl Pickthall: I would say around 300 to 400 Jason Pickthall: But it is nearly finished. acres. Dr Offord: Thank you. I will go back to Mr Pickthall. Dr Offord: 300 to 400? Jason Pickthall: Which one? Darryl Pickthall: Yes. Chair: Darryl. Darryl Pickthall: Okay. Q205 Dr Offord: One of those, I understand, is at Rum Point Drive on the north shore. I understand you Q206 Dr Offord: You also said that you would be said to the cayCompass two years ago that you had building 14 condominiums and a golf course sold 61 plots to people to build houses and they would yourselves that would encourage other investors. Why be built. How many have been built now? has your company not done that? Darryl Pickthall: At the moment, none. Darryl Pickthall: Again, we are waiting to get Dr Offord: Why is that? everything finalised and propose it to our clients. Darryl Pickthall: Why haven’t they been built? Well, Dr Offord: What are you waiting on, because over Jason explained before that most of our clients who two years ago you said you would be starting bought the land are paying on a payment plan over a construction in the next three months? period of time and it is not the right time now to go Darryl Pickthall: Yes. Well, it has been delayed and built property. because obviously we are still finalising the plans. Dr Offord: I think I get you. They are not in a Dr Offord: But your plans were ready then. position to build yet? Darryl Pickthall: No, they were not ready then. They were in the process then and they are still in the Darryl Pickthall: Some are in a position to build now, process, but we are nearly there now to go and offer but some believe it is not the right time to go and these to our clients. build now and others are still waiting for us to go Dr Offord: I am not sure that is what you said to the back to our clients with a decision on the best way to cayCompass. You said that they were ready then. go about building. Jason Pickthall: Well, look— Jason Pickthall: There is no point in building houses Dr Offord: No, Mr Pickthall. when you can buy houses out there in the market Darryl Pickthall: I did not say they were ready then. cheaper than what you can build them for and that has I said that they were in the process of getting work been the situation for the last three, four, five years. It done and we are still at the finalising stages now of hasn’t been in London, but London is a special one- having the architects— off market. Jason Pickthall: Let me say one thing. Darryl deals Dr Offord: It is. I agree with that. with a particular part of our business and I deal with Jason Pickthall: But most of the rest of the world, the other part. you can go and buy houses now cheaper than you can build them for. Q207 Dr Offord: Which part does he deal with? Dr Offord: Right, okay. Do you— Jason Pickthall: He deals with our agents. He deals Jason Pickthall: Hang on a minute. Our clients are with our accounts. He deals with our website, our lead not going to start building until they believe that the generation, internal— time is right. That time is changing. Darryl Pickthall: I basically do the day-to-day Dr Offord: Right. running of the business. Jason Pickthall: But hang one minute. Dr Offord: Who is the director then? Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 45
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies
Jason Pickthall: Darryl is. put in that planning permission. We do not have any Dr Offord: You are the CEO. contact. Jason Pickthall: Of the Cayman company. Dr Offord: Right. The director usually tells the CEO Q211 Dr Offord: Let me move on to the Sister what to do. It seems to me the other way round. Islands, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman for example. Jason Pickthall: That is not necessarily right, no. Have you had any refusals on those islands? Jason Pickthall: Yes. Q208 Dr Offord: Let us move on. I will address it Dr Offord: Whereabouts were they? to you particularly, Jason. How do you see planning Jason Pickthall: We had a refusal on our biggest site different in the Cayman Islands compared with the there originally. We have had— UK, because you must do some development here in Dr Offord: Where is your biggest site? this country? Jason Pickthall: It is a site called Dolphin Estate, Jason Pickthall: How do we see it? Not much which is 175 lots. Originally that wasn’t approved. different. The planners are very similar throughout the Dr Offord: Hang on. world. They are very awkward. They are very anti- Jason Pickthall: As I have said— development and they are not easy to deal with, and the Cayman Islands planners are no different. They Q212 Dr Offord: No, I just need you to back up on are not easy to deal with either. One of the things I something. You said earlier on in your evidence that was just going to go on from on these 14 condos that you have about 200 sites on the Sister Islands and you you mentioned, is that we got planning permission for have just said Dolphin is 175 sites. that over three years ago. Well, not three years ago— Jamie Davies: 175 plots. two and a half years ago when Darryl made the Jason Pickthall: Plots. comment in the cayCompass. The Caribbean is the Jamie Davies: One site. Caribbean. It is a little bit like Spain. Everything can Jason Pickthall: Subdivided into 175. happen tomorrow and it takes time to get to the point Dr Offord: Okay. So you have 200 plots which are of building from getting planning permission. Just subdivided? because you get planning permission does not mean you can go and start building tomorrow. You have to Jason Pickthall: No. We have between 36 and 38 get all sorts of other structural surveys done and sites across the three islands. Those sites may consist structural plans and engineering and electrical plans. of one plot, two plots, up to 175 subdivided plots. All that takes time because you are on a small island. Dr Offord: Right. How many subdivided plots do you You are not in London where you can go and choose have across the three islands? 50 different companies to go and do your job. There Jamie Davies: About 1,000. tends to be one or two companies that can do those Jason Pickthall: Just over 1,000. particular jobs. Dr Offord: I think it is 1,105. Jason Pickthall: There you go, just over 1,000. Q209 Dr Offord: In regards to difficulty in planning, I think most of us who have been involved in councils Q213 Dr Offord: Excellent, thank you. You have had recognise that situation. How many refusals have you some refusals on Cayman Brac and Little Cayman? had for particular planning permissions? Jason Pickthall: Like I said to you— Jason Pickthall: Several. Dr Offord: Also Dolphin Point you mentioned. Dr Offord: Where were they? Jason Pickthall: Dolphin, yes. The Cayman Islands Jason Pickthall: We have had various refusals. Right Government, if I understand it correctly, the reason at the beginning we got various refusals from the first why they do not refuse you is that if they refuse you developments that we were doing. We got refused on they can’t take the fees from you. They tend not to that particular site that you are talking about refuse you. They tend to put it on hold or say, “You originally. have change this, change that, do this, do that and then Dr Offord: Sorry, which one? we will put it back up to the board to be—” Jason Pickthall: The Dubli site, the Rum Point site. Dr Offord: I must correct you. You are not quite Dr Offord: You were refused on that? right. If permission is refused on Little Cayman and Jason Pickthall: Sometimes the Cayman Islands Cayman Brac by the Cayman Committee, the Government do not necessarily just refuse it carte applicant has the right to seek financial compensation blanche. They say, “We’re not approving it today”. from the Cayman Islands Government as it complies with the general requirement of the laws under the Q210 Dr Offord: But you said you had no contact Development and Planning Law 2011. with the Cayman Government before. Jason Pickthall: Yes. It is basically the same as— Jason Pickthall: We didn’t. We are talking now about the Planning Department. Q214 Dr Offord: They paid you money, did they? Dr Offord: Who are the Government. Jason Pickthall: No. That is what I am saying to you. Jason Pickthall: Obviously we have contact with the They tend not to refuse it. They tend to tell you to Planning Department. The question that I was asked change the— before was, did we have any contact with the old Dr Offord: But you said they had refused some. Government. No, we didn’t. But, yes, of course we Jason Pickthall: Well, if they have not given us had contact with the old planners. Well, we didn’t planning permission on the first occasion then they because we sub everything out to architects to go and have refused it, haven’t they? Ev 46 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies
Dr Offord: No. You pay your fee and then they at a minimum because all of the infrastructure is in decide whether they are going to give permission or place. not and then the refusal comes afterwards. Then they What we are doing is we are capitalising on give you, according to the law in 2011, compensation. effectively an emerging market, which is Little Did they give you compensation? Cayman and Cayman Brac. Infrastructure is, all of a Jason Pickthall: No. sudden from the Government, being put in place. Dr Offord: So I am not sure if they refused you. Plans for a new airport are in place, new terminals, Jason Pickthall: I suppose it is how you look at new hospitals, new schooling. What we are doing is refusal. If you are looking at refusal initially or you working on the basis that land is cheap at the moment. are looking at carte blanche refusal then, yes, maybe It is at the advantage of investors who come in early there are two different parts to it. now to acquire a piece of land with full planning at a Dr Offord: I understand the point you are making but price that is affordable to them to appreciate capital what I am saying is you make a formal application. growth. Now, Dr Whitehead mentioned about You put it in in writing. You pay your fee and they developing a plot and why we have not built out on a turn around and the Planning Board meets and says, site. It does not make financial sense to build a “No, thank you. We don’t want this”. property if you can go 200 yards down the road and Jason Pickthall: Correct. That has happened on buy something that is cheaper than it costs to build. several occasions. We are working with investors that in some senses are Dr Offord: That has happened on several occasions? land banking. They are waiting for that market to Jason Pickthall: Yes. emerge in its full flair, which the Government are Dr Offord: How much have you received in publicising at the moment. They are expanding the compensation? airports. They are going out internationally for Jason Pickthall: Nothing, because we have not asked tourism. Cayman Brac and Little Cayman are the best for it. unchartered dive sites in the world; unchartered Dr Offord: You are a very bad businessman if that is because tourism has not come to those islands yet. It the case. is not a five-minute drive. It is a 20 to 25-minute flight Jason Pickthall: Maybe I am. Now you have put it to get from Grand Cayman to Little Cayman. Now, to me, maybe we should go and claim some monies Little Cayman and Cayman Brac are stunning sites, from them. but with the sites that we have outline planning for there are planning restrictions. On Little Cayman there Q215 Dr Offord: May be you should. In terms of the is a beautiful nature reserve right in the middle of the Cayman Islands planning system, particularly on the island and it is stunning. An experience of— Sister Islands, there is a clear presumption in favour of development if you meet the general requirements, Q216 Dr Offord: Is that the parrot reserve or the which Mr Davies did say earlier. That includes things booby bird reserve? like setbacks, parking provision and the heights of Jason Pickthall: The parrot reserve is in Cayman buildings, for example, though that does not apply to Brac. The booby reserve is in Little Cayman. all buildings in the Cayman Islands particularly. Dr Offord: It is not right in the middle then. Jamie Davies: No. Jamie Davies: It is the— Dr Offord: I do understand that a lot of your Jason Pickthall: He is talking about the one on Little applications and your plots of land have been on the Cayman at the moment. Sister Islands where, as we have already pointed out, Dr Offord: Right, which is not right in the middle. the development control does not exist. There is no Jamie Davies: It is a mile by 10 miles. development control plan there and also, in regard to Dr Offord: It is right on the west. the planning process, which is a lot different there. Jamie Davies: On the west, from a mile by 10 miles. How would you respond to the criticism that some It is a stunning site. people feel that you are taking advantage of the Sister Dr Offord: Just so you know that I do know what we Islands’ lack of planning and development control and are talking about. simply putting applications for plots in there? Jamie Davies: Good. If you have seen the site you Jamie Davies: May I? will know what we are talking about. It is not Dr Offord: Of course. something we are going over there to capitalise on the Jamie Davies: I think that your question is rather lack of planning because we can get— misleading because, from what you stated, it would Dr Offord: No, you are at the other end of the island. be deemed that we are taking advantage of the lack of Jamie Davies: We are all over the island. planning in the Sister Islands, within Cayman Brac Dr Offord: Your major point is at the other end by and Little Cayman. That is not the case. Grand the bluff. Cayman is, in all essence, an emerged market. It is Jamie Davies: There is no bluff on Little Cayman. difficult to class Grand Cayman in the same category as Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. They are nothing Q217 Dr Offord: I will come to this then because alike. They are all beautiful islands but Grand Cayman this moves us on and I am aware of time as well. You is very, very advanced; financially, structurally, in have mentioned that you have introduced roads to the every way. If you were to go and buy a development island and let us take Little Cayman, for example, plot with planning on Grand Cayman you would be where the so-called roads have been put in. How looking in the region of US$200,000 to US$300,000 would you describe those roads? Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 47
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies
Jamie Davies: Little Cayman? I would see there is Q220 Dr Offord: Can I just ask you what you mean one major road on Little Cayman and it goes right by “infrastructure”? round the perimeter of the island. Darryl Pickthall: The road are put in place and the Dr Offord: What about the roads that you have put electricity pylons are also in place. in? Jason Pickthall: “Infrastructure complete” is surely Jamie Davies: The roads that we have put in are what the Government classes as infrastructure infrastructure on those sites. They are connecting complete, not what you class it as and we have letters roads to those developments. from them to say— Chair: Connecting roads? Dr Offord: The Government does not require you— Jamie Davies: Connecting roads. Jason Pickthall:—we have completed the Chair: They all link into each other? infrastructure to their standards. Jamie Davies: No, they link in from the main road. Dr Offord: Please, Mr Pickthall, do not speak over So they have access to the main road, because you me. The Government does not require you to put in can’t have a site that does not have any access to it. anything. Darryl Pickthall: No, the Government does. Dr Offord: What they are is somebody has taken a Jason Pickthall: It does. bulldozer, driven into the scrub and then you have just Darryl Pickthall: It does. One of the conditions when put crushed rock down on top. we got planning permission was that we have to Jamie Davies: In some areas— complete infrastructure before we can transfer title to Jason Pickthall: We have done what the Cayman our clients. We have transferred title to many of our Islands Government has stipulated for us to do. clients because the infrastructure is complete. You can check with the Lands and Survey Government how Q218 Dr Offord: Secondly, there is no electricity many titles we have transferred. supply there, is there? Dr Offord: I will leave it there. That is fine. Thank Jason Pickthall: No. you very much. Jamie Davies: Not to the sites. We have to connect to Chair: I am conscious that we do have to draw our the sites from the main supply because a lot of it is proceedings to a close by 11.10am. generator supply. It has a central system but you are advised by the Cayman Government to have a Q221 Peter Aldous: You explained the model that generator backup. you have pursued as a result of the downturn in the economy worldwide is of selling plots rather than Q219 Dr Offord: That is correct, but I put it to you developing. Have any of your buyers themselves now that there is no infrastructure on the Sister Islands. sold their plots? Jamie Davies: The Sister Islands is limited at the Darryl Pickthall: Yes. moment. Peter Aldous: They have? Jason Pickthall: Are you saying that there is no Jason Pickthall: Some of them have, yes. infrastructure on either of those two islands? Peter Aldous: Has that shown a substantial uplift in Dr Offord: What I am saying is there is none at your value for them compared with what they bought it for? sites and there will not be any at your sites. Jason Pickthall: Yes. Jason Pickthall: There is none on our sites are you saying? Q222 Peter Aldous: Do you benefit from that Dr Offord: We ask the questions. I don’t know if you substantial uplift in value at all? know the format of a Select Committee but we ask Jamie Davies: Across the sites we could. If you are the questions. Okay? working on a comparable basis you are going to work Jason Pickthall: Yes. on a comparable of sites that have been sold. Now, if there is a site that sold for 20% more than what we Dr Offord: I am asking Mr Davies. You mentioned are selling for then obviously there is the potential to earlier about the infrastructure and you have increase in price. mentioned also about the provision of electricity. I am Peter Aldous: You have what I would call claw-black putting to you that that will never happen. One of the clauses in your sale whereby— things that you have just mentioned in your evidence Jamie Davies: No. is that you say that some of the people that buy your Peter Aldous: You have not? plots are land banking. Jamie Davies: No. If you work on a comparable Jamie Davies: They could be land banking, yes. resale valuation, our plots could be on sale for Darryl Pickthall: Can I mention something? You said £40,000. that we haven’t completed infrastructure on our sites. Peter Aldous: Yes. I can tell you now that we have completed probably Jamie Davies: A site or a plot that is comparable to 10 to 15 developments with full infrastructure. our plot could sell for £60,000. That is potentially an Dr Offord: I would be interested to know where uplift of £20,000 in the value, but you have to work they are. it across the board and not just one site. You can’t Darryl Pickthall: I can tell you where they are. They compare one for one. You have to compare one with are on Little Cayman called Little Cayman Estate, 10 and at the moment the Sister Islands do not have another one on Little Cayman called Lakeside Estate those comparables. There are few and far between re- and then we have Indigo Bay, we have Ocean Bay, sales where people are seeing profits where everybody we have Ocean Bay 2, we have Ocean View. is putting their prices up. They are not. They can’t Ev 48 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
11 September 2013 Darryl Pickthall, Jason Pickthall and Jamie Davies because you might have a site that increases in value your evaluation of the sites and also the environmental by 100% but it does not mean we can put our prices impact on the sites. I just wanted to clarify that we are up by 100% further. not working in an emerging market in Eastern Europe Peter Aldous: Just to clarify, if someone bought a where we are just maximising the potential to develop plot off you for, say, £50,000 and then five years later on bad planning. We are working with a Government they sell it for £100,000 and make a profit of £50,000, where they do have planning restrictions in place and you do not get any of that profit of £50,000? we are looking to the best for the islands and Jamie Davies: No. obviously the best for our investors as well, but we Peter Aldous: Thank you. are welcome to come again and discuss it. Chair: Okay, and we look forward to receiving the Q223 Chair: At this stage we do need to bring the environmental appraisal that you mentioned earlier on proceedings to a close. Is there anything that either as further written evidence. On that note then I will Mr Davies, Mr Darryl Pickthall or Mr Jason Pickthall draw the proceedings to a close. I would like to thank wishes to very briefly add to the session that we have each of you for coming along this morning. Could I had this morning? also say to the members of the public in the room I Jamie Davies: Just to close, I think we would be very would be grateful if you could clear the room because willing to attend in future or attend any private we do have a further private session on a different questions or open anything you need to see to assist in agenda? Thank you to the three of you. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 49
Written evidence
Written evidence submitted by the UK Government Introduction 1. The UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) White Paper “The Overseas Territories, Security, Success and Sustainability” published in June 2012, confirms the Government’s objective to ensure that the rich, and internationally recognised, environmental assets of the UKOTs1 are cherished. The UKOTs are home to many species and environments found nowhere else in the world—including an estimated 90% of the biodiversity found within the UK and the Territories combined. This biodiversity is crucial in underpinning sustainable development across the UKOTs, as it is across the world; and is of fundamental importance to the provision of social and economic benefits across our local communities. 2. Since the publication of the White Paper, the Government has launched a new funding mechanism to support environmental protection and climate change adaptation initiatives in the UKOTs. “Darwin Plus” is jointly funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Department for International Development (DFID), and will provide around £2 million per year for UKOT initiatives. This new Fund provides a simpler and more co-ordinated source of funding, whilst maintaining the breadth of funding opportunities offered by Darwin and the previous Overseas Territories Environment Programme. Each of the three funding Departments have committed to maintain their spending commitments over the current spending review period, on natural environmental issues in the Overseas Territories. 3. In addition to the launch of this new Fund, the Government has also continued to roll out its Overseas Territories “Environmental Mainstreaming” programme, which had proved successful in the Falkland Islands and British Virgin Islands during 2011–12. Similar initiatives are underway, or in development for Anguilla, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The aim of this programme is to support policies to ensure green growth and sustainable development, underpinning the Government’s determination to support successful economic development, including through strengthened economic planning, management of public finances, promotion of free trade and protection of vital ecosystem services and natural resources. All Territories, which wish to participate in this programme, will be given the opportunity to do so by 2014. 4. Work is ongoing to support the delivery of the “United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy”, published in 2009. The overarching objective of this strategy is “to enable the UK and Overseas Territory Governments to meet their international obligations for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Overseas Territories”. It envisages the Government working in partnership with the UKOTs to establish a set of shared values in respect of biodiversity conservation. 5. In addition to supporting on-going OTEP projects, the FCO has provided funding during this year to support a number of strategic projects in the Territories. This includes a grant to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to develop a Falklands Islands and wider South Atlantic Information Management System (identified as a priority action from the Environmental Mainstreaming project in the Falklands) and a separate grant to begin developing a lionfish response strategy for the Caribbean region. This year the FCO is also supporting a number of projects addressing invasive species eradication, waste management, sustainable fisheries and environmental monitoring across both its inhabited and uninhabited Territories. 6. DFID through the provision of budgetary support to St Helena and Montserrat is funding two full time international environmental expert posts: Director of Environmental Management Directorate St. Helena and Special Technical Adviser on Environmental Management—DoE/Montserrat. 7. Defra and DECC Ministers and officials represent the interests of the UK and UKOTs at a number of multilateral fora including this year at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Doha, Rio+20 in Rio and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Hyderabad. 8. In the last 12 months Defra has committed funding of approximately £2.7 million to biodiversity projects in the UKOTs. The majority of this funding (£1.7 million) came from the Darwin Initiative including a three- year project to develop a Biodiversity Action Plan for Ascension Island and a scoping project under the Darwin Challenge Fund to look at marine ecosystem management in Anguilla and Montserrat. 9. Defra has also committed a further £1m to other projects in the UKOTs including over £500k on rodent eradication in the South Atlantic (South Georgia and Gough Island) and environmental mainstreaming in Anguilla. These funds came from Defra’s budgets for international biodiversity and its research budget as well as the Flagship Species Fund. 10. Environmental challenges are, however, increasingly threatening the future security and safety of the Overseas Territories and in particular their biodiversity which directly supports the livelihoods of their people. The Government remains fully committed to continuing to work closely with the Governments of the Overseas 1 The UK Overseas Territories are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands (including, Pitcairn, Henderson, and Ducie and Oeno), St Helena and St Helena Dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (on the island of Cyprus), The Turks & Caicos Islands. Ev 50 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Territories, and with non-government organisations, to ensure that these valuable natural resources are protected for the future.
The extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOTs embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriately trades-off environmental protection, social development and economic growth? 11. The Government Strategy towards sustainable development in the UKOTs is set out in the White Paper. Economic, social and environmental development are not mutually exclusive and the UK Government strategy looks to harness advances in one of the three strands to effect positive changes in the other two. 12. Each of the UKOTs is responsible for shaping the future of its own community through proactive management of their environmental and economic resources. The UK Government strategy is based on providing the necessary tools to enable UKOT Governments to enshrine sustainable development within their policies, and to promote the capabilities required to implement these policies. Due to their small scale and isolation, many of the UKOTs face similar challenges, providing the opportunity to share information and best practices. 13. The two environmental mainstreaming pilot projects funded by the UK Government, in the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands highlight this ability to share information and best practice. The aim of these stakeholder-led projects has been to raise awareness of the value of the environment in economic growth and development, and human wellbeing, and to identify ways to integrate or “mainstream” that awareness into UKOT policies, regulatory frameworks and decision-making. By taking account of the goods and services delivered by the environment, such as flood protection, prevention of coastal erosion, and mitigation of climate change impacts, UKOT Governments decisions can be more balanced and help to provide a stronger foundation for sustainable economic growth and development. This in turn can help to ensure a healthy, productive and biodiverse natural environment, whose contribution to the economy is recognised and sustainably managed. The UK Government hopes that the Overseas Territories will welcome the opportunity to engage in similar initiatives in their Territories over the next two years. 14. By insuring that the natural environment and the ecosystem services it provides are intrinsically valued by Territory Governments we can ensure that development and growth in the UKOTs is sustainable, green and beneficial for their inhabitants.
How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs? 15. The UKOTs support a diverse range of unique ecosystems and habitats, sustaining a large number of rare and threatened species. It is estimated that over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is located in its Overseas Territories, with more priority ecosystem types (including mangrove, coral, sea-grass beds, peatlands etc) occurring in the UKOTs than in the metropolitan UK. This biodiversity underpins many of the ecosystem goods and services that provide economic and social benefits to local populations. 16. The UK Government continues to offer advice on environment, climate and renewable energy issues and we will continue to work together across Government to deliver co-ordinated support on natural environment issues with each Department leading in their respective areas of responsibility. 17. Overseas Territories Governments are responsible for environmental management in their Territory. The UK Government, however, recognises that it has an important role to play in supporting the OTs, for example through capacity building and the provision and development of the specialist skills required to ensure the protection of the local environment. This is enshrined within the Environment Charters between the UK Government and Territory Governments which are delivered through the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy. 18. Defra leads for the UK Government on developing and implementing biodiversity strategies with the UKOTs; this is outlined in the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy.2 The Strategy sets out clear objectives on biodiversity and ensures co-ordination between Defra, FCO and DFID on biodiversity. Defra chairs an Overseas Territories’ Biodiversity Group (OTBG) comprising officials from Defra, the FCO, DFID, JNCC and the UK Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA), which meets quarterly to discuss progress on the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy. Following a recent request from civil society organisations3 closely engaged with some of the UKOTs,4 Defra, in collaboration and consultation with the OTs and relevant NGOs, will explore the options for continued implementation of this Strategy. 19. Defra and its Agencies also represent the needs and concerns of the UKOTs at regional and international meetings, providing advice and financial support in meeting the requirements of international agreements and instruments. The UK Government has actively supported the attendance and engagement by officials from UKOTs at regional and international meetings, which has led to greater understanding and integration of biodiversity related policies. 2 UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy (2009). Defra. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13335-uk-ot-strat-091201.pdf 3 Falklands Conservation, RSPB, St Helena National Trust, UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum 4 Falkland Islands and St Helena Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 51
20. Funding for biodiversity projects in the UKOTs has historically come from a range of sources from formal grant schemes, such as the new “Darwin Plus” scheme, through to one-off grants to fund priority issues as and when funds were available. In the current negotiation for a new LIFE Regulation, the UK has been a strong advocate for UKOTs to be able use this fund for biodiversity and other environmental projects.
How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change? 21. A key long-term threat faced by the UKOTs is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified the UKOTs as amongst the “most vulnerable” and “virtually certain to experience the most severe impacts” of climate change. Such impacts could include sea level rise; changes in weather patterns, more frequent extreme weather events; coral bleaching; ocean acidification; and sea temperature changes. 22. Between 2007 and 2011, DFID funded a project to enhance Capacity for Adaptation to Climate Change (ECACC) in the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories.5 The main objective of the ECACC project was to support efforts by the UKOTs in the Caribbean to adapt to climate change and climate variability within the context of sustainable development. The project was implemented by the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) and helped establish National Climate Change Committees in Anguilla, British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands (CI), Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos Islands. Other outputs achieved by the project were the development and implementation of public education and outreach (PEO) programmes and the completion of Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments. Climate change policy documents were also produced for each of the five UKOTs. 23. In addition to HMG providing technical advice and support to the UKOTs through funding on the ground personnel and providing access to departmental reports and expertise on an ad-hoc basis, Darwin Plus funding will support projects seeking to deliver outcomes in the areas of climate change resilience, mitigation and adaption and be accessible to projects linked to green energy initiatives. 24. The Government has also recently published a Foresight Project on the International Dimensions of Climate Change.6 The project looked at climate change impacts overseas which could have an impact on the UK. A section of this report considered climate change impacts on the UKOTs, which could help UKOTs prioritise further work on climate change adaptation.
Whether the recommendations in our 2008 Report, Halting biodiversity loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined-up government to further conservation have been implemented? 25. Since Halting biodiversity loss was published in 2008 the Government has undertaken a number of measures which have contributed towards achieving the recommendations made in the report. 26. The UK Government and UKOT Governments have made good progress towards valuing the natural environment in the UKOTs. In order to meet the specific needs of the individual UKOTs, baseline data and ecosystem assessments are essential for developing biodiversity policy response options. This type of work is being undertaken in the UKOTs, with support from the UK Government and its agencies. Examples of this include terrestrial and marine habitat mapping exercises (such as the Darwin Initiative supported marine mapping in St Helena; and JNCC supported marine and terrestrial mapping in Anguilla), application of a National Ecosystem Assessment approach and assessment of the economic value of environmental goods and services to UKOT economies. 27. The National Ecosystem Assessment approach, pioneered in the UK, is being extended to the UKOTs through Darwin Challenge funded projects in Anguilla and the Falklands/South Georgia. These two projects, due for completion by 2015, will provide models for the application of this form of ecosystem assessment at the appropriate scale and in a way suited to support policy development in the UKOTs. These projects also provide an opportunity for the transfer of UK skills to the UKOTs. 28. The economies of the UKOTs are highly dependent on their natural assets. Understanding the economic role and value of ecosystems, and the geographical distribution of these values, underpins most, if not all, of the actions needed to integrate the environment into decision-making. Generally, a good understanding of the value of the environment, including the elements that contribute to this value and their geographical distribution, can assist in the development of a sound economic model for the creation of a green economy. Such studies are currently in progress, or planned, for the Falkland Islands, Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands. 29. This strategic approach provides the opportunity to link baseline biodiversity survey work and economic analysis to policy development with integrated ecosystem assessments and policy scenarios. Inherent in this approach is the need to transfer skills to UKOT personnel wherever possible (in the use of the appropriate computer skills and economic techniques) to make them more self-reliant. At the same time opportunities are being created for mutually beneficial links to be established between UKOT organisations and UK institutions. 5 http://www.caribbeanclimate.bz/closed-projects/enhancing-capacity-for-adaptation-to-climate-change-ecacc-in-the-uk-caribbean- overseas-territories-project.html 6 International Dimensions of Climate Change—Final Report (2011). BIS. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/ international-dimensions/11–1042-international-dimensions-of-climate-change.pdf Ev 52 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
30. Current work in Anguilla funded by the FCO, Defra and the JNCC demonstrates the value of UKOT specific projects tailored to capacity and needs. Here, marine and terrestrial habitat mapping and the development of GIS capacity (including training UKOT personnel) forms the basis for environmental economic studies, all of which will be integrated through an National Ecosystem Assessment to assist the Anguillan Government to determine its policy options in developing a green economy. 31. The UK Government has been practising a joined up approach towards its responsibilities to the UKOTs. In the recently launched White Paper on the Overseas Territories, the UK Government committed to deliver co-ordinated support on Overseas Territory natural environment issues, and to develop with the UKOTs a strategic approach to managing their rich environmental assets. The Government also committed to maintaining its spending commitments on UKOT natural environment issues over the current spending review period. 32. Following agreement of the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy in 2009, Defra has taken the lead in coordinating a partnership of Government Departments overseeing its implementation. This partnership comprises Defra, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DFID), and is supported by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). As part of this partnership, Defra established the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group (OTBG), comprising officials from Defra, the FCO, DFID, JNCC and the UK Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA). Chaired by Defra, the OTBG is responsible for overseeing the delivery of the Strategy.
Whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference? 33. The outcome document from Rio+20 “the Future We Want” provided assurance to the UK Government that its strategy for protecting the vital biodiversity in the UKOTs is in line with current international consensus. 34. Rio+20 identified that the promotion of sustainable tourism is key for many small island developing states for which tourism is the major industry. The UK Government’s strategy for achieving sustainable tourism in the UKOTs is outlined throughout the White Paper. 35. The sustainable use of oceans, seas and coastal areas through the designations of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was also highlighted by Rio+20 as a vital cornerstone in protecting global biodiversity. The designation of MPAs is a sustainable method of ensuring that environmental protection and economic benefits are balanced for the benefit of the communities which rely on the marine biodiversity for their livelihoods. The UK government’s progress on designating MPAs in the biodiversity rich uninhabited UKOTs is outlined on page 12 of the White Paper. 36. Rio+20 advocated the application of an ecosystems approach to valuing the contribution of the natural environment to development. The UK Government strategy of providing the necessary tools and skills for Territory Governments to conduct ecosystem assessments and adopt policies which promote the valuation of the natural environment are consistent with this Rio+20 conclusion. This is also an excellent example of how the UK Government encourages the Territory Governments to make best use of an exchange of technology, information and methods of best practice to the benefit of the people of the UKOTs. 37. The UK Government has long recognised that the majority of UKOTs, as small island developing states, are unique concerning sustainable development and biodiversity protection due to their diverse biodiversity, unique vulnerabilities, size, remoteness, narrow resource and export base and exposure to climate change impacts and extreme weather. Through the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy7 the UK Government is delivering its commitments to protect the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories which underpins their sustainable development.
How weaknesses in civil society and democracy in the UKOTs impact on conservation 38. The UK Government has a vision of making government work better. We believe in sound public finances, building economic resilience and effective regulation. We want to increase efficiency and effectiveness, ensure public funds are spent wisely, and foster a fairer, more open and mobile society. 39. The UK government continues to provide support for conservation in Overseas Territories through a number of organisations who, in line with the UK strategy, advise Overseas Territories on their specific area of policy competence. Defra provided funding for a wide range of projects to enhance research capacity in the UKOTs, and support small conservation projects identified as priorities by UKOT Governments. The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank Partnership (MSBP) has a dedicated seed conservation programme in UKOTs which comprises training in seed collection and storage techniques. JNCC has also provided project support for a wide range of conservation projects in the UKOTs. Important work strands in recent years include developing guidelines for the use of economic analysis in biodiversity; habitat mapping in the Caribbean; and marine and terrestrial invasive alien species control projects in the Caribbean and South Atlantic. 40. Conservation and the combating of environmental pressures offer opportunities for civil society and UKOT Governments to interact on environmental issues. Through utilising tools such as environmental 7 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13335-uk-ot-strat-091201.pdf Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 53
mainstreaming it is possible to increases local engagement on environment issues as well as identify policy and knowledge gaps which highlight areas where priority action needs to be taken. However, some UKOTs lack adequate environmental legislation, which can hamper conservation. Environment is a devolved issue, but the UK Government are ready to offer advice and guidance to the UKOTs where needed.
How the introduction of “Marine Protected Areas” could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories 41. The UK is committed to the principle of designating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in international waters. Specifically, we supported the call in 2010 by governments of States party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to strive for MPA and other area-based mechanisms covering 10% of our oceans by 2020. 42. Ensuring that this CBD target is met will mean that at least 10% of coastal and marine areas are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems. 43. The UK is therefore striving to lead the way in the environmental management of its uninhabited UKOTs. These UKOTs cover many millions of square kilometres and we are developing a strategic approach to large- scale marine management including through the establishment of the world’s largest MPAs. 44. Through continued efforts, each of the uninhabited UKOTs (South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory and the British Antarctic Territory) already have in place marine protection measures and are now some of the world’s most sustainable and well managed marine areas. 45. In February 2012 the Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands declared a sustainable- use MPA covering over 1,000,000 km2 of the Territory’s maritime zone, including 20,000 km2 of no-fishing zones. This establishes the waters around South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands as one of the largest areas of sustainably managed ocean in the world. The declaration of the MPA builds upon the management measures already in place which exceed the requirements of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). As a result, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has certified the island’s toothfish fishery, which is rated as the third highest scoring MSC-certified fishery in the world. The declaration of this MPA also contributes to the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s global commitment to establish representative networks of MPAs by 2012. The MPA will be monitored through scientific programmes and enforced through a dedicated patrol vessel. 46. The Administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory has developed a legislative framework which underpins the protection of sites and species of particular importance, and has designated special reserves. These include an area of Diego Garcia which has been designated as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. This work, together with the establishment of the no-take marine protected area in 2010, has contributed to the very high levels of nature conservation achieved in the Territory and highlights the UK’s intention to ensure the on-going protection of this unique environment. 47. In the region of the British Antarctic Territory, the UK secured agreement, in 2009 at the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), to the designation of the world’s first high seas MPA. The UK Government is continuing to work within CCAMLR for additional marine protection areas in the Southern Ocean. 48. The environmental stewardship of the marine environments of the uninhabited Territories in particular is exemplary. These delicate and vital ecosystems which provide for highly biodiversity rich environments are being protected through identified measures with the intention to ensure they continue to thrive. 29 November 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Summary — Knowledge of biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories (OTs) remains inadequate, but it is apparent that many species are under threat. — Improved strategy is needed. The promised Implementation Plan for the UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy could help to provide this through a prioritised, and adequately resourced workplan. — The UK Government does not currently have enough capacity to deal with the diverse range of environmental issues in the UK OTs. Dedicated full-time staff are needed at Defra and DFID. — Although the funds available to UK OTs have increased since 2008, more resources are needed. Funds such as the Heritage Lottery Fund and the EU’s LIFE+ fund remain closed to OTs. — The government’s environmental mainstreaming programme should be supported and extended, and more policy support is needed. — Recent government commitments to exemplary management of the environment in the uninhabited OTs should be welcomed. However, improvements in management are needed in the Cyprus SBAs where illegal bird killing remains a significant issue. Ev 54 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
— Climate risks in the OTs do not appear to be adequately addressed at present. More information on DFID’s adaptation programme for OTs is needed. — There are significant gaps in environmental governance in some of the OTs, and these need to be filled in order to enable sustainable development and protection of biodiversity. — Marine protected areas can, if based on scientific criteria, make a significant contribution to conserving marine biodiversity in the OTs.
Introduction The RSPB is the UK partner of BirdLife International, a network of over 100 grass-roots conservation organisations around the world. As part of our commitment to the conservation of biodiversity worldwide, we have for over a decade, provided financial, technical and advisory support to emerging NGO partners and local governments in the UK OTs. We have over a million members in the UK, and they are highly supportive of our work in the OTs. This support is given in many ways, including through financial contributions to appeals and for major initiatives such as our work at Henderson Island. Much of the RSPB’s work in the OTs assists them in meeting their commitments under the international conventions, including the Convention on Biological Diversity. Our response to this consultation covers all of the UK OTs. Our views on the specific issues raised by the Committee follow.
Specific Issues Identified by the Committee 1. How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs 1.1 The extent to which the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories can be analysed against these six components: knowledge; strategy; capacity; funding; policy support; and delivery. Our assessment of each of these is set out below.
Knowledge Recommendations A. The UK Government should incorporate the outcomes of the FCO-funded Extinction Risk Assessment project into its OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan. B. Defra’s Research Directorate should instigate a definitive priority OT Biodiversity Research Programme, agreed with OT Governments, research institutions and civil society. 1.2 Assessments carried out to-date indicate that the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories biodiversity is under immense threat. There are a high number of threatened species in those groups of taxa that have been thoroughly assessed against the IUCN’s criteria for global threat classification (the IUCN Red List8), eg there are 33 globally threatened birds that occur in the Overseas Territories, more than in the whole of Continental Europe. 1.3 On the Pitcairn Islands, for example, a total of 466 species have been recorded.9 Of these, 146 have been assessed against the Red List criteria, and 41 of these are globally threatened: this is almost a third of those species assessed. Of the 15 endemic species assessed, all were found to be globally threatened. Only half of St Helena’s endemic plants, and only two of its 400+ endemic invertebrate species, have ever had their threat status assessed, so many of these could be on the brink of disappearing forever.10 1.4 Many groups of taxa, especially terrestrial invertebrates, lower plants, and marine species have not been well researched or been subject to international threat classification. It is therefore impossible to make an assessment of the status of much of the biodiversity of the Territories. 1.5 Without an improvement in knowledge, the UK Government cannot hope to be able to report accurately to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on whether or not it has made progress in meeting its 2020 target to halt biodiversity loss. 1.6 At present, threatened species in the UK OTs may be in danger of global extinction without awareness in the UK or internationally. The St. Helena Olive Tree’s (Nesiota eliptica) extinction in 2003 provides a clear example of the impact of this lack of knowledge. Other species have since been on the brink of extinction, eg the Bastard Gumwood (Commindendrum rotundifolium) but the concerted efforts of local conservationists and international partners (eg the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) have averted an extinction crisis. 1.7 Some biodiversity monitoring is carried out by OT Government Departments, as well as UK and OT non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and research institutions. New endemic species are being identified and catalogued through various conservation projects, some funded by the UK government. However, the data 8 See http://www.iucnredlist.org/ 9 See http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pitcairn_island.pdf. 10 For example five endemic St Helena weevil species currently persist on just two remaining mature St Helena She Cabbage trees which survive on the island, yet since they have not been formally classified as threatened it is extremely difficult to raise funds to address their plight. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 55
for different taxa and different OTs is scattered and there is no central coordination or strategic overview. Without this, there can be no clear idea of where limited resources should most urgently be focussed. 1.8 Given the lack of capacity for central coordination in the OTs, the UK Government should both facilitate the collation of existing data and improve the state of OT biodiversity knowledge if it is to be able to fulfil its responsibility to prevent further extinctions in the Territories. Defra’s Research Directorate should instigate an “OT Biodiversity Research Programme”, agreed with OT Governments, research institutions and civil society. 1.9 The small population sizes in the OTs mean that many do not have the potential to develop local expertise in every aspect of their natural environments. To enable implementation of the suggested biodiversity research programme, access to the world-class skills of the UK’s government-funded institutions should be made available without the requirement for full cost-recovery; work in the OTs should be considered core work and there should be an internal budget at all government-funded institutions11 for this work. Full cost-recovery (including overhead) requirements currently limit the involvement of many UK institutions in projects, to the detriment of both OTs, and the UK. The National Environment Research Council should be instructed to increase its role (and that of its research agencies) in promoting and supporting world class research in the OTs. 1.10 Recently, the FCO has provided the RSPB with a small amount of funding to begin assessing extinction risk in the OTs (the “Extinction Risk Assessment project”). This will entail collating existing species list and monitoring data and identifying the priority gaps for further conservation research and action. It will be the first collation of information and data gaps for all species across all 14 OTs and it is hoped that this process can both direct Government and civil society effort and enable more effective reporting to the CBD in 2020 on the status of the globally threatened biodiversity of the OTs.
Strategy Recommendation C. The OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan must include a prioritised, and adequately resourced workplan with concrete milestones leading up to 2020. 1.11 In 2009, Defra published the first UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy committing itself to lead work with the FCO and DFID to co-ordinate support for OT biodiversity conservation. This was a very welcome development which provided a top-level framework for cross-departmental working, but the Strategy contained no concrete targets or associated workplan. UK Government support has therefore remained non-strategic, with the result that limited resources have been spread thinly and perhaps not directed to the most important priorities. 1.12 In January 2012, Defra made the positive commitment to develop an Implementation Plan for the UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy. A meeting is scheduled for March 2013 where progress will be reviewed and future priorities discussed. To be effective, the priorities of OT Governments, communities and civil society will need to be incorporated, but the UK Government must also set out its own priorities, based on sound science. 1.13 To enable more strategic investment in future, Defra has funded the RSPB to carry out a prioritisation of island eradications of introduced alien vertebrate species across all 14 OTs. Given the devastating impact of these species, this is to be warmly welcomed, and this model of prioritisation should be developed in other areas.
Capacity Recommendations D. Two full-time dedicated Overseas Territories biodiversity policy posts should be established within Defra, one for the inhabited, and one for the uninhabited OTs. E. A multi-disciplinary Overseas Territories Taskforce of staff from different parts of Defra, and different areas of expertise should be established to support the OTs. F. A full-time post should be established at DFID to take lead responsibility for environment and climate change in the Overseas Territories. 1.14 There is a chronic lack of capacity in the UK Government to fulfil its biodiversity responsibilities towards the Overseas Territories. The FCO is the currently the only one of the three departments responsible for the OTs Biodiversity Strategy which has a full-time staff member dedicated to environment and climate change issues in the OTs. 1.15 Defra, which has had lead department responsibility for OTs biodiversity since 2009, still does not have a single staff member with full-time OTs responsibility, nor did the Department make any mention of the OTs in its most recent business plan.12 Given that the OTs are home to over 90% of the threatened biodiversity for which the UK is responsible, the RSPB considers this unacceptable. Staff capacity within Defra is needed to set the strategic direction of the OTs Biodiversity Strategy, guide its implementation and ensure that 11 Especially the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, the Food and Environment Research Agency, CEFAS, the British Antarctic Survey, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. 12 http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/10 Ev 56 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
international commitments are met. Effective and proactive policy support to the small and stretched Environment Departments of the OTs is also required. At present many of our Territory partners report that they feel disconnected from Defra and find it difficult to access its support and advice. 1.16 The RSPB believes that at least two full-time, appropriately senior staff within Defra are needed (one for the inhabited and one for the uninhabited OTs). Such roles cannot be fulfilled by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), whose role is to be an independent scientific adviser to Government. Shaping policy engagement and directing departmental support to the OTs is clearly an appropriate activity for Defra staff. 1.17 Dedicated staff who are able to engage more proactively to build capacity in OT Governments, would be of great benefit. Such staff should work closely with the FCO, and would need the opportunity to visit the Territories themselves so as to gain first-hand experience and knowledge of their situations. 1.18 Recognising that there are significant staffing constraints within Defra at present, the full-time staff should be supported by a multi-disciplinary group of staff from different parts of Defra. Their job descriptions should contain a specific requirement to support the OTs in their area of expertise. 1.19 A lack of capacity also affects DFID, which is currently without a single staff member responsible for environment or climate change issues in the OTs, despite DFID having lead responsibility for international climate change adaptation. Whilst plans are apparently underway to recruit a new environment and climate change adviser, it is currently unclear whether this will be a full-time post. Given DFID’s responsibility for major infrastructure projects and budgetary aid in several Territories, as well as the department’s climate change adaptation role, the RSPB believes that a full-time staff member is essential.
Funding Recommendations G. The UK Government should be congratulated on the recent establishment of the Darwin Plus fund. H. Funding should be increased for the next round of Darwin Plus from the current figure of £2 million/ per year. This is one of the most cost-effective contributions that the UK Government could make to halting biodiversity loss. I. All future funding rounds of Darwin Plus should be specifically linked to implementing the priorities of the UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy. J. The number of Overseas Territories experts on the Darwin Committee should be increased significantly. K. DCMS should give a policy signal that Overseas Territories are good candidates for Heritage Lottery Funding. L. Defra and the FCO should negotiate to enable access to the EU’s environment financing instrument, LIFE+, for all EU Overseas Countries and Territories. M. Defra, FCO and DFID should negotiate at Ministerial level to reinvigorate the EU BEST scheme on biodiversity and ecosystem services. 1.20 To-date, UK Government funding for biodiversity conservation in the OTs has been both inadequate and frequently non-strategic. An analysis in 2007 calculated that a minimum of £16 million per year for five years was required to meet the most urgent biodiversity priorities in the OTs.13 International environment funds such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) are closed to the Territories because of their UK (and thus developed country) status, but they are also excluded from access to UK and EU funds such as the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and LIFE+ programme. The UK Government is thus one of the only possible sources of funding. 1.21 In 2011–12, Defra provided funding of £2.96 million for biodiversity conservation in the UK OTs. This is a welcome improvement on the situation in 2007–08 when Defra spent just £152,379 in this area. However, it is equivalent to only £8,758 per globally threatened OT species. If increased funding is not identified, endemic OTs species for which the UK Government is responsible will certainly become extinct and the UK Government will fail to meet its international obligations. 1.22 The October 2012 launch of the new OTs Environment and Climate Change Fund (Darwin Plus) is a positive step. The fund brings together contributions of £2 million per year from FCO, DFID and Defra. Whilst this is not “new money”, it will enable existing funds to be deployed in a more strategic and effective manner, and the funding call for applications has sensibly given itself the flexibility to support both small and large projects. Given the scale of the challenge and the extreme cost-effectiveness of biodiversity spending in the OTs, increasing this amount available in this fund would represent extremely well-targeted environmental funding. 13 The “Costing Biodiversity Conservation Priorities in the UK Overseas Territories” report is available on the RSPB website at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/ukotfinancingcons_tcm9–158352.pdf. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 57
1.23 In order to ensure Darwin Plus funds are used strategically, increased OT conservation expertise needs to be used to make funding decisions. At present, the decision-making panel of Darwin Plus will be a sub- committee of the Darwin Committee, with welcome additional representation from the UK Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA). There is an absence of expertise from organisations with major cross-cutting conservation programmes in the OTs, such as RBG Kew or the RSPB, or any OT NGOs. 1.24 The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is one of the major funders of natural heritage work in the UK. Whilst legally permitted to fund conservation projects in the UK Overseas Territories, it has never done so, arguing that its policy directions from DCMS mean that it has to prioritise accessibility. In their paper detailing their role in the OTs (March 2012), DCMS said “There is no bar on Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) making [grants for work in the UKOTs] but HLF’s current policy is to treat any such applications as a low priority.” 1.25 The previous Minister for the Overseas Territories at the FCO, Henry Bellingham MP, made numerous speeches in 2011 announcing his determination to open up this much-needed funding source to the OTs, but appeared to meet with no success. If DCMS changed their policy directions to the HLF Trustees to allow consideration of applications from the OTs as an equal priority with UK applications, this could enable OT projects to be funded in future, and help alleviate the current funding shortfall. 1.26 The EU’s only dedicated environmental funding stream, LIFE+, is also closed to the UK OTs at present, in contrast to the French Overseas Departments (the DOMs), which have had access since 2007. There is no constitutional impediment to opening LIFE+ funding to the OTs, but there is political resistance in Europe. Negotiations on the next LIFE+ programming period (to run from 2014–20) are currently underway. Opening LIFE+ to the OTs would not have any impact on the EU budget, but could bring major benefits on the ground. Defra and the FCO have been strong advocates on behalf of the OTs on this issue, but further efforts are required in the European Council if the current resistance is to be overcome. 1.27 The EU has recently developed a pilot funding scheme for all the Overseas Territories of Member States called the BEST initiative.14 This has now received two of the three years pilot funding allowed, after which it must either become a permanent programme or be discontinued. There appears to be a significant lack of enthusiasm in the European Commission for the continuation of the BEST scheme, so the UK Government will need to make strong representations in order to ensure that the recent momentum built under the pilot scheme is not lost. Three projects that will involve seven UK OTs were funded in the 2012 round of BEST.
Policy Support Recommendations N. The UK Government’s environmental mainstreaming reviews should be supported and extended to all OTs. O. A Policy Support Programme should be established, with initiatives such as secondments and twinning between OT Governments and UK Government Departments. 1.28 Environmental policy capacity is extremely limited on many of the UK OTs, and indeed several OT Government Environment Departments consist of less than five staff covering a vast array of urgent issues. Technical environmental policy support from Defra and the wider UK Government is therefore crucial in order to develop robust environmental frameworks. Whilst FCO, Defra, JNCC and DECC do now all provide a contact point or email address for OT assistance enquiries, it remains unclear what detailed assistance can actually be offered or delivered given the lack of OT-specific staff capacity in the UK Government. Moreover, the few staff in many OT Environment Departments are frequently often inundated with pressing and responsive work, and seldom have the opportunity to identify and discuss long-term policy support needs with the UK Government. UK Government officials meanwhile often have little detailed understanding or familiarity with the environmental policy frameworks of the OTs, largely due to not having the capacity to engage in further detail or visit an OT in person. 1.29 There are many policy areas where increased proactive support from the UK Government would be very helpful. We believe the following should be tackled in a first wave of assistance: — biosecurity and invasive species policy; — protected area designation and management; — sustainable fisheries management; and — climate change adaptation. A Policy Assistance Programme could take several forms, such as short-stay secondment programmes from (or to) UK Government, assistance from legal departments of DECC, Defra, DFID, FCO, or twinning projects between OT Government Departments and UK Government Departments similar to those seen during EU enlargement between the UK and Eastern Europe. 14 The voluntary scheme for Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services in the European Overseas Territories (BEST) is a follow-up to the “Message from Reunion”. It originally aimed to establish a voluntary scheme for the protection of species and habitats, inspired by the Natura 2000 approach. Ev 58 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
1.30 The Environmental Mainstreaming exercises being supported by the FCO and JNCC (to date piloted in the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands) are a welcome step in identifying environmental policy priorities and building local support for action. It is crucial that the momentum created by these exercises is not lost, and that the UK Government provides technical and financial support to ensure sufficient follow-up. Increasing Defra officials’ capacity to proactively engage UKOT Governments on environmental policy is thus crucial. Environmental mainstreaming reviews should also be systematically extended to the rest of the OTs.
Delivery Recommendations P. The UK Government’s commitment to exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited OTs should be welcomed. Q. An integrated joint-action plan to tackle illegal hunting in the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) should be developed. This should involve all relevant Cyprus and MoD/SBA authorities. R. Disaster-preparedness should be considered for all OTs, and resourced appropriately to enable timely responses to future marine incidents. 1.31 The UK Government has direct responsibility for biodiversity conservation delivery in the uninhabited Territories and Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs). With regard to the former, the commitment in the recent OTs White Paper to “oversee exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited Territories” was very welcome, and the management of these Territories is largely good. In particular, Government support for the introduced mammal (rat, mouse and reindeer) eradication programme on South Georgia is appreciated. 1.32 However, the RSPB has significant concerns about biodiversity conservation delivery in the Cyprus SBAs (controlled by the Ministry of Defence, MOD), where illegal bird trapping is a significant problem. The situation has recently worsened considerably, and last year had the worst level of bird killing recorded for five years. Systematic monitoring by BirdLife Cyprus and the RSPB shows that, in recent years, levels of mist net use in the Dhekelia SBA have been much higher than in the areas policed by the Cyprus authorities. 1.33 It appears that a new legal loophole could worsen the situation. The Republic of Cyprus has recently modified its hunting legislation, introducing new penalties that can ultimately lead to the loss of hunting licences. The SBA hunting law has not been modified however, so that any hunters caught trapping in the SBAs do not face the same penalties or risk losing their licence if they reoffend. There seems to be no will to change the SBA law. This loophole needs to be closed urgently as this more lenient regime is incentivising illegal hunting activity within the SBAs. 1.34 The RSPB recommends the development of an integrated joint-action plan to tackle illegal hunting in the SBAs. This should involve all relevant Cyprus and MOD/SBA authorities, from enforcement to the judiciary, from education authorities to the legislature. The RSPB would also like to explore other less conventional solutions with the MOD to address this problem. These could include cutting down planted acacias (which are used for trapping) to declaring and establishing part of the prime trapping areas as a bird observatory and bird-ringing station, thereby reducing land available to trapping and aiding information gathering and enforcement. 1.35 The stranding of the MS Oliva in 2011, and before that, of an oil rig at Tristan da Cunha has highlighted the immense risk to the wildlife of the OTs from marine incident. In the case of the Oliva, the Tristan community made an incredible effort to protect their wildlife from harm, and indeed were awarded the RSPB medal in 2012 for their work. However, it was apparent that a lack of local preparedness (in terms of equipment and training) had some negative impact on wildlife. The RSPB believes that the UK government should consider preparedness for marine incidents for all of the OTs, and should provide appropriate resources locally to enable timely responses to any future incidents.
2. How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change Recommendations S. Information should be requested on HMG’s response to the 2011 Foresight report that looked at climate risks in the Overseas Territories. T. An explanation should be requested on what provision is made for climate change adaptation in the 10 Territories not covered by DFID. 2.1 Almost all of the Overseas Territories have been identified by the IPCC as amongst the “most vulnerable” and “virtually certain to experience the most severe ecological impacts” of climate change, including biodiversity loss, sea-level rise, loss of infrastructure, increased extreme weather events, reductions in ecosystem services (such as crucial fisheries) and increased disease exposure.15 2.2 The impacts of climate change on the UK Overseas Territories were not considered in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) which was required under the Climate Change Act 2008. However, the UK 15 See “Climate Change 2007 (AR4): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, edited by Parry, M L, O F Canziani, J P Palutikof, P J van der Linden and C E Hanson (2007). Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 59
Government’s 2011 report, Foresight International Dimensions of Climate Change, did provide analysis of the implications of climate change on the OTs, identifying that the UK has “not only moral, political and legal obligations to give support... but also contingent liability for disasters caused by extreme weather events... and economic collapse due to failed ecosystems”.16 The report concluded that “UK Government departments do not act proactively to address adaptation in UK Overseas Territories, leaving them vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with repercussions on the UK”. 2.3 The economic impacts on the UK are likely to be significant, and the costs associated with adaptation measures are, in many cases, expected to be beyond the scope of these small economies. As the OTs are not eligible for financial support from UN Climate Funds due to their constitutional relationship with the UK, it falls to the UK to ensure both that adequate adaptation occurs and that it is sufficiently financed. 2.4 DFID has lead responsibility for international climate change adaptation, and did fund an adaptation project for the Caribbean Overseas Territories from 2007–10. It is unclear however what, if any, strategic support is currently being offered and whether this is an adequate response to the serious risks. DFID’s recent (June 2012) summary of its work in the OTs makes no mention of climate change.17 DFID’s overall business plan does have a specific target of relevance: “6.2.i Ensure that climate change risks and opportunities are identified and addressed across DFID’s country programmes and other major policy and spending areas through the implementation of Strategic Programme Reviews”,18 and DFID’s operational plan for the Overseas Territories mentions that a “strategic programme review in 2010 assessed the extent to which current OTD investments are at risk from climate change”.19 2.5 This indicates that only the four Territories where DFID currently invests have been covered, with the remaining OTs excluded. Given DFID’s responsibility as lead department for adaptation, the significant contingent liabilities faced, and the apparent lack of an all-Territory approach, the RSPB recommends asking the UK Government how the ten other Territories are covered. The new Darwin Plus fund can fund climate change projects, but the £2 million per year currently in the fund is far from sufficient to meet the OTs climate and biodiversity priorities. The RSPB recommends investigating the establishment of a separate funding solution for climate change adaptation in the OTs once a review has been undertaken.
3. Whether the recommendations in our 2008 report, Halting Biodiversity Loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined-up Government to further conservation have been implemented Recommendation U. All relevant UK Government Departments should feed into the development of the OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan, and responsibility for delivering the various components of its workplan should be clearly assigned to each Department. 3.1 With regard to practising joined-up government, progress has been made since the 2008 report. In 2009, Defra agreed to take the departmental lead on OTs biodiversity and published the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy in conjunction with the FCO and DFID. This was extremely welcome progress. 3.2 Further progress in achieving joined-up Government occurred in July 2011, when the National Security Council (NSC) agreed in the context of a new OTs Strategy that “each UK Government Department should recognise its responsibility to engage with the territories in its area of competence and expertise”, and required each Department to publish a paper outlining how it intended to discharge its responsibilities.20 3.3 These changes have created a much clearer structure. However, as outlined in paragraphs 1.15–1.19, the current lack of full-time OTs-focused staff within Defra or DFID is an obstacle to joined-up action, and other relevant Departments such as DCMS (responsible for natural World Heritage Sites) and MOD (responsible for the Cyprus SBAs) still appear to be on the sidelines. FCO and Defra work constructively and closely together, and the cross-departmental nature of the Darwin Plus fund is a positive development. However, until the upcoming Implementation Plan for the Biodiversity Strategy is completed, further cohesive and strategic cross- departmental action cannot take place. 3.4 The other main recommendations of the EAC’s 2008 report concerned funding and information for environmental protection. As outlined above, whilst environmental funding has increased to more than £2 million per year in 2012, it is still far short of the amount required. The recommendation to conduct an ecosystem assessment in partnership with each OT to provide the baseline environmental data required has not been delivered. As outlined in paragraphs 1.2–1.10, an understanding of what species are present in what numbers and where on the OTs remains an urgent prerequisite to both halting biodiversity loss and achieving sustainable development. 16 Foresight International Dimensions of Climate Change (2011). The Government Office for Science, London. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/international-dimensions/11–1042-international-dimensions-of-climate-change 17 Available at: http://www.DFID.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/ovseas-terr-dept-2011-summary.pdf 18 The climate change commitments of DFID’s Business Plan are available at: http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/ 12/52 19 DFID Overseas Territories Department Operational Plan 2011—2015 is available at: http://www.DFID.gov.uk/Documents/ publications1/op/ovseas-terr-dept-2011.pdf 20 The Written Ministerial Statement from the FCO outlining the NSC’s decision is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110914/wmstext/110914m0001.htm#11091465000014 Ev 60 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
4. The extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOTs embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriately trades-off environmental protection, social development and economic growth AND whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference Recommendations V. The UK Government should ensure that all EU-funded projects in the Overseas Territories are subject to comprehensive EIA and SEA, and establish a mechanism to enable wider stakeholder involvement and oversight in development spending decisions. W. DECC should introduce a more strategic approach of proactive support to Overseas Territories. 4.1 The RSPB believes that economic growth and social development can be achieved whilst also maintaining and enhancing environmental resources. We encourage the EAC to avoid the assumption that environmental protection needs to be “traded off” to achieve these other goals. Indeed, we believe that sustainable development can only be achieved in the presence of a healthy and functioning ecosystem, which provides the services that people rely on for life. 4.2 Many Overseas Territories communities are especially dependent upon the natural environment for their livelihoods, eg the Falklands Islands and Tristan da Cunha receive over half of their revenue from their fishing industries. Achieving sustainable development is thus both of vital importance and at the same time a considerable challenge for these small island communities. Water resources are frequently limited, recycling expensive when at such low volumes, electricity is often drawn from diesel-powered generators, and unique biodiversity may be especially vulnerable due to its extremely limited range and naivety to introduced species. Many OTs lack adequate development planning regimes to help achieve sustainable development. This means major developments can occur without the need for Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) or Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), at the expense of the environment and biodiversity. 4.3 It is not clear that UK Government strategy currently embodies the principles of sustainable development, especially given the limited knowledge of OT biodiversity and the lack of strategic overview on the part of the UK Government as to where environmental governance improvements are needed. At present there is a cross- government official-level working group on OTs Biodiversity, which is very welcome, but no group with a wider remit on sustainable development. Proactive input from relevant departments such as DECC appears limited. 4.4 The general development support provided by the European Union to the OTs is highly valued. The RSPB welcomes this support for the Territories, but notes that the funding processes followed by the European Development Fund (EDF) lack transparency. We are concerned that projects funded by the EDF often do not appear to be subject to EIA or SEA. This risks both undermining the natural environments on which Territory economies heavily depend, as well as causing conflict with environmental conservation projects. The UK Government should ensure that, at a minimum, all EDF-funded projects in the OTs are subject to SEA and EIA, and establish a mechanism whereby wider stakeholder involvement and oversight in development spending decisions is enabled. 4.5 The Rio+20 conclusions reiterated the importance of achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020. Given that the OTs are home to at least 90% of the known threatened biodiversity for which the UK is responsible (and many more OT species are yet to be identified or have their conservation status assessed), the UK will not be able to meet its Rio+20 commitments without the development of a suitably ambitious and sufficiently resourced OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan. Once that strategy is developed, Defra will also then need some full-time staff capacity to oversee its implementation. Given that OTs biodiversity received no mention in Defra’s Business Plan, there is cause for some concern that the scale of the response is not yet consistent with the ambitions declared at the Rio conference. At present further global extinctions in the OTs are considered likely. 4.6 The EAC’s observation in their 2008 report that providing more support to the OTs would be “one of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing catastrophic global biodiversity loss” remains true today. As the Committee said: “with leadership, and a relatively small sum of money, the incredible biodiversity found in our overseas territories can be safeguarded into the future”. It is not until the UK works to adequately protect its own biodiversity that it will be able to advocate effectively on an international stage for further action to address the global loss of biodiversity. 4.7 The OTs are heavily reliant on fossil fuel imports to supply their energy. In order to reduce their emissions and improve their long-term energy security, investments in renewables and energy efficiency are required. DECC has lead responsibility for energy and climate change mitigation policy in the OTs, and in April 2012 published a departmental paper outlining its support to the Territories.21 This document was very light on content, containing only four pages of text. Whilst it is welcome that DECC is now more actively engaged with the OTs and has committed to “respond positively to further ad-hoc requests for knowledge sharing”,22 the introduction by DECC of a more strategic programme of proactive support would be a more appropriate response to the challenge faced. 21 Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/international-climate-change/5028-decc-support- for-the-overseas-territories.pdf 22 Ibid. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 61
4.8 As an example of what can be achieved, New Zealand has recently funded a £4.3 million solar project in its Territory of Tokelau, reducing dependence on diesel generation dramatically and making Tokelau the first territory able to meet all its electricity needs with solar power.23
5. How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation Recommendations X. The FCO and DFID should review the state of civil society in the OTs in order to identify and remedy barriers to sustainable growth, and to deliver its White Paper commitment to good government. Y. The UK Government will need to address outstanding environmental governance gaps if it is to fulfil the vision of its White Paper and “cherish” the environments of the OTs. Z. The FCO must use its Governors to advocate for strengthened environmental governance and the passage of long-stalled environmental legislation. AA. The FCO must introduce clear safeguards to OT Governors’ roles in environmental decision-making to reduce personal latitude and improve transparency and accountability. BB. The UK Government must work to swiftly complete terrestrial and marine protected area networks in all the uninhabited Territories and establish appropriate development controls where needed. We also encourage the UK Government to work with the governments of the inhabited Territories to encourage improvements in these areas. CC. The UK Government should extend its ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity to all of the uninhabited Territories. 5.1 An active civil society can play a fundamental role in conserving biodiversity, through supporting governments in environmental policy development, undertaking monitoring, delivering on-the-ground action, and through their ability to hold decision-makers to account. Whilst several of the Territories are too small to ever sustain NGOs, others are of sufficient population size and wealth yet still lack much in the way of local civil society organisations. 5.2 Where they do exist, many Territory-based NGOs rely to a significant extent on funding from Territory governments, so are also not able to respond objectively when consulted on issues such as development proposals because they fear budget cuts if they raise concerns. Staff at these small organisations may also not have the skills and/or sufficient time to engage effectively in policy or planning processes. Limited OT civil society capacity and high staff turnover is a key issue, and this is exacerbated by the existing project-based funding streams for the Territories which make it difficult to develop organisations over the long term. 5.3 The RSPB considers that the FCO, through its Governors, should focus on creating an enabling environment and ensuring that technical support is available to NGOs, parastatial organisations such as National Park Trusts, as well as Territorial Governments. Governors also need to ensure that local organisations are consulted early and often on any development proposals, bearing in mind their limited capacity. 5.4 It is clear that the FCO and Governors have the ability to support the involvement of civil society in environmental decision-making and to promote good governance. However, in some Territories, legislation gives Governors the ability to make decisions, eg on development control, with no right of appeal and sometimes no local consultation. This is apposite to good and transparent governance and such legislation should be amended to avoid Governors having this sort of authority. 5.5 DFID has particular experience in nurturing civil society, and should work on strengthening civil society in all the Territories. Opportunities for civil society to deliver services, such as the management of National Parks, should also be explored at a strategic level. 5.6 To get an overview of what is needed, the FCO and DFID should review the state of civil society involvement in decision-making in the OTs in order to identify and remedy barriers to sustainable growth. This would also be a means of helping deliver the UK Government’s White Paper ambition to ensure good governance in the OTs. 5.7 UK-based NGOs can provide significant resources to OT biodiversity conservation but must always work closely with local OT partners to achieve effective and sustainable outcomes. As well as delivering on- the-ground conservation projects, the RSPB has a focus on developing local NGO partners and building local conservation capacity. To do this, the RSPB shares its organisational development expertise, as well as providing direct technical and financial support to 13 OT conservation bodies. 5.8 In some of the OTs which are too small to sustain a local NGO, the RSPB supports local Governments directly (eg by funding staff salaries in the Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha Conservation Departments). Our focus is to build capacity and strengthen links between the OTs as well as between the OTs and the UK. The RSPB aims to share all data collected in any OT with both Government and non-governmental partners from that OT. Data-sharing, consultation, partnership-working and respect for local environmental priorities are key to effective UK civil society support. 23 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20233754. Ev 62 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
5.9 Good environmental governance is a fundamental requirement for effective conservation. The UK Government’s recent White Paper states that “Those Territories which choose to remain British should abide by the same basic standards of good government as in the UK”.24 The standard of environmental governance in the Territories is currently deeply variable. Many OTs have only basic or incomplete legislative and policy frameworks in place to protect and conserve their threatened biodiversity, and often lack the technical capacity to improve the situation due to their small size. 5.10 The greatest immediate environmental threat in many of the Caribbean OTs is the lack of appropriate development control regimes. There are no EIA or SEA requirements in Anguilla and Cayman so unrestricted development can destroy valuable habitats such as primary forest and mangroves. Transparent planning and development processes are also often lacking, which reduces the ability to obtain stakeholder involvement and increases the chances of corrupt practices or inappropriate developments being granted planning permission. 5.11 Several OTs still do not have networks of protected areas in place for their important terrestrial sites, whilst the marine environments of nearly all the OTs remain largely unprotected. This includes the uninhabited OTs where HMG has direct responsibility. 5.12 Many OTs have limited capacity to strengthen their environmental frameworks, whilst in some OTs efforts to improve governance have been stalled due to lack of political will. For example, the Cayman Islands draft National Conservation Bill (2007), Anguilla’s Physical Planning Bill (2001) and Montserrat’s Conservation and Environmental Management Bill (2008) have not yet been passed into law. 5.13 The UK Government recognises its responsibility to help the OTs protect their environments, but has made no overall assessment of the presence and adequacy of current environmental policy and legislation. Given the UK Government’s new strategic priority to strengthen good government, this is urgently needed. 5.14 The RSPB has therefore commissioned the independent Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) to assess the OTs’ biodiversity and development control frameworks in order to inform both OT Government activity and UK Government support. The report should be complete by the end of 2012, and the RSPB will submit it to the EAC as soon as it is completed. The UK Government will need to assist the OTs in addressing environmental governance gaps if it is to fulfil the vision of its White Paper and “cherish” the environments of the OTs. It is anticipated that the FCO will need to provide increased legislative drafting capacity and use its Governors to advocate for strengthened environmental governance, whilst detailed technical support from and/or secondments of Defra’s policy experts will also be needed. 5.15 The Environment Charters are a positive aspect of the environmental frameworks of the OTs. These short documents set out a set of top-level principles and environmental commitments shared between HMG and the OT governments. However, in 2012, the sense of local ownership of the Charters in many Territories appears weak, and their extremely broad scope makes them difficult to implement given limited capacity. Their effectiveness is also limited by the fact that there is little to ensure compliance (on either side). 5.16 The UK is yet to extend its ratification of the CBD to any of the uninhabited Territories (although it has been extended to four inhabited Territories). Given the scale of its ambition in this area, this is something that should be completed as soon as possible.
6. How the introduction of “Marine Protected Areas” could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited Territories Recommendations DD. The detailed environmental legislation and regulations required to fully establish the no-take MPA in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) should be developed and passed. EE. The RSPB urges that the current South Georgia MPA is strengthened by introducing a clear prohibition on hydrocarbon and mineral extraction within the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Territory. A comprehensive “no-take” closed area should also be established around the entire South Sandwich Islands portion of the EEZ. FF. In the build up to the July 2013 CCAMLR MPA meeting, the UK government should seek to expand its BAT MPA proposals using the scientific data available. GG. The UK Government should facilitate a process of strengthening the environmental management of the new fishery at Ascension Island and identifying and protecting the areas of highest biodiversity value in Ascension’s waters. HH. The UK Government must build on the outcomes of the 2012 mainstreaming review by supporting the identification and designation of a science-based MPA network in Falkland waters before this is pre-empted by the expansion of its rapidly growing oil industry. 6.1 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can play a very important role in safeguarding areas of important marine biodiversity, and the Aichi targets include a commitment to have 10% of coastal and marine areas under protected area management by 2020. As categorised by the IUCN, a diverse range of MPAs can be introduced, 24 The 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper, “Security, Success & Sustainability”, is available at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/ en/pdf/publications/overseas-territories-white-paper-0612/ot-wp-0612 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 63
ranging from highly protected areas which prohibit all extractive activities, to those where some natural resource use compatible with nature conservation is seen as a principle management aim.25 The RSPB strongly recommends the use of a science-based approach to MPA designation which takes into account both biodiversity importance and conservation threat, and supports the use of the full range of protection categories as most appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
6.2 The BIOT is home to the world’s largest coral atoll and one of the healthiest reef systems on the planet, and so is of international significance for its marine biodiversity. In April 2010, the UK Government declared the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of this Territory a “no-take” Marine Protected Area and stopped issuing commercial fishing licences there. To date, this remains the largest no-take MPA in the world. The RSPB supports the declaration of this MPA as it was declared “without prejudice” to the ongoing legal process of the displaced Chagossian people. However that whilst the EEZ has been declared to be a MPA, and commercial fishing licences are no longer issued, the administration of the BIOT Government has still not passed the promised legislation to prohibit extractive activities such as commercial fishing or marine mining. At present, the MPA therefore appears to remain, in legal terms, little more than a name. The RSPB therefore recommends that the detailed environmental legislation and regulations required to protect BIOT’s seas and fully establish the MPA are developed and passed.
6.3 The uninhabited Territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) holds exceptional marine biodiversity, supporting albatross, penguin, seal and whale populations of global significance. The SGSSI Government allows licensed commercial fishing within the EEZ, and depends heavily on the income this generates. This fishing is conducted within a robust quota and licensing system which the RSPB uses as a case study of excellent management, and there is good enforcement capacity to detect IUU (Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported) fishing.
6.4 The RSPB welcomed the February 2012 declaration of a large sustainable-use MPA and ban on bottom- trawling in SGSSI’s EEZ, as well as the declaration of no-take protection in the inshore zones around the islands, as a positive first step in strengthening the conservation of this important area. Given the relatively pristine nature of SGSSI’s EEZ, and the potential catastrophic impact that a marine accident could have in this extremely remote and inhospitable environment, the RSPB also urges that the current provisions are strengthened by introducing a clear prohibition on hydrocarbon and mineral extraction within the entire EEZ.
6.5 A consultation on additional spatial and temporal closed areas within the overall MPA was conducted by the SGSSI Government in October 2012. This is an excellent opportunity to markedly enhance the Territory’s marine protection. Protected area designation should take a precautionary approach, based on scientific analysis of areas of significant importance to vulnerable species. With specific regard to SGSSI, the marine environment of the South Sandwich Islands (SSI) is one of the most pristine remaining in the Southern Ocean. Designating a no-take zone in the entire SSI section of the EEZ would protect marine biodiversity of international significance, provide a major contribution to the Aichi MPA target, and have minimal impact on the SGSSI fishing industry (which is concentrated in South Georgia waters). As a high priority, the RSPB therefore urges that a comprehensive “no-take” closed area be established, including the entire SSI EEZ.
6.6 In 2009, the UK proposal for the world’s first high-seas no-take MPA, located south of the South Orkney Islands, was agreed through CCAMLR. Building on this welcome progress, the UK Government has since proposed to enhance protection in areas exposed by collapsed ice sheets around the Antarctic Peninsular, though the October 2012 meeting of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) failed to agree to this or any other MPA proposals. However, we also note that at the moment the UK’s MPA proposal does not cover any offshore areas, or protect foraging ranges of key species such as penguins in the area. BirdLife International has identified marine Important Bird Areas (mIBAs) around the British Antarctic Territory (BAT) based on information on foraging areas for pelagic seabirds, and we recommend that in the build up to the July 2013 CCAMLR MPA meeting the UK government seeks to expand its BAT MPA proposals with this scientific data.
6.7 Ascension Island has no indigenous or permanent population (its inhabitants have no right of abode). Its marine environment is of great significance, with the island home to the second most important green turtle breeding site in the Atlantic. Since 2010, the Ascension Island Government has issued over 125 commercial long-line fishing licences for tuna and tuna-like species to vessels flagged in Taiwan, Korea, China, Philippines and Japan. Ascension has no MPAs at present and no stock assessments have yet been carried out. There is documented evidence that non-target species such as the critically endangered leatherback turtle are being caught by fisheries close to the Ascension EEZ, so it is possible that bycatch may be an issue in this fishery. The RSPB has already offered its assistance to the Ascension Island Government to work together to ensure this new fishery is sustainable, and recommends that the UK Government facilitates a process of strengthening sustainable fishery management and identifying and protecting the areas of highest biodiversity value in Ascension’s waters. 30 November 2012
25 See pages 9–10 of IUCN guidelines: https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_categoriesmpa_eng.pdf Ev 64 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Written evidence submitted by the Environmental Management Directorate, St Helena Government. 1. Executive Summary Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) has developed a more-coordinated approach to environmental management in the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories (UKOTs) since 2008 with (Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) playing a more prominent role. The cross-Whitehall approach appears to be extending to other HMG departments. One size does not fit all in the UKOTs as although there are similarities, there are a number of differences in scale, location, isolation, population etc. that have significant impacts on conservation on each UKOT. St Helena welcomes and has benefitted from UK government funding and technical support and this has made a significant difference for nature conservation and environmental management in general on the island. St Helena is host to some of the largest number of endemics (relative to UK and relative to some of the other OTs) and has one of the smallest populations. This inevitably means that the island cannot manage and address all of the threats to biodiversity with existing human and financial constraints. Because of the scale of St Helena (and UKOTs) there is likely to be a continued requirement for financial and technical support. The short term nature of project funding is not always the most cost-effective or sustainable way of supporting. A longer-term programme approach to support might be a potential alternative. There are a number of recommendations in this submission that are relatively minor changes that would enhance existing activities and opportunities.
2. Brief Introduction into the Submitter Tara Pelembe has a background in environment and nature conservation. She is currently on loan to the St Helena Government for two years from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to set up an environmental management directorate and mainstream environment on island. This submission highlights the areas that the inquiry will examine in bold and provides a response underneath each area.
3. The Extent to which UK Government Strategy on the UKOTs Embodies the Principles of Sustainable Development and Appropriately Trades-off Environmental Protection, Social Development and Economic Growth The UK Government White Paper 2012 appears to embody the principles of sustainable development with explicit focus on economy, society and the environment—the three pillars of sustainable development. How, and if, this translates into reality and actual support in each of the territories will become clearer over time. On St Helena — The Department for International Development (DFID) has committed £250 million to the construction of an airport to stimulate economic growth. This is linked to funding to support economic development while the airport is being built. — A new Environmental Management Directorate26 has been created to take forward mainstreaming of the environment across the island. — The Sustainable Development Plan27 has 3 National Goals—one focussing on economic growth, the other on social development and a third on environmental management. Recommendation: Regular (c. 2 yearly) reports on progress (against agreed indictors) of sustainable development in the UKOTs might be a good tool for picking up on whether UK and OT governments are delivering and whether trade-offs are appropriate. Recommendation: In 1999 when the White Paper—Partnership and Prosperity was produced, to ensure the environment was given appropriate profile within UK and OT governments, the Environment Charters were produced. These had commitments for both the UK and OT Governments against which progress could be monitored. There are differences of opinions on how effective the Environment Charters were but they did provide a basis for securing support and resources and also covered the wider environmental management, which appears to have a lower profile than conservation, biodiversity protection and climate change. It is therefore recommended that a charter or something similar is developed between UK and OT governments outlining in more detail the nature of agreed environmental commitments.
26 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/pages/environment.html 27 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/760/sustainable-development-plan-201213–201415 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 65
4. How the UK Government is Fulfilling its Responsibilities to Protect Biodiversity in the UKOTs The UK Government has recently (April 2008) created an Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy.28 This strategy provides a framework for cross Whitehall input into biodiversity in the UKOTs, and establishes a mechanism for implementing this. From an EMD perspective the main manifestations of this are: — Funding: the creation of the new Darwin plus which combines all previous HMG funding sources for OT biodiversity conservation. — Support: In particular the ability to write to HMG officers for advice and support around a range of areas, the invertebrate identification service that FERA (the Food and Environment Research Agency) provides, the technical and advisory support provided by Royal Botanical Gardens Kew and JNCC. Recommendation: Links into Multilateral environmental agreement processes need to be specifically tailored to UKOT situation and capacity, with adequate interpretation and time being given if meaningful input is required. Recommendation: Increased and improved access to a wider range of support for a range of environmental areas, that is available within relatively short spaces of time. Currently this is delivered for St Helena via a call-down contract.
5. How the UK Government is Helping the UKOTs Adapt to the Impact of Climate Change The UK Meteorological Office has a memorandum of Understanding with the St Helena Government to fund the running of a recording station on the island and provide technical training, information and support. The data generated can provide the foundation for our work around climate change. JNCC has produced a suite of materials on climate change in the UKOTs.29 These provide a good foundation for climate change adaptation and mitigation policy. On St Helena — There is a target to develop a climate change (adaptation and mitigation) policy in the next year. In the development of the policy, we are likely to look to UK government to tap into expertise and advice on the policy development. Recommendation: Although there has been support to some general work on climate change in the UKOTs and to specific developments of climate change strategies in the Caribbean, St Helena has not really benefitted from these. St Helena still requires a comprehensive study to determine what predicted climate change impacts will be, so that we can incorporate recommended adaptation and mitigation measures into policy and planning.
6. Whether the Recommendations in our 2008 Report, Halting Biodiversity Loss, on Safeguarding Biodiversity and Practising Joined-up Government to further Conservation have been Implemented This section outlines each recommendation of the report in italic. Underneath each recommendation is a statement on progress of implementation from an EMD perspective. The Government has a clear moral and legal duty to help protect the biodiversity of the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, where it is the eleventh hour for many species. We are extremely concerned that recommendations that we have made in the past that would have helped to protect the environment of the Overseas Territories have been ignored. The Government must: adopt a truly joined-up approach to environmental protection the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, by bringing together all relevant departments including the FCO, MoJ, DfID, DEFRA, DCMS and MoD with the governments of the UKOTs. The Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group has been created to provide the linkages suggested in the recommendation. The UK Overseas Territories Association provides the OT representation on the group. make better use of the Inter-Departmental Group on biodiversity Not sure of the status of this group to provide more oversight and support for the development and implementation of effective environmental protection policy in the UKOTs, and expand the Group to include other relevant departments. On St Helena JNCC have supported the creation of an environmental management Directorate and associated policy and legislation through secondment of a staff member and funding for data management and research. 28 http://www.DEFRA.gov.uk/publications/2011/05/26/pb13335-uk-ot-strategy/ 29 http://jncc.DEFRA.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=5283 Ev 66 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
JNCC and the St Helena Government (SHG) Environmental Management Directorate (EMD) also partner on a Darwin funded marine mapping project. DFID have supported this through their Technical Cooperation budget to St Helena providing funding for the following roles: — Director of environmental management. — Environment Risk Advisor/Trainer. — Terrestrial Conservation Advisor/Trainer. — “Call-down” support for specialist technical advice. What about JNCC/DEFRA funding support for training courses and small projects. have DEFRA assume joint responsibility for the UKOTs, and reflect this in future spending settlements; DEFRA lead on the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity group (OTBG), and lead on the recently created “Darwin Plus” project funding which provides a cross Whitehall (DEFRA, DFID, FCO) combined approach to funding biodiversity and environment projects in the UK Overseas Territories. address the dire lack of funds and information for environmental protection in the UKOTs. Darwin funding, and OTEP funding—now replaced by the new Darwin Plus fund, provide external (HMG) streams of funding for biodiversity and environmental work on St Helena. Projects that have been funded by HMG since 2008 are outlined in Annex 1. There is also an important environmental component to the Airport. An ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity loss. An ecosystem assessment has not been carried out on St Helena, however there have been a number of funded baseline data projects including a comprehensive plant survey, and the current (Darwin funded) marine mapping project. With leadership, and a relatively small sum of money, the incredible biodiversity found in our overseas territories can be safeguarded into the future. One of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing the catastrophic global biodiversity loss currently occurring would be to accept its responsibilities and to provide more support for the UK Overseas Territories in this area. Recommendation: Biodiversity protection is/has to be a collaboration between the UKOT and UK governments. Funding is an important and vital component of this collaboration as are other areas of technical and advisory support. OT governments, like any government has competing priorities, and limited human and financial resources. Constraints often mean that all of the activities required to halt biodiversity loss are not able to be implemented. The short term nature of project and application driven funding does not enable long- term and sustainable planning and implementation. It is recommended that a long-term, programme approach to funding is considered as an alternative. Recommendation: OTBG needs to have a clear process for ensuring that “on the ground” OT issues are a key part of discussions. Recommendation: Whitehall departments that have committed to inputting into OT environment should have a named lead officer with that responsibility explicitly built into their job profile. These should then be communicated to Overseas Territories governments and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
7. Whether UK Government Strategy on the UKOTs is Consistent with the Conclusions and Commitments on Protecting Biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference; — No comment on this section.
8. How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation; and — Civil Society on St Helena makes a significant positive impact and contribution to conservation and environment in general. — The St Helena National Trust (SHNT) works on a number of projects (outlined above) and contributes to raising awareness and inputting into and questioning government decisions on the environment. The SHNT is however dependent on project funding and its strength as an institution can change as and when project cycles start and finish. One of their internationally recognised long-term success stories is the Millennium Forest—an endemic plant restoration project. — St Helena Active Participation in Enterprise (SHAPE) is a social enterprise that provides employment for St Helena’s vulnerable and disabled. There is a focus on “green” activities and SHAPE has become the islands first paper recycler, they also use wool, recycle clothes to paper etc. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 67
— St Helena Nature Conservation Group (SNCG) is a voluntary organisation that undertakes conservation and awareness raising activities focussed primarily on the terrestrial environment. — Other NGO and Civil Society organisations on the island undertake conservation work periodically—these include New Horizons (the islands youth organisation) uniformed organisations like Scouts and Guides, Church and religious groups, etc. — In addition to providing annual funding for some NGO’s St Helena Government has recently created a community grants scheme for all civil society groups. — Private Sector: A number of private sector businesses are moving towards a “green” and social consciousness. “Green guidelines for businesses” are being developed and a matching accreditation system will be introduced. — Governance: St Helena is going through a public sector modernisation process, and there are anticipated changes in structure, ways of working etc. The key is to the provision of long term continuity in approach to ensure long term sustainability and support for conservation and the environment. Currently this comes through — Sustainable Development Plan:30 Effective management of the environment is one of St Helena’s three National Goals. — Sustainable Economic Development plan:31 The core focus of economic development is tourism and the drive is to develop a “green brand” for St Helena. — National Environmental Management Plan:32 Outlines a blueprint for environmental management for the next 10 years. — Land Development Control Plan:33 Embeds Environmental Impact Assessment requirements into planning and outlines boundaries for National Conservation Areas.
9. How the Introduction of “Marine Protected Areas” could Safeguard the Marine Environment in the Uninhabited Territories This is not directly relevant to St Helena. However on St Helena we are in the process of undertaking preparatory work to be able to provide an evidence-base for the proposed designation of inshore Marine Protected Areas. This work is being funded through a Darwin Project (DEFRA).
10. General Conclusion HMG has developed a more-coordinated approach to environmental management in the UKOTs since 2008 with DEFRA playing a more prominent role. The cross-Whitehall approach appears to be extending to other HMG departments. One size does not fit all in the UKOTs as although there are similarities, there are a number of differences in scale, location, isolation, population etc. that have significant impacts on conservation on each OT. St Helena has benefits from UK government funding and technical support and this has made a significant difference for nature conservation and environmental management in general on the island. St Helena is host to some of the largest number of endemics (relative to UK and relative to some of the other OTs) and has one of the smallest populations. This inevitably means that the island cannot manage and address all of the threats to biodiversity with existing human and financial constraints. Because of the scale of St Helena (and UKOTs) there is likely to be a continued requirement for financial and technical support. The short term nature of project funding is not always the most cost-effective or sustainable way of supporting. A longer-term programme approach to support might be a potential alternative. There are a number of recommendations in this submission that are relatively minor changes that would enhance existing activities and opportunities.
Annex 1 HMG FUNDED PROJECTS ON ST HELENA SINCE 2008: This section outlines the project title and the lead partner organisations. 2008 Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) STH501: Supporting Critical Species Recovery and Horticultural Needs on St Helena—Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate (ANRD) OTEP STH502: Heart Shaped Waterfall—public access and amenities, St Helena—St Helena National Trust (SHNT) 30 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/760/sustainable-development-plan-201213–201415 31 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/761/sustainable-economic-development-plan-201213–202122 32 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/data/files/st._helena_national_environmental_management_plan_2012_2022_final_070912.pdf 33 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/770/land-development-control-plan-2012–2022-adopted-revised-plan Ev 68 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Department for International Development (DFID): Mitigation for the impacts on the Wirebird population on St Helena (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—RSPB, ANRD and SHNT).
2009 OTEP STH601: Illustrated field guides to the flora of St Helena—St Helena Nature Conservation Group (SNCG)
2010 Flagship Species Fund (FSF): St Helena Gumwood Project SHNT Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC): Pheasant Tail Fern control Programme JNCC: Bastard Gumwood Recovery Project— Darwin Scoping: Laying the foundation for invertebrate conservation on St Helena—Buglife, SHNT, Darwin: Increasing local capacity to conserve St Helena’s threatened native biodiversity—SHNT
2011 OTEP STH 801: Creating a mechanised recycling facility at SHAPE- St Helena’s Active Participation in Enterprise—SHAPE OTEP STH 803: Restoration of a functioning Bastard Gumwood population on St Helena—ANRD OTEP STH 805: Securing the endemic Wirebird population through invasive predator control—SHNT JNCC: Marine diploma: JNCC has supported 1 person to attend a Marine Biology Diploma course from June 2011 to January 2012—ANRD JNCC: Bastard Gumwood Recovery Project—
2012 Darwin: Mapping St Helena’s marine biodiversity to create a Marine Management Plan—JNCC, EMD. Darwin: Laying the foundations for invertebrate conservation on St Helena- Buglife, SHNT, EMD. JNCC: JNCC has supported one staff member to undertake a NEBOSH Environmental Diploma course—EMD JNCC: development of a co -ordinated spatial data management system, St Helena JNCC: Seabird monitoring training: JNCC has supported two staff to attend seabird monitoring and ringing training on Ascension Island—EMD Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO): Interpretation Centre for Diana’s Peak National Park. 30 November 2012
Written evidence by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum Summary The UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) is a charity which promotes the conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and their contribution, together with other aspects of natural and human heritage, to the well-being and sustainability of the UK’s Overseas Territories (UKOTs) and their local communities. UKOTCF’s some 30 member and associate organisations include leading environmental bodies in Britain, the UKOTs, and the Crown Dependencies (CDs), and much of UKOTCF’s work is in facilitating mutual assistance between these and other UKOT bodies, including government departments. In this memorandum, UKOTCF makes the following main points or recommendations, the background and rationale for which are included in the body of the memorandum: (a) UKOTCF welcomes UK Government’s (HMG’s) recognition of the global importance of, and major threats to, the wildlife of UKOTs, and the need to address its conservation as a matter of urgency (para A4). (b) UKOTCF recommends that, for the purposes of working towards sustainable development, strategic coordination be implemented through a working group chaired by a senior official within the FCO incorporating relevant departments and agencies, with NGOs (para B5). (c) UKOTCF welcomes HMG’s new commitment to exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited UKOTs. UKOTCF recommends that this commitment be extended also to the inhabited UKOTs (para B6). Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 69
(d) UKOTCF recommends that HMG immediately add all uninhabited UKOTs to its ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other conservation conventions, and encourage and assist other territories to join its ratifications (para B7). (e) UKOTCF recommends that HMG take a more environmentally responsible line in areas of UKOT issues where it has direct responsibility (para B11). (f) UKOTCF recommends that the Cyprus Sovereign Base Area (SBA) Administration enforces bird protection legislation, in conjunction with the neighbouring Republic of Cyprus, whose laws those of the SBAs match (para B12). (g) UKOTCF welcomes the reinstatement to approximately the level of two years ago of potential HMG funding for conservation work in UKOTs and the restoration of the eligibility of NGOs and others to apply for such funding, while having some constructive comments on the approach to be used by the newly combined fund (para C10). (h) UKOTCF recommends that the UK Government increases significantly its funding for UKOT biodiversity conservation, as already recommended four years ago by two Select Committees of the House of Commons and that this not be clawed back into funding HMG’s own bodies (para C11). (i) UKOTCF recommends that either the Darwin Plus grants (relating to UKOTs) have their own advisory panel, comprising mainly conservationists knowledgeable in current UKOT issues, and with experience of running projects in or for UKOTs, and of grant-programme management, or that, less satisfactorily, if the existing Darwin Advisory Committee continues to deal with UKOT grants, it be reinforced with several individuals with the attributes indicated above (para C13). (j) UKOTCF recommends that HMG explore with NGOs who have personnel with experience of grant programme management and UKOTs the commissioning of such bodies to run small grant programmes, thereby retaining the effective small project programme without the need to call heavily on HMG personnel time (para C15). (k) UKOTCF recommends that HMG takes a less arbitrarily restrictive view of the type of projects eligible for funding and takes note of what those working in UKOTs consider they need to achieve conservation (para C17). (l) UKOTCF recommends that UK Government engages more with the European Union institutions in order to ensure that UKOTs are not effectively excluded from EU funding for biodiversity conservation—and that, when funding is made available, procedures are simplified (para C21). (m) UKOTCF recommends that Ministers act on the importance they attach in the White Paper to the UKOTs and direct the National Lottery bodies to give at least equal priority in making grants to UKOTs as to metropolitan UK, and that more appropriate decision making systems be established with an understanding of UKOTs (para C24). (n) UKOTCF recommends that UK Government re-affirms clearly its commitment to the Environment Charters which form the basis of UK and UKOTs fulfilling their international conservation obligations—for both the inhabited and uninhabited UK Overseas Territories (para C37). (o) UKOTCF further recommends that fulfilling the Environment Charters be reinstated as a core role of the funding from HMG, now grouped under the Darwin Plus heading (para C38). (p) UKOTCF recommends that HMG supports HM Government of Gibraltar in enforcing fisheries protection legislation, resists the Government of Spain’s support for illegal activities, and instructs the Royal Navy to support HMGOG in the consequent defence of territorial waters and their resources (para C44). (q) UKOTCF recommends that HMG re-engage with the UKOTCF network and other partners to develop a real strategy, preferably shared, for conservation work in the UKOTs (para E19). (r) UKOTCF recommends that UK Government Ministers instruct their officials and agencies to respond positively to the repeated invitations from UKOTCF, its member organisations and other NGOs to restore the productive communication and collaborative working that characterised conservation work for the UKOTs, until unilaterally reduced by officials over the past half-decade (para F4). (s) UKOTCF recommends that HMG officials involved in decision making on UKOTs receive some basic training in environmental conservation and sustainable development, or at least have some technical advice on such matters available and pay regard to this (para G7). (t) UKOTCF recommends that Ministers instruct their officials to stop blocking contacts with the body that many UKOT organisations choose to link to HMG, UKOTCF, and seek to restore the positive relationship of the 1990s and early 2000s (para G16).
A. Introduction A1. The UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF or “the Forum”) is a charity which promotes the conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and their contribution, together with other aspects of natural and human heritage, to the well-being and sustainability of the UK’s Overseas Territories (UKOTs) and their local communities. UKOTCF’s some 30 member and associate organisations include leading environmental bodies in Britain, the UKOTs, and the Crown Dependencies (CDs), and much of UKOTCF’s Ev 70 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
work is in facilitating mutual assistance between these and other UKOT bodies, including government departments. The Crown Dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) share many conservation challenges and aspects of governance with the UKOTs, including reliance on HMG to represent their interests internationally, under international conventions, including Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), and in related negotiations. UKOTCF and associated organisations have given evidence to earlier inquiries by the EAC and other select committees in relation to the fulfilment of the UK’s responsibilities in respect of the UKOTs. One member organisation of UKOTCF is also an agency of the UK Government; it is therefore not party to this submission. A2. This submission is structured in relation to the questions raised in the Committee’s announcement. In order to maintain the flow of our comments, we have included most of our comments under the Committee’s second, fourth and sixth bullet points (sections C, E and G below). However, we have cross-referred in the other sections to some paragraphs in these sections. A3. The Committee’s announcement makes reference to the White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, published by FCO in June 2012. UKOTCF analysed the aspects of this White Paper and its context which relate to the environment and published this analysis as Moving Backwards in UK Overseas Territories Conservation: Comments by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum on the UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374) (at http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/Consultations/WP2012comments.pdf, with a shortened, preliminary version of this published in Forum News 40). UKOTCF subsequently analysed and published a further document, Key measures needed if the UK Government is to fulfil its main international responsibilities for biodiversity conservation in the UK’s Overseas Territories: Main recommendations of the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (at http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/Consultations/WhitepaperResponseKeyPts05.pdf); this identified some of the main measures which UK Government needed to take to achieve the aspirations indicated in the forewords and introductions to the White Paper, in respect of the environment. These documents provided input into a workshop on environmental aspects of the White Paper, organised by UKOTCF on 2nd October 2012, the proceedings being published as Environmental Conservation and UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374)—Proceedings of a workshop on 2nd October 2012 at Gibraltar House, the Strand, London, organised by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (at http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/Consultations/Workshop2012Proceedings05.pdf). These documents are very relevant to the subject of the Committee’s inquiry, and are therefore appended to this memorandum. A4. UKOTCF has long underlined the fact that, in world terms, the biodiversity of UK’s Overseas Territories is even greater than that of metropolitan Britain, in terms of endemic species, proportions of other species supported, sensitive ecosystems and threatened species. UKOTCF has expressed concern that a species, the St Helena Olive, went globally extinct on UK sovereign territory in 2003 and that other species are on the brink of global extinction. Furthermore, the natural ecosystems of many UKOTs are fundamental to the economies and livelihoods of the local human communities. These include sustainable fisheries, tourism, storm protection, water supply, medicinal plants and other raw materials, amongst others. UKOTCF welcomes HMG’s recognition of the global importance of, and major threats to, the wildlife of UKOTs, and the need to address its conservation as a matter of urgency.
B. The Extent to which UK Government Strategy on the UKOTs Embodies the Principles of Sustainable Development and Appropriately Trades-off Environmental Protection, Social Development and Economic Growth B1. The Forum has a very wide remit relating to the sustainability of the UK Overseas Territories but its main involvement is through concern for the environment, and our evidence will concentrate on environmental matters. However, in relation to the specific question, UKOTCF believes that the White Paper (if that is what is meant by UK government strategy) fails to deal adequately with the need to balance the three pillars of sustainable development. Indeed, there is no specific consideration of such balance as each element is considered separately. In terms of economic growth, it is strange that only a few months after the Rio+20 meeting, where the European Union (and therefore the UK) were strongly promoting a “green growth” agenda which was adopted in the conclusions, there is no mention of this in the White Paper. This is in line with discussions held by Forum representatives with the Governor of Montserrat in February this year, who made it very clear that any growth would be purely on economic grounds—not “green growth” and with little regard for environmental or social concerns. B2. In respect of the environment, there are strong words on this aspect within the 2012 White Paper. In his foreword, the Prime Minister says “We see an important opportunity to set world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environments we have inherited”. The relevant actions seem far less strong, and inadequate to meet this aspiration and grasp that opportunity. It is further tempered by later text which suggests that oversight of exemplary environmental management is restricted to the uninhabited territories. We would note also the wording of the introduction to the Environment chapter of the White Paper “The UK Government wishes to ensure that the rich environmental assets of the Overseas Territories, for which they are internationally recognised, are cherished.” This is an interesting form of words, particular the use of “cherish” being in the passive, and making no commitment to implementation of measures. The operational conclusion at the end of Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 71
the Environment chapter speaks only of managing natural resources sustainably and putting environmental considerations at the heart of all decision-making. In respect of the latter point, we are aware that UK Government has recently started an “environmental mainstreaming” exercise in some UKOTs, but are puzzled by the duplication and why it makes no reference to the comparable work (see www.ukotcf.org/charters/ charterStrat.htm), a decade earlier under the Environment Charters which derived from the 1999 White Paper. We are puzzled also as to why the new exercise has been conducted in such a closed way (see paras E6-E30, F2-F4, G6-G16). B3. UKOTCF questions also why the Environment Charters, which are so valued by local practitioners, particularly in response to policy and physical planning matters, are not mentioned in the 2012 White Paper. It has been noted by several persons that this could tend to undermine sustainable development and appropriate trade-offs (see paras C25-C38, E2-E5, E20–29). B4. Sustainable development, by its nature, has to be implemented through iterative and integrative processes, neither of which are apparent in the White Paper—nor are there clear proposals for these to be put in place. We do welcome the desire for inclusivity among government departments in meeting the aspirations of the White Paper, but that in itself does not automatically mean there is coordination. We know from experience in one territory, the Turks & Caicos Islands (TCI), that coordination has not been achieved even under direct rule by HMG (see para B8). Currently, there is in HMG an Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group, consisting of officials from DEFRA, DFID and FCO, with a secretariat from JNCC; this misses even obvious candidates for inclusion, such as the MoD and DCMS, or the Ministry of Justice responsible for the Crown Dependencies. Its terms of reference do not allow it to make decisions and it does not report to Ministers, so it is somewhat unclear as to its purpose. Discussions in June 2012 with officials from the FCO suggested that it was no longer required. The Forum has suggested that, to assist with integration and coordination, it should be replaced by a wider ranging group of departments and should be accountable to Ministers. B5. UKOTCF recommends that, for the purposes of working towards sustainable development, strategic coordination be implemented through a working group chaired by a senior official within the FCO incorporating relevant departments and agencies, with NGOs. B6. UKOTCF has been concerned in the past about the legal fiction that HMG was not directly responsible for the uninhabited UKOTs. Accordingly, UKOTCF welcomes UK Government’s new commitment to exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited UKOTs (but see also paras C27, E2-E5). UKOTCF recommends that this commitment be extended also to the inhabited UKOTs. B7. UKOTCF worked in the 1980s and 1990s to improve understanding of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, resulting eventually in all joining UK’s ratification. In recent years, HMG seems to have been less than helpful in encouraging its territories in joining further environmental conventions, although the Forum was asked, and agreed, to assist in a workshop on this topic in September 2011. In 2012, the Isle of Man became the first territory to be added to UK’s ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity since UK (with some other territories) joined CBD nearly 20 years earlier—and this took 18 months of delays by HMG (including many problems in communications between Departments) after the Isle of Man made the request, having met the requirements. UKOTCF recommends that HMG immediately add all uninhabited UKOTs to its ratification of CBD and other conservation conventions, and encourage and assist other territories to join its ratifications. B8. UKOTCF does not question the necessity of UK Government taking direct responsibility for governing the Turks and Caicos Islands from 2009 to November 2012. However, it notes that UK Government, in this role, has moved backwards on some aspects of sustainable development and appropriate balances in respect of environmental management. These have included: the abolition of the Conservation Fund, based on an ear- marked element of taxes on tourists and other visitors (and originally introduced by TCI Government as a condition of UK grant aid); the attempt to re-sell for built development undeveloped areas recovered after illegal sale by the previous government; the considering of deep dredging of a channel through nature protected areas, whose earlier dredging devastated some sustainable fisheries as well as the nature reserves; the encouragement of high-rise developments; and the encouragement of, and amending laws to allow, the development of a dolphinarium (or dolphin-prison). It seems that desperation over achieving income may have outweighed proper environmental considerations during the period of direct rule by UK Government. B9. It is notable also that, against much local feeling to maintain sites of biological and cultural importance, the DFID-dominated government in Montserrat is allowing—and indeed promoting—destructive development at Pipers Pond (the only remaining mangrove area on the island), Carr’s Bay Battery historical site and the historic cemetery. Other approaches retaining these features would have been quite feasible. B10. The failure of HMG and the Royal Navy to support the Government of Gibraltar in its attempts to enforce environmental protection legislation against illegal incursions of Spanish fishermen and the paramilitary Guardia Civil into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW) in the context of actions from a neighbouring country (see paras C39-C44) are relevant here too. HMG failed also to deal in a timely manner with the Spanish government putting forward BGTW as part of its own Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive, a proposal which was accepted by the European Commission, so that parts of BGTW are considered Ev 72 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
a UK SAC and the whole of BGTW are considered part of a Spanish SAC, leading to retrospective action in the European Court of Justice. B11. UKOTCF recommends that HMG take a more environmentally responsible line in areas of UKOT issues where it has direct responsibility. B12. HMG has direct responsibility, administered by the MoD, for the government of the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas, but illegal hunting of migrant songbirds remains a problem, particularly in the Eastern SBA. UKOTCF recommends that the SBA Administration enforces bird protection legislation, in conjunction with the neighbouring Republic of Cyprus, whose laws those of the SBAs match.
C. How the UK Government is Fulfilling its Responsibilities to Protect Biodiversity in the UKOTs C1. HMG itself acknowledges that it has not fulfilled its responsibilities. In his introduction to the 2012 White Paper, the Foreign Secretary noted that it builds on the 1999 White Paper (which acknowledged that Britain was not meeting its obligations) and once again conceded that there are environmental obligations that are not being lived up to: “It [the 2012 White Paper] is also a strategy of re-evaluation. We have not in the past devoted enough attention to the vast and pristine environments in the lands and seas of our Territories.” The 2012 White Paper was presented as the vehicle by which this problem would be addressed; UKOTCF has strongly disputed that the 2012 White Paper will improve the situation (references at para A3). In fact, it is our position that it is a serious step backwards from the 1999 White Paper and the Environment Charters which resulted from that. UKOTCF considers that, unless a real strategy is developed to match positive wishes in Ministerial forewords and real actions are taken, there will be further losses of ecosystem services and further global extinctions on UK territory.
Funding by HMG C2. The issue of funding for conservation work in the UKOTs is critically important because of the basic problem that NGOs and other bodies in the UKOTs are not eligible for most international funds, because UKOTs are considered to be British, and therefore not developing countries. The assumption is that because the UKOTs are British, Britain itself must be providing the necessary funding. For this reason, in the Environment Charters HMG committed to providing direct funding through the Environment Fund for the Overseas Territories (later replaced by the Overseas Territories Environment Programme—OTEP), promoting access to other sources of public funding and helping each Territory identify further funding partners. C3. The 2012 White Paper notes (p 13) that “The reasonable assistance needs of the Territories are a first call on the UK’s international development budget.” However, DFID’s responsibility, as its major spend, for fulfilling HMG’s target of 0.7% of GDP being spent on ODA countries tends to run counter to this, because most UKOTs do not qualify under ODA. For example, DFID’s recent adoption of the main funding of the previously DEFRA Darwin Initiative has resulted in most UKOTs effectively being excluded from the main part of the Darwin Initiative (see para E28). C4. House of Commons Select Committees have been more than clear that the level of funding which is in fact provided is “grossly inadequate” (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, June 2008). A few months later, the Environmental Audit Committee said, “One of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing the catastrophic global biodiversity loss currently occurring would be to accept its responsibilities and to provide more support for the UK Overseas Territories in this area.” C5. In 2005, UKOTCF (Forum News 27: 2) analysed figures from HMG showing the spending at least £460 million per year on biodiversity conservation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but only about £1 million per year, divided between all UK Overseas Territories (and none on Crown Dependencies)—despite the Territories’ limited human populations and hence limited capacity themselves to undertake vital conservation work. This is even more vital because most of the UK’s globally important biodiversity is located in UK Overseas Territories and not in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Examples of this are well known and can be found on the Forum’s web site (www.ukotcf.org). One very conservative estimate is that there are at least ten times as many endemic species in UK Overseas Territories as in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Other measures give comparable ratios.) Using this as a factor to multiply the spending difference, it appears that UK Government values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in Great Britain and Northern Ireland about 5,000 times more than it values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in its Overseas Territories. In fact, because of incomplete information in UK Overseas Territories (caused in part by the same shortage of resources), the difference is very much more. Re-analysis of this in 2012 indicated that this ratio has remained approximately the same. C6. UKOTCF has never suggested that the spending by HMG on UKOT conservation should be increased by this magnitude, but estimates of needs by both NGOs and HMG’s own agencies indicate a minimum of about a 10-fold increase in budget is needed. C7. The British Government enters international commitments, including on environmental conservation, on behalf of both itself and UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. The British Government shares responsibility for this globally important biodiversity. The same 2005 analysis showed that HMG made a Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 73
major contribution to international conservation, of about £40 million per year. The “Government Response to Environmental Audit Committee Report: “Trade Development and Environment—the role of the FCO” (Fifth Report of Session 2006–07)”, reports that “The UK is the largest financial supporter of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).” This is commendable in one respect but contrasts with HMG’s pitiably small funding for the environment in the territories for which HMG shares direct responsibility. C8. In fact, HMG funding for conservation work in the UKOTs has increased only marginally, if at all since the EAC’s 2008 Inquiry. The new Darwin Plus fund brings together the FCO/DFID funding from OTEP (after a year’s absence of funding) and the DEFRA funding for UKOTs from the general Darwin Initiative. The funds available in the new Darwin Plus fund total only about £2 million for all Overseas Territories. (And with the new commitment to exemplary management of the uninhabited Territories, it stands to reason that the inhabited Territories are looking at a smaller share.) It seems that the amount of funding continues to be based on what Departments can spare, rather than on an assessment of the funds that would be needed actually to do the job. A strategic approach to this has been made both more complicated and easier in a sense, in that there is no longer a biodiversity strategy for the UK but each of the metropolitan devolved administrations now produce their own, with coordination through a mixture of chief scientists from the conservation agency of each of those administrations and the JNCC. However, it was noteworthy that this process initially completely missed out from the co-ordination the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy; reference to this was inserted only after the agreement between the metropolitan administrations had been signed; so its status is somewhat uncertain. One possible way forward could have been to treat the Overseas Territories governments in the same way, for example, as Scotland, as a devolved responsibility, and incorporate their strategies into the overarching process. UKOTCF did suggest this at a planning meeting with JNCC, but it did not find favour. Also, because of ever more elaborate application and reporting requirements, funds are increasingly inaccessible to smaller UKOT governments and most NGOs based in the Territories with poor capacity. C9. In the early stages of OTEP, there was an expectation that the fund would not normally fund HMG’s own departments and agencies. However, this expectation has gradually been eroded. C10. UKOTCF welcomes the reinstatement to approximately the level of two years ago of potential HMG funding for conservation work in UKOTs and the restoration of the eligibility of NGOs and others to apply for such funding, while having some constructive comments (see below) on the approach to be used by the newly combined fund. C11. UKOTCF recommends that the UK Government increases significantly its funding for UKOT biodiversity conservation, as already recommended four years ago by two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and that this not be clawed back into funding HMG’s own bodies. C12. The recent changes mark also a further distancing of the granting process from the people doing work on the ground. The philosophy of FCO’s Environment Fund for Overseas Territories (EFOT) set up in 1999 was that FCO, the UKOTCF network and the UKOTs were a team with a shared responsibility for conservation in the UKOTs. Thus help was available from FCO or UKOTCF to prepare proposals and implement the work. With DFID joining in to create the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP), came a more formal structure, so that UKOTs became applicants and the OTEP departments just a funding body. Rather than sharing the problems and responsibility for them, the attitude was more that the territories were supplicants for UK aid. This put UKOTCF in a difficult position, as DFID/FCO would never clarify the rules as to what UKOTCF could do/not do to help applicants—usually instead taking retrospective positions. With time and changing FCO and DFID (and DEFRA & JNCC) personnel, this situation steadily became worse, with a decreasing proportion of advisory panel consisting of NGO participants and of those with experience of UKOT issues and project management. With the incorporation of grants into the Darwin Initiative, there are very few members of the advisory panel who are familiar with current UKOT issues or involved with most of the on- the-ground players in UKOT conservation—so it becomes very much a them-and-us exercise. This may be exacerbated in that the Darwin Initiative tends to have quite an academic panel, used to working in highly competitive research council situations, rather than the collaborative conservation attitude which prevailed under EFOT and, to some extent, the earlier stages of OTEP. Whilst there could be advantages in a single source of funding, this means also that an even more restricted set of people are the decision makers. UKOTCF considers that HMG and the efficacy of the deployment of public funds would benefit from a return to a system that involves fully the expertise of NGOs (and umbrella bodies like UKOTCF) working alongside officials to decide on grant funding. C13. Accordingly, UKOTCF recommends that either the Darwin Plus grants (relating to UKOTs) have their own advisory panel, comprising mainly conservationists knowledgeable in current UKOT issues, and with experience of running projects in or for UKOTs, and of grant-programme management, or that, less satisfactorily, if the existing Darwin Advisory Committee continues to deal with UKOT grants, it be reinforced with several individuals with the attributes indicated above. C14. EFOT and OTEP were small-project funds, and made possible, usually by combining with voluntary work, a great deal of highly cost-effective progress on small issues or piloting work which could beneficially be applied on a larger scale to address major conservation issues. UKOTCF has long called for a fund for such medium-sized and/or longer duration projects—as exists in Britain and many parts of the world, for species- recovery programmes, ecosystem restoration, organisational capacity development etc. This need was Ev 74 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
recognised too in HMG’s 2009 UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy. In this sense, one might be expected to welcome the fact that there is no limit on size of grants in the new Darwin Plus programme. However, such projects would be funded from the same total funding previously limited to small projects. Inevitably, this will mean fewer small projects, despite their excellent track record, and could mark the effective end of small projects. Current officials do not like small grants, because of the project handling time—and, indeed, it has become clear that JNCC, the HMG agency that still handles some small grants, does very little monitoring of the projects’ progress and accounting. In this context, whilst small projects are not excluded from Darwin Plus, subtle changes to the form (eg asking for financial management experience) and the preference of officials will probably lead to a move to larger project sizes. C15. UKOTCF recommends that HMG explore with NGOs who have personnel with experience of grant programme management and UKOTs the commissioning of such bodies to run small grant programmes, thereby retaining the effective small project programme without the need to call heavily on HMG personnel time. C16. The initial themes indicated for Darwin Plus do not specifically include capacity-building or environmental education, and specifically exclude projects on awareness-raising, communications and outreach (taking a very extreme view of a general government guidance issued 2½ years earlier by the incoming Coalition Government). This tends to imply that work on environmental education, websites, publications, workshops and conferences would not find favour. (There is some confusion here in that, in answer to a question from Mr Andrew Rosindell MP to ask what steps the Secretary of State for International Development is taking to promote environmental awareness in St Helena, the DFID Minister of State drew attention, in November 2012, to the new fund as a means of addressing this.) C17. Given that such types of work are clear needs in some situations by UKOTs, UKOTCF recommends that HMG takes a less arbitrarily restrictive view of the type of projects eligible for funding and takes note of what those working in UKOTs consider they need to achieve conservation.
Funding from the European Union C18. The European Union is an obvious place to look for funding. After considerable work by UKOTCF and others, a pilot programme Preparatory Action (Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories) “BEST”, was established by an initiative of the European Parliament, in collaboration with Directorate-General Environment, utilising funds from Directorate-General Development Cooperation. There have been two tranches of €2 million, the first being very controversial among many EU member states with Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) as all the lead recipients were French and sub-tropical or tropical (or two international organisations with no on-the-ground experience of OCTs). The second tranche was slightly more balanced but included funding for government agencies which UKOTCF would contend is inappropriate. The process was unbalanced in that many of the recipients were eligible for other sources of EU funds, which the UKOTs are not. The process also flagged up the lack of experience (and therefore knowledge) of dealing with European Institutions; the sheer amount of time required to fill in a supposedly simplified proposal—which included advice that applicants should use an accountant to provide the financial information needed as it was complex; and this flagged up the lack of capacity within the UKOTs, both governmental and non-governmental, to deal with such processes. C19. It had been assumed that the plan was to use the interest in funding for biodiversity projects in OCTs to persuade the European Institutions that there should be a permanent fund arising out of this preparatory action, with the current BEST (or, more correctly, Pre-BEST) results proving the need for it. Unfortunately, it was made clear at a meeting with the European Commission’s DG Environment in April 2012 that a permanent fund was not planned, that DG-ENV was not, and did not wish to be, a funding body. At the same meeting, the overseas entities of EU member states were advised to access existing EU budget-lines to fund environmental projects. This concept became known as the “virtual BEST” to follow the existing “pre-BEST”. This, however, causes major problems for the UKOTs since, aside from the still very uncertain possibility of access to the EU fund LIFE+ for the UKOTs, there are virtually no European Union funds that are accessible to them (as opposed to the Outermost Regions, those overseas entities which are parts of metropolitan member states). At present, it seems that even inclusion in LIFE+ may not be extended to OTs, but may be extended to non-EU countries in Asia! There is a need for considerable lobbying on the part of the UK Government to change this situation. This has not been a priority in the past for HMG, but we hope that policy will change and the UK Government will lobby hard for funding possibilities for Overseas Territories. Indeed, reaching agreement to open up funding lines currently not available is something hinted at in the White Paper. It was apparent that considerable work needed to be done to ensure inclusion of sustainable funding in the new EU budget agreement for 2014 onwards, but there is little evidence that HMG has tried to do so. UKOTCF would also wish to see HMG work with other states to press the European Commission to reduce the needless and disproportionate bureaucratic load on applications and other processes. C20. Whilst not finally agreed, the European Parliament has voted through a third tranche of funding for a pre-BEST round for 2013. The modalities for this will be agreed only once the funding has been formally approved in trialogue, but there are signs of disagreement within the Commission. Some wish to see this tranche used towards production of an ongoing sustainable process—the original intention of pre-BEST—but others seem to consider it something of a nuisance and merely wish to continue as before and fund half a Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 75
dozen one-off projects. UKOTCF hopes that HMG will put its weight behind the former option (assuming the funding is agreed), and work towards a sustainable outcome. C21. UKOTCF recommends that UK Government engages more with the European Union institutions in order to ensure that UKOTs are not effectively excluded from EU funding for biodiversity conservation—and that, when funding is made available, procedures are simplified.
National Lottery Funding C22. The benefits of the National Lottery are not available to the UK Overseas Territories, unlike, for example its Dutch equivalent for Dutch territories. There is no bar on the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) making grants to UK organisations which would be carried out in the UKOTs, but HLF’s current stated policy is to treat any such applications as a low priority. “When making decisions on funding, HLF take into account their policy directions, which place an emphasis on funding the heritage of the UK for access by the people of the UK.” HLF seems unaware that the UKOTs are sovereign UK territory, that their people are UK citizens and that many metropolitan UK citizens visit the UKOTs every year. The situation is exacerbated in that applications have to be made via a regional office in Britain. This places applications in direct competition with community projects in that British region, with decisions taken by regional committees with no knowledge of, or sympathy with, UKOTs. Perhaps all UKOT applications should go to one region, or a separate committee, and the relevant committee be briefed specifically on UKOT issues, and resourced for these. C23. The 2012 White Paper suggests that HLF funding is available for work in the UKOTs: “The Lottery cannot currently be played in the Territories. However, distributing bodies, which make their funding decisions independently of Government, can make grants to support good causes in the Territories to organisations based in the UK and working in the Territories.” This, as noted above, is explicitly contradicted by HLF policy, but if Ministers feel that projects in the UKOTs should be funded by HLF, we urge them to give the Lottery bodies a Direction in line with these intentions. Such action would also give some support to HMG’s suggestion that its various Departments are now more “joined-up.” C24. UKOTCF recommends that Ministers act on the importance they attach in the White Paper to the UKOTs and direct the National Lottery bodies to give at least equal priority in making grants to UKOTs as to metropolitan UK, and that more appropriate decision making systems be established with an understanding of UKOTs.
The Environment Charters C25. The 1999 White Paper Partnership for Progress and Prosperity noted that the UK and its Overseas Territories have not lived up to their obligations with respect to environmental conservation, and promised to resolve that problem by negotiating Environment Charters with the Overseas Territories which would lay out responsibilities for HMG and UKOT governments, bringing in NGOs and other stakeholders. In 2001, each of the UKOTs signed a Charter, except for Gibraltar, which has subsequently adopted the language of the Charter in another form, the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas and British Antarctic Territory. The Charters are bilateral international agreements which were signed for the UK by Valerie Amos, the then Overseas Territories Minister, and by the head of each UKOT Government. C26. The Charters are prefaced by ten Guiding Principles, based largely on the Convention for Biological Diversity and several other Conventions to which UK and UKOTs are party. These principles are followed by the Charter Commitments, a set of mutual commitments which generally set out what each Territory Government will do and how the UK government is committed to supporting that. In essence, what the Charters do is recognise that, if care for the environment is to be devolved to the Territories themselves, the local government must be committed to best practice in its management, and HMG will in turn ensure that the Territory government has the help and resources it needs. C27. The Charters are vitally important to the UKOTs, and especially to environmental NGOs, but the UK Government has been backing away from them over the last several years. For a number of years, HMG worked with the UKOT governments and, often through UKOTCF, with NGOs in a genuine effort to meet the commitments of the Charters, providing funding through OTEP with an open application procedure, working with NGOs both in the UK and the Territories, supporting sharing of experience and expertise among the UKOTs, etc. Then about five years ago, things started to change. — In 2008, despite promising the Environmental Audit Committee that it would “carry out a review of the Environment Charters which have now been in place for five years” the FCO told UKOTCF (which had been asked to undertake the review of progress) that it did not have the resources to review its own performance, and, indeed, it has never carried out the review it promised to the House of Commons. — Bi-annual meetings between HMG, the UKOTCF network, UKOT Government representatives and others to keep track of, and assist, progress in conservation were ended unilaterally by the UK Government. At first UKOTCF was told that it was just a scheduling problem, but the last meeting was held in 2008 and it was later confirmed that such meetings will not be held in future. Ev 76 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
— Despite claiming to build on the 1999 White Paper, and having a chapter on environmental conservation, the 2012 White Paper fails to refer to the Charters even once. — This was capped off by controversy in Bermuda about whether the Charter requirement for environmental impact assessments was binding, as the Bermuda Ombudsman asserted. In an official statement the Bermuda Minister of the Environment, Planning and Infrastructure said on 2 May 2012: “We have taken advice from both the Attorney General’s office and the FCO via Government House, and conclude that the UK Environment Charter does not constitute law. It is unenforceable. Rather, the UK itself considers the Charter to be aspirational.” [emphasis added] C28. UKOTCF agrees strongly with the Bermuda Ombudsman, Arlene Brock, that the Charters are valid and binding. (see Today’s Choices—Tomorrow’s Costs ( a systemic investigation report on the SDO process), 10 February 2012 and Special Report (Ombudsman’s comment on Government’s response) 18 June 2012, www.ombudsman.bm). C29. The general principles of international law provide that bilateral agreements between governments are binding: if they are signed in writing with specific commitments; are entered into without coercion or duress; and there is no express written provision that the signatories do not intend to be bound. Clearly the Environment Charters meet these criteria and were intended to meet them. This means they are binding, as the International Court of Justice held in its 1994 case (Qatar v Bahrain) which states that agreements between governments with specific commitments that are intended to be implemented are binding. C30. UKOTCF understands that international agreements of this sort are not enforceable in court. Rather they rely on the integrity and goodwill of the signatories and their desire to be perceived as responsible members of the international community. That being said, there are other such agreements about which the UK Government would be horrified if it were suggested that they can be ignored, such as the OECD Tax Information Exchange Agreements. The 2007 TIEA between Bermuda and the UK, for example, is brought into force by the exchange of letters over the signatures of Bermuda Minister of Finance and a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Imagine Britain’s reaction if Bermuda were to assert that this tax information exchange agreement is “aspirational”. C31. In 1992, the UK became a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity which essentially comprises a comprehensive list of actions needed to protect species and ecosystems—a list which includes every commitment in the Charters. Section 4 of the CBD imposes accountability on each signatory for processes and activities “carried out under its jurisdiction or control, within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” Thus Britain, as a signatory, is responsible for meeting the obligations of the Convention in its UKOTs. C32. The 1999 White Paper lists the responsibilities HMG and the UKOT governments have with regard to sound environmental management, reflecting again the elements of the CBD. It then notes: “These responsibilities already exist, but the UK and its Overseas Territories have not always addressed these issues sufficiently consistently or systematically.” It then announces the development of the Environment Charters to clarify respective roles and responsibilities. UKOTCF believes that the Charters are the means by which the UK intended to meet its international obligations under the CBD and other MEAs. C33. The Environmental Audit Committee in its 2006–07 review of the FCO said it was “necessary to assess whether both the UK Government and the governments of the UKOTs have met their respective obligations under the Environment Charters and Multilateral Environment Agreements.” They go on to describe the UK’s responsibility for the UKOTs as “domestic and international environmental commitments” and to note that “failure to meet such commitments undermines the UK’s ability to influence the international community.” C34. The 2012 White Paper lists compliance with relevant multilateral environmental agreements as one of its four goals for environmental management. UKOTCF’s question is: if the Charters do not constitute the mechanism by which the UK meets its international obligations, what is that mechanism? C35. But more importantly, most people seem to understand that the UKOTs have a variety of cultural and financial issues which affect meeting best practice in environmental management. The 1999 White Paper and the subsequent Environment Charters took a realistic look at what would be needed to enable local UKOT governments to care for their environmental resources, and developed a detailed programme of mutual commitments that would enable that to happen. Both White Papers recognise the hugely more valuable biodiversity of the UKOTs as against metropolitan UK. Why turn our backs on an established scheme that will enable effective conservation of these resources? C36. Whilst the above paragraphs have tended to emphasise Bermuda because of the wider significance of the Ombudsman’s clear analysis, the Environment Charters are valued highly in other UKOTs also. For example, in the delay of over a decade in Cayman’s legislature passing its long-proposed environmental legislation, the Environment Department uses the Charter Commitments as a document for researchers and other parties to sign up to. C37. UKOTCF recommends that UK Government re-affirms clearly its commitment to the Environment Charters which form the basis of UK and UKOTs fulfilling their international conservation obligations—for both the inhabited and uninhabited UK Overseas Territories. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 77
C38. UKOTCF further recommends that fulfilling the Environment Charters be reinstated as a core role of the funding from HMG, now grouped under the Darwin Plus heading.
Protecting Gibraltar’s territorial waters C39. This issue is currently the subject of an ongoing review, with an advisory committee to the Government of Gibraltar and a Joint Commission with Spain looking at the sustainable management of marine living resources in the waters around Gibraltar; both are chaired by UKOTCF’s Chairman. The results of that review are not yet finalised, although are expected early in 2013. Clearly there is some sensitivity in providing the EAC with detailed information now ahead of publication, but the issues can be outlined now and UKOTCF would be happy to provide further evidence on this issue, subject to the approval of the Government of Gibraltar—which is unlikely to be withheld. C40. Despite a law being passed in 1991, Gibraltar’s territorial waters (BGTW) are regularly fished by Spanish vessels despite this being illegal under that law. A 1999 “understanding” agreed between the then Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the Spanish fishermen (albeit under duress) allowed for a certain number of Spanish boats to fish and the Royal Gibraltar Police (RGP) would turn a blind eye. This allowing of breaking the law was condoned by the then British government as it stopped continuation of ongoing conflict with Spain. With a new government elected in Gibraltar in late 2011, this “understanding “ was revoked, leading to further dispute and conflict, and the setting up of the Commission. There have been regular incursions by Spanish fishing boats often accompanied by paramilitary Guardia Civil boats. C41. The 2012 White Paper sets out quite clearly what Britain’s responsibilities are in this situation: P 14: “Defence and Security: the UK is committed to defend the Territories.” “International Support: the UK is responsible for the external relations of the Territories and uses its diplomatic resources and influence to promote their interests.” P 22: “We will continue to maintain an independent ability to defend the Territories—including their territorial waters and airspace—from any external security threats they may face.” “We will also ensure that the Territories are able to trade, to exploit their natural resources… free from undue external interference.” “The Royal Navy is tasked with... upholding the sovereignty of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.” P 48: “economic activity, including tourism and fisheries is managed in a way that is consistent with the long term sustainable use of the natural environment, including over-exploitation.” P 88: “Conclusion … We are defending robustly Territories which face external threats.” C42. Despite these definitive statements of responsibility, little action has been forthcoming from HMG. The RGP are tasked with enforcing the 1991 legislation and are therefore responsible for arresting illegal fishing boats, some few of which have been intercepted and arrested. However, the Commissioner of the RGP is (quite rightly in the Forum’s view) not prepared to send unarmed police officers in small boats against armed larger Guardia Civil boats. Further, while the Royal Navy may rely on a defence that they do not undertake fisheries protection duties (unlike elsewhere in the world) and their only concern is maintaining the integrity of sovereign waters, then that still does explain why armed Spanish Guardia Civil boats accompanying the Spanish boats are not tackled when they are clearly not using the waters simply for navigation purposes. There have been a number of other incidents involving Guardia Civil boats in recent months, with one arresting a Gibraltar registered boat fishing in BGTW, and in July 2012 a Guardia Civil boat fired rubber bullets at a Gibraltar registered boat within BGTW. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee looked at this issue in 1999 and many of their recommendations have not been implemented and could still apply today. C43. The Government of Gibraltar is seeking to manage its natural resources sustainably, but is being thwarted by the illegal fishing activities of Spanish boats. (In fact, if the waters were Spanish, it is likely that it would be illegal to fish there under Spanish law.) It would normally be assumed that the role of Governor and of the FCO would be to ensure the best interests of Gibraltar and its citizens—which in this case would be to put in place measures to stop this illegal activity. However, the exact opposite appears to be the case, with the UK government putting enormous pressure on the Gibraltar Government to allow this illegal fishing. The role of the Governor seems to have switched from looking after Gibraltar’s interests to that of not upsetting the Government of Spain. C44. UKOTCF recommends that HMG supports HM Government of Gibraltar in enforcing fisheries protection legislation, resists the Government of Spain’s support for illegal activities, and instructs the Royal Navy to support HMGOG in the consequent defence of territorial waters and their resources.
D. How the UK Government is Helping the UKOTs Adapt to the Impact of Climate Change D1. UKOTCF has currently relatively little direct involvement with climate change issues, although there has been some interaction with UNFCCC processes in a wider context than UKOTs and adaptation. Therefore, the Forum’s comment on this question will be rather brief. Ev 78 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
D2. First, this question relates only to adaptation. Given the size of the UKOTs, it is clear that any mitigation measures will be very small in relation to the overall task of reducing carbon emissions. However, in strategic terms, it is important for the UKOTs to show that attempts are being made to reduce carbon emissions and, for a number of the UKOTs, there is a very real possibility of attaining carbon neutrality. The most obvious of these is Montserrat, with its huge potential for geothermal energy generation, but many others have great potential for solar generation. Indeed, at the final round of applications for OTEP, and following UKOTCF providing some requested advice, there was a proposal from Pitcairn for funding of solar panels. This was outwith the funding availability, but certainly showed a willingness to engage. It was noteworthy that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) attended the final OTEP assessors’ meeting, but we do not know whether they will be invited to attend the Darwin Plus equivalent. DECC should certainly be involved in any coordination process in place or to be established. We are aware that a contract has been let early in 2012 “to identify the scope and best way to deliver an appropriate climate change programme for all UKOTs and develop a business case (for) it. The business case will need to address how the territories can be best equipped to be: (a) dealing with today’s climate related risks and (b) preparing for tomorrow’s climate.”
We note that three possible approaches have been suggested: 1: A truly joint HMG programme. This would mean that government departments agree on the programme itself and put their budgetary contribution towards it into a joint pot. 2: A programme that mirrors for the UKOTs the model of the International Climate Fund (ICF). Programme priorities and eligibility criteria are firmly agreed between all parties; decision-making happens in a cross-Whitehall high-level board; and implementation is taken forward by the different departments. In the case of the £2.9 billion defined as ICF spend, DFID is in charge of implementing £1.8 billion, DECC of implementing £1 billion and DEFRA £100 000. 3: A programme that would be better defined as “HMG umbrella strategy” and follows the HMG collaborative approach of implementing the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy. HMG departments would agree on a joint strategy for implementing climate change related activities in the territories. Delivery of the strategy would be up to each and every department, which could use their individual delivery mechanism. The commitment to the overarching strategy would help government departments to justify their spending in implementing it and give them the flexibility to bring their spending closer in line with their own objectives.
We have not seen the final conclusions of the report but, given our comments earlier about the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy (see paras C1-C17, C25-C38, E1-E29), UKOTCF would be somewhat nervous about approach 3.
D3. In respect of Darwin Plus, we note that funding for climate change adaptation is included within the overall total available. UKOTCF would wish to see funding for climate change balanced against other immediate threats in the funding portfolio. Given the high profile of climate change issues, it would be easy to concentrate funding on that to the detriment of other factors causing biodiversity loss. We should also note, once again, that funding here falls into the same gap as other sources, with UKOTs being largely ineligible for international funds for climate-change adaptation, so almost any funding for adaptation in the UKOTs will realistically have to come from the UK.
D4. DECC produced, in April 2012, a very useful leaflet DECC Support for the Overseas Territories in which it states “Since its formation DECC has shared with the Overseas Territories information on the development of UK negotiating positions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” This is welcome but sharing knowledge is not the same as involvement in the negotiating process, and we are not convinced that the UK Government is sufficiently involved with the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and related processes under the UNFCCC.
D5. The DECC leaflet further states that “DECC does not lead for HMG on international adaptation issues, but we will look to increase our engagement with the Overseas Territories in existing areas of collaboration, and to extend this engagement to cover knowledge sharing on renewable technology deployment.” Rather confusingly, the document ends with “DECC now provides a single point of contact for queries and requests from the Overseas Territories to in relation to energy and climate change issues.” It would be helpful if the EAC could explore this as to the lead and the relationship/coordination process.
D6. DECC notes that “In recognition of the need to improve their domestic energy security and reduce green house gas emissions, the Overseas Territories have begun to request support from DECC to help them identify suitable and locally appropriate renewable energy technologies. The 2020 Renewable Energy Roadmap summarises a large body of work on how best to address the barriers to renewables implementation. Although the Department has limited resources to support knowledge sharing in this area [emphasis added], we will look to share the roadmap proactively with the Overseas Territories, including the underlying analysis. We will respond positively to further ad-hoc requests for knowledge sharing, by directing the Overseas Territories to both internal and external sources of best practice.” Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 79
D7. It should be noted that Gibraltar is in an interesting position, showing in the top ten countries in the world for carbon emissions. However, these figures are based on turnover of hydrocarbons and, as Gibraltar is a major bunkering port, this skews the figures completely. D8. On adaptation specifically, we note that in many cases natural systems, for example mangroves, act as an efficient buffer to extreme events which appear to be increasing due to climate-change. The loss of these and terrestrial forest systems also remove natural carbon-holding and capturing capacity. Because of their prime coastal locations, it is these ecosystems that are being lost to development through either lack of, or poor, planning. Replacement, along with other adaptation measures is a very expensive process and certainly outwith the bounds of funding available under Darwin Plus as currently established.
E. Whether the Recommendations in our [EAC’s] 2008 Report, Halting Biodiversity Loss, on Safeguarding Biodiversity and Practising Joined-up Government to further Conservation have been Implemented Funding E1. As noted in Section C (especially paras C1-C11, C22-C23), despite calls from both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2008 that funding for biodiversity conservation be greatly increased to meet the actual need, rather than limiting funding to what the FCO and DFID had to spare, the funding level has remained substantially the same and access to that funding has become increasingly difficult for small Territories and most NGOs (C12-C17, E20-E29, F2-F4, G8-G16).
Environment Charters E2. Again, as noted in Section C (paras E2-E5), a promise made to the Environmental Audit Committee to review progress on the Environment Charters was never kept, and instead HMG began backing away from the Charters (paras E20-E29). E3. At the request of the UK Government and the UKOTs, UKOTCF collated information from all parties in 2006–07 and 2009 to monitor progress on the commitments. Bodies in the UKOTs provided a good deal of information on progress on their work on the commitments, and were generally commendably open as to the nature of this. However, despite initiating the work and keeping good records on its fulfilling the commitments until at least 2003, the UK Government felt unable to supply information on its own work in this regard at the time of these reviews. E4. When preparing supplementary evidence to address questions put to their Minister by the Committee during the Inquiry on Trade, Development and Environment: the role of the FCO, FCO officials asked UKOTCF about progress on its review on implementation of the Charters. Subsequently, the FCO Minister’s supplementary memorandum to the House of Commons EAC stated (with a slightly optimistic interpretation of UKOTCF’s estimate of the timescale): “Your Committee also asked about an assessment of the Overseas Territories Environment Charters. The UKOTCF is currently gathering information on the progress in implementing the Environment Charter Commitments for each Territory (or the equivalent for those Territories without Charters). The Forum intends to publish a progress report towards the middle of this year. The FCO will use that information, in consultation with Whitehall colleagues and the governments of the Overseas Territories, to carry out a review of the Environment Charters which have now been in place for five years.” E5. In this context, UKOTCF put a great deal of further effort into helping and encouraging UKOTs to provide information and is very pleased to note that, of the 21 entities that constitute the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, responses were received from or on behalf of 19. In line with the Environment Charters themselves, responses were welcomed from both governmental and non-governmental bodies and, in several cases, the responses were integrated. UKOTCF did not receive information from HMG in respect of the UK Commitments in the Environment Charters, nor from those UKOTs which are directly administered by UK Government: British Indian Ocean Territory (which has an Environment Charter), British Antarctic Territory, and the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas (although information was received from non-governmental sources for some). A few months later, the FCO reported that, although it had no problem in principle with the indicators, HMG did not have the resources to report on the implementation of its own Commitments. Since then, it has never produced the report promised to the EAC, and, as noted in the previous section, began backing away from the Charters to the point where the FCO advised the Bermuda Government, through Bermuda’s Government House, that the Charters were only “aspirational” (see paras C25-C38).
Strategic Assessment of Need E6. One of the recommendations from the EAC’s 2008 Halting Biodiversity Loss Report was: “An ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity loss.” E7. UKOTCF had started work on some aspects of this in the 1990s, in consultation with UKOTs and the support of the Darwin Initative, the results appearing first in UK Dependent Territories—A Conservation Review (1996), and later, with updating around 2000 by some UKOTs, as a web-database on UKOTCF’s web-site. Ev 80 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Also relevant was a further analysis, The Convention on Biological Diversity and the UK Overseas Territories, a report to the WWF-UK by the UKOTCF in April 1998 (www.ukotcf.org/pdf/cdbweb.pdf). E8. With the development and signing of the Environment Charters in 2001, UKOTCF understood that such work would be taken forward within the context of these. UKOTCF, supported by FCO’s EFOT, played its part in this by facilitating, in 2002–03, the development of strategy to implement the Environment Charter in a pilot UKOT—for which Turks & Caicos volunteered. After this, St Helena secured funding from OTEP and, at its request, UKOTCF facilitated a strategy there too, in 2004–05. (Details of both of these can be found on www.ukotcf.org.) Around the same time, UKOTCF personnel visited the Falkland Islands to advise personnel there, who were approaching Environment Charter strategy development via an alternative route of biodiversity strategy and action plans. UKOTCF also helped Ascension personnel draft a simple Environment Charter implementation strategy; this was adopted informally, but lost when HMG cancelled local democracy there (see para E21). Following these mainly successful exercises, FCO and DFID lost interest in supporting such work (see paras B3, C25-C38, E20-E29) as well as in the monitoring of progress which it had initially asked UKOTCF to co-ordinate (see para C27, E2-E5). E9. Therefore, UKOTCF welcomed news that FCO, DFID and DEFRA were to collaborate on developing a biodiversity strategy for UKOTs, and had asked DEFRA’s agency, JNCC, to draft this. UKOTCF was surprised that, in contrast to all previous work in this subject area, UKOTCF was not consulted in any way nor at any stage. This seemed to demonstrate a move to rather more closed approach by HMG than in the past. It also seemed to reflect, just at the time of JNCC’s adoption of a greater role in UKOTs, a transfer of responsibility for this to personnel with less experience of this subject area. E10. The United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, published in late 2009 by FCO, DFID, DEFRA and JNCC, suffers from the problem that it is not actually a strategy, but acts effectively as a memorandum of agreement between the three departments. This was recognised at a seminar on 23 September 2010, organised by UKOTCF and attended by representatives from UK Government Departments and agencies (Department of Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Department for International Development (DFID), Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)), a UKOT government representative, five UKOTCF Member/Associate organisations and other partners, and UKOTCF officers and Council members (report in Forum News 37, December 2010). UKOTCF felt that the almost total lack of stakeholder engagement in the process of developing the Strategy had resulted in a feeling of “us and them” in the NGO community, despite the ministerial Foreword specifically noting the important role of NGOs and other stakeholders. Also, the document was not a strategy by usual standards, but more a statement of aspirations; rather than assisting in decision making, it seemed designed to constrain action. The document failed to address a number of important international obligations (eg various aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the “wise use” provisions under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands). Environment Charters were referred to in the document, but with no specific indication of how their implementation would be advanced. There were few outputs and no outcomes in the document, and there was an absence of clear targets (eg achievement of “Favourable Conservation Status”, as in the UK). In many respects, the wording of the Strategy was weaker than that of earlier policy documents, including the relevant 1999 and 2006 White Papers; the second of these, for example, committed FCO to “Improve the governance, environment and security of the Overseas Territories and encourage more diversified and sustainable economic development” and “Manage the impact of new international obligations affecting the Overseas Territories” and “Promote biodiversity conservation in the Overseas Territories with support for local livelihoods and sustainable development”. Whilst noting that UKOT biodiversity issues were an important consideration across all relevant UK Government departments, the Strategy provided no indication (for example) of how the Department of Communities & Local Government might be engaged in relation to planning issues in the Territories; this continues to be a major concern in relation to environmental management. It seemed likely that even more of the work necessary to meet the aspirations of the Strategy would fall to the kinds of bodies that had been excluded from its development. If the Strategy were to be converted into a meaningful (say) Action Plan, it would be essential for all stakeholders to be engaged in this process. E11. The seminar discussions revealed that officials of UK Government departments perceived the function and value of the Strategy very differently from the NGO community. The document was seen primarily as a formal commitment by DEFRA, DFID and FCO to work together in addressing UKOT environmental issues; this represented a significant step forward, given that the previous lack of a “joined-up” approach had been heavily criticised. Officials felt that, had a more detailed document been produced, it would have been very difficult to secure cross-departmental ministerial approval, and the opportunity to secure a commitment to a more integrated approach across these three departments might have been lost. Instead, there was now a useful high-level, published document, which could be used to remind Ministers of the commitment to a cross- departmental approach, of the importance of the UKOTs, and in arguing (for example) for the continuation of OTEP. Officials indicated that the lack of NGO engagement reflected the fact that this was intended to be an inward-looking document, outlining how the UK Government was working and intended in future to work on UKOT environmental issues. E12. Officials stated that UKOTCF would be invited to the next meeting of the interdepartmental officials group, in November, where discussions would involve aspects of the forward process, although this invitation was not, in the event, forthcoming. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 81
E13. It was agreed that it was unfortunate that very different perceptions of the Strategy had clearly arisen. UKOTCF acknowledged the value of the document in providing leverage within UK Government for a joined- up approach, and for keeping UKOTs biodiversity on the political agenda, as was now being stressed by officials. However, the document itself implied (including in the ministerial Foreword) that it represented much more than this. It appeared to advance a framework for biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs, although it was clearly inadequate for this purpose, and seemed to say to other stakeholders including NGOs “this is UK Government’s solution, now you can join in”. Reflecting on the very different perceptions of the Strategy from inside and outside UK Government, a UKOT participant questioned whether these would have arisen if the twice-yearly, joint meetings between UK Government and UKOTCF (once found very valuable on both sides for “joining-up” the approaches of UK Government and the NGO community) had not been discontinued unilaterally by HMG. E14. At that meeting, and later in discussion with Government officials, UKOTCF offered help in developing some elements necessary to produce a more complete strategy. To further redevelop a complementary approach between HMG and NGOs, and to add strategy elements into the HMG MoU confusingly entitled “Strategy”, UKOTCF organised, on 28th June 2011, a further workshop on starting to develop UK objectives for biodiversity conservation in the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies (report at www.ukotcf.org/ pdf/fNews/BiodivWorkshop1106.pdf). UKOTCF stressed that this was not intended to replace the UK Government document which agreed the share of roles between UK government departments, but to be complementary to it. In addition, it was not intended that any draft objectives developed be prescriptive for UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Rather, they were intended to draw on previous views from UKOTs/CDs and elsewhere, to try to identified shared features. These could then be used to guide supporting work by UK Government and other outside bodies. Without clear objectives, it would difficult for these to resource, plan and execute their efforts to support the territories. The draft objectives might be useful also for UKOTs and CDs in any revisions of their own strategies. The discussions were stimulated by example presentations from two territories. E15. The workshop made useful progress on the potential natures of strategies, particularly relating to the Environment Charters and the Aichi Targets, to which HMG had recently signed up to. However, it became clear at the workshop and afterwards that HMG officials were extremely reluctant to engage in strategic discussions even when UKOT personnel asked them to. This is difficult to reconcile with FCO’s recent comments that it wished its re-organised grant funding to take a more strategic approach. Whilst the earlier funding under EFOT and the initial years of OTEP had an underlying strategy of fulfilling the Environment Charters, the strategic objectives of the new scheme and other HMG work in this area has not been defined, or even consulted on. E16. DEFRA expressed the view at the workshop that the Aichi Targets, which UKOTCF had incorporated in their draft for discussion, are a very heavy sledgehammer with which to address UKOT conservation. However, the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189), published in July 2012 by JNCC and DEFRA on behalf of the Four Countries’ Biodiversity Group), includes, at section 2.6 Overseas Territories: “Most UK Overseas Territories (OTs) and Crown Dependencies have Environment Charters that address biodiversity issues. The UK government’s strategy (United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy) aims to enable the UK and Overseas Territories governments to meet their international obligations for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the UK OTs. The delivery of the Aichi targets in UK OTs will be supported by the UK government via the implementation of this strategy. The nature of the work to implement the strategy will be to: (i) provide advice; (ii) support capacity building, evidence gathering and research; and, (iii) assist Overseas Territories to access appropriate funding mechanisms. This work will contribute to addressing most, if not all, of the Aichi targets within the Overseas Territories.” E17. However, whilst HMG’s view of the relevance of the Aichi Targets to UKOTs and CDs seems to have become more logical, this document does not take matters further, because the “Strategy” to which reference is made is the same 2009 inter-departmental agreement which lacks objectives and most other elements that would normally constitute a strategy. Despite offers of cooperation from the Forum and continued suggestions that JNCC would be producing an action plan to implement the so-called strategy, there was nothing public being produced. Further enquiries suggested that only actions relevant to DEFRA and JNCC were being generated. Ongoing discussions with DEFRA just produced an answer that it was inappropriate for the UK government to impose objectives on the UKOTs. The Forum had never suggested that to be the outcome, but what the Forum did expect were clear objectives and an action plan for HMG to use in implementing the MoU/ strategy. At the last meeting the Forum had with DEFRA in September 2012, we were once again told of the inappropriateness of producing objectives but were advised that, contrary to HMG officials’ instincts and after significant pressure from NGOs and others, they were now minded to produce a plan. The Forum has received no further information on the possible content of this and has not been consulted. However, in respect of direct imposition of policy on UKOTs, it is patently not true that this does not happen. This is witnessed by an example from Gibraltar, where the form completed for the European Commission providing details of the Ev 82 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive was altered (before submission to the European Commission) by HMG’s agency, JNCC, without the Government of Gibraltar’s knowledge or approval. E18. In late 2012, HMG scheduled a one-day meeting in March 2013 to review progress and future priorities for an implementation plan for a UKOT biodiversity strategy. Whilst UKOTCF will attempt to help this, a 3.5 year delay since the strategy and delays of 2.5 and 1.5 years since UKOTCF ran workshops to stimulate joint efforts seem to indicate some lack of priority in HMG’s view. Furthermore, the approach to the setting up of the meeting still seems to indicate a reluctance to re-engage enthusiastically with NGOs. E19. UKOTCF recommends that HMG re-engage with the UKOTCF network and other partners to develop a real strategy, preferably shared, for conservation work in the UKOTs.
The decline in interest by FCO, and the role of other government departments and agencies E20. The decline in interest by FCO in UKOT conservation was perhaps first apparent in its absent-minded cancellation of the Environment Fund for Overseas Territories in 2002, only a year after HMG committed to this Fund in the 2001 Environment Charters. However, some senior staff in FCO at the time were open to reasoned argument (especially at the UKOTCF-organised conference in 2003), so that the fund was reinstated in 2003 (initially on a temporary basis, and then as OTEP). However, a more permanent decline started in 2005–06—although it was several years before the scale and nature of this became fully apparent. E21. In 2005–06, HMG reversed its policy on Ascension in a way which had major environmental impacts (as well as on the population). In the late 1990s, the companies which used Ascension, and which were effectively allowed by HMG to run the island, had indicated that they no longer wished to do so. HMG had commissioned a study by the University of Portsmouth to look into the future constitution, resulting in March 2000 in a report. The consultants identified two options for the future of Ascension: model one “modified status quo” would result in the decline of the island. The other “public finance” option would involve a move to a more normal system of government and economy, with an elected council, the introduction of property rights, right of abode, opportunities for self-employment and investment in new business, and the opening of the airport to civilian traffic. HMG accepted the report and, in 2001, announced that it would implement the recommended “public finance” option. A first Council was elected and served its term, and a second Council elected. Until November 2005, people long resident on Ascension believed, as they had been led to believe by HMG, that they would have a right to residency, and, on this basis, a number of them had invested in local businesses. At the end of November 2005, a small group of British officials visited Ascension and the newly elected second Council, and announced that HMG had reversed its previous position, and that human rights were to be cancelled and the changes agreed and announced as definite five years earlier were not to be legislated despite their being effectively implemented already. Local representatives said that, if local residents could not invest in a place and did not have the right to stay in their home island, they were unlikely to have a commitment to the environment. The Deputy Head of FCO’s Sustainable Development Group (who was also the joint Chairman, with UKOTCF’s Chairman, of the six-monthly joint HMG/UKOTCF network meetings) confirmed that his Group had not been consulted by the FCO colleagues reversing the policy. RSPB strongly supported UKOTCF’s concern, both bodies having heavily invested, alongside FCO, in the successful restoration of the wildlife of Ascension. FCO officials exacerbated the situation by first denying (despite the evident situation) that there had been a reversal of policy, and second by referring to citizens on Ascension as contract workers (reflecting the language used by HMG in the 1960s when evicting the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands). FCO had assumed that there would be no environmental implications. This attitude caused great concern amongst the NGO and UKOT representatives who profoundly disagreed with this, on the basis of direct experience. The FCO Deputy Head of Sustainable Development indicated that he fully understood the link to the environment, as he had been involved in FCO’s work in some developing countries to facilitate the concept of environmental democracy—and was clearly concerned by his colleague’s actions. UKOTCF was concerned that, despite a long and productive partnership with FCO in respect of Ascension, FCO had not consulted, or even advised, them of this plan for a fundamental change until UKOTCF had heard indirectly some weeks later, and that environmental aspects were clearly overlooked in the development of FCO’s proposed policy reversal. UKOTCF regretted the breakdown in the normally constructive communications. E22. Shortly after the Ascension controversy, FCO closed down its environmental section (then the Sustainable Development Group, previously Environment Policy Department and, before that, Environment, Science & Energy Department). This series of bodies had been responsible for working with UKOTCF to set up the twice-yearly liaison meetings and other co-operation, the Environment chapter in the 1999 White Paper, the Environment Charters, and the grant programmes EFOT and later OTEP. In 2005, the FCO dropped virtually all its environmental posts, claiming that other government departments would pick up this role for the UKOTs, but in practice little of this happened and certainly not effectively. One might imagine that, with reduced UK Governmental capacity, the government would seek to fill the gap by encouraging work by NGOs and their chosen umbrella body, UKOTCF, which had worked in partnership with government for two decades. However, the reverse was true from the middle of the first decade of the millennium. E23. With the loss of FCO’s environmental team, the HMG lead in contacts with the UKOTCF network transferred to FCO’s Overseas Territories Department (later Directorate). Whilst UKOTCF had worked well with OTD previously, alongside the environmental department links, there were changes in OTD at the same time. The normal first point of contact from mid-2006 was OTD’s Deputy Head. She appeared to take a dislike Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 83
to UKOTCF, and amazed her colleagues from other HMG Departments by attending a five-day UKOTCF- organised UKOT/Crown Dependency conservation conference in Jersey for just half a day, and speaking openly from the lectern about UKOTCF as if it were an evil foreign power. This attitude may have affected the new FCO Head of Overseas Territories, Leigh Turner; at what was supposed to be a “get-to-know” meeting in late 2006, he started by launching an attack on UKOTCF’s Chairman and Vice-Chairman over the Ascension issue of about a year earlier, before his appointment. The negative attitude seemed also to transfer to his successor as FCO Director of Overseas Territories, Colin Roberts. Whilst UKOTCF had what seemed to be a positive meeting with him in mid-2008, shortly after he took office, when he invited UKOTCF’s Chairman to drop in any time, he then refused to meet UKOTCF for nearly 4 years, until mid-2012, just before he left office. References to the “Big Society” gave hope that the new Coalition Government would reverse this negative trend. In practice, however, the decline in UK Government’s interest in working with UKOTCF and its member bodies continued and possibly even accelerated. E24. UKOTCF discovered in 2012, from a document released under an unrelated application under the Freedom of Information Act, that Colin Roberts had been trying to undermine UKOTCF, while at the same time his staff were telling UKOTCF that FCO had no problem with UKOTCF—and despite the fact that UKOTCF is the body that a range of UKOT and other NGOs selected to interact for them with the UK Government and others. UKOTCF had previously experienced a very professional attitude from FCO officials and was unused to them taking (or expressing) personal dislike. It is not clear whether this personalisation of positions by senior FCO officials influenced their attitude to inter-organisational matters, but UKOTCF is concerned that this may be the case. E25. This secrecy meant that the UKOTCF network was unable to do anything about it nor address any issues UK Government officials may have had. From about 2006, when JNCC was given authority and resources to take an interest in UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, this body set up parallel systems to those long operated by UKOTCF for both NGO and official bodies, but excluded UKOTCF and UKOT NGOs from involvement— or even knowledge of the existence of these groups. UKOTCF considers this wasteful of public resources and disruptive to a co-operative approach. E26. The period also showed a decline in HMG funding for UKOT conservation through the effective UKOTCF network. Payments from FCO (and, to a lesser extent, DEFRA) made up most of the total from 1999/2000 to 2004–05. With the start of the joint FCO/OTEP scheme (replacing FCO’s EFOT), grants from DFID started in 2004–05. Progressively over the next three years, DFID became responsible for virtually all the funding from HMG to UKOTCF, as the FCO funding dwindled to nothing. Generally, the pattern of funding (until a post-2008 reduction to a low, and now zero, level) reflected the work on conservation and environmental projects for and with the UKOTs. Peaks in 1999–00, 2002–03, 2006 and 2008–09 reflected the three-yearly UKOTCF-organised conference-workshops for conservation practitioners in the UKOTs—highly valued by the latter as means of cost-effectively sharing expertise and skills. The last grant award from HMG to UKOTCF was in 2008–09, with the last payment in 2011–12. HMG has not awarded any grant to support UKOTCF’s conservation work in the UKOTs for over four years. E27. It may be relevant also that, from 2006, UKOTCF started giving evidence to House of Commons Select Committees, particularly Environmental Audit and Foreign Affairs, and that this evidence included constructive criticism, notably of FCO and DEFRA. UKOTCF is aware that the fact that it challenges the FCO and testifies to Parliamentary Committees honestly about funding and other problems has made it unpopular with officials. It might be said that the Forum is “biting the hand that feeds it.” However, UKOTCF does not think that funding its work in support of conservation partners in the UKOTs should be dependent on refraining from offering constructive criticism and advocating on behalf of its network of UKOT organisations. The Forum has always said what it feels needs to be said. In other times this was taken positively by the FCO and acted upon. More recently, officials seem to take any criticism of policy as personal rather than a difference in professional opinion. When the FCO inadvertently eliminated EFOT a year after the Charters were signed (see para E20 and Moving Backwards in UK Overseas Territories Conservation: Comments by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum on the UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374), appended ant web-link at para A3), UKOTCF spoke out strongly, and the response of the officials of the day was to work with the Forum to establish OTEP. Indeed, previous officials had made it clear that they did not wish any funding by HMG to restrict the UKOTCF network from making constructive comments. This was not just because the then officials recognised that the UKOTCF network resources UKOT conservation by an even greater amount of voluntary effort, but because they recognised the benefit in solving challenges by sharing the issues. E28. FCO’s removal of its environmental personnel in 2006 was, according to FCO, to be followed by other government departments taking on greater roles while FCO retained the policy lead for UKOTs. There was, around that time, limited increased involvement by DFID, but its current focus on targeting 0.7% of GDP for ODA countries appears to be causing a move away from UKOTs (most of which do not qualify under ODA— see para C3). DEFRA eventually, in 2009, accepted an increased responsibility for UKOTs, but this was followed almost immediately by financial constraints neutralising most of the changes (see para C3). DEFRA’s agency, JNCC, had been allowed to increase its involvement in UKOTs and CDs from about 2007. However, with this came two problems. First, JNCC tended to duplicate existing networks and efforts and not communicate with them, rather than continuing its earlier collaborative approach before the 2007 expansion of its activities in UKOTs and CDs (see para E25). Second, DEFRA seemed to adopt a novel position that JNCC Ev 84 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
had to be its monopoly supplier both of advice and as a route for managing funding. This novel approach tended to reduce support for NGOs, because JNCC decided to limit its newly created duplicate networks to governmental bodies. In a wider sense, the success of engaging, albeit not totally effectively, other government departments and agencies in UKOTs seems to have caused the little time available for liaison to be spent within government. As a consequence, the formerly strong and effective liaison between FCO and the UKOTCF network has dwindled away, despite UKOTCF’s best efforts to retain and then restore this.
E29. Whilst UKOTCF has great respect for some of JNCC’s specialist officers, it has real concern at some of its approaches to UKOTs and Crown Dependencies. These include: the duplication of previously existing networks but exclusion of NGOs (see paras E25, E28); the reluctance to collaborate or communicate with the UKOTCF network (see paras E9-E19); some questions over its management of projects supported by UK public funds (see Proceedings of a workshop on 2nd October 2012—full reference at para 3); and failings in organisation of UKOT-related projects. JNCC’s handling of its UK OTs and CDs 2011 Biodiversity Snapshot Review (apparently made available in late 2012) provides an example of this. In 1999, JNCC published a review of biodiversity in the UKOTs. It had some problems of accuracy and completeness at the time (probably because of resource limitations). UKOTCF had been disappointed that JNCC had opted not to take up UKOTCF’s offer of September 2007, to work jointly with JNCC on the revision of this document. Co-operation from that early stage might have reduced some of the pressure on resources noted by JNCC later in respect of this project. In 2010, JNCC decided that the document needed updating. In June 2010, UKOTCF’s Honorary Executive Director (amongst others) was asked to (and agreed to) review the new version in the period mid- September to mid-October 2010. However, nothing more was heard from JNCC until the end of January 2011 (over four months after the documents were due) when the reviewers were told that the document would be ready by mid-February 2011. Despite all other stages taking longer, the time for reviewers had been reduced to three weeks. Again, silence followed, until early March 2011, when an email appeared saying that some drafts were now ready and others were to be supplied later. Despite this, reviewers were required to respond by the end of March—only three weeks later—when some drafts were only just appearing. This made it rather difficult to review the document as a whole. The work of the authors from individual territories was generally good, but it was clear that little guidance had been given to them from JNCC on approach—or even the type of items that should be covered. Omissions included published cross-territory analyses previously commissioned by HMG, and previously funded projects. Coverages of, for example, designated sites and Environment Charters are highly inconsistent. Some UKOTs are omitted, as also are mentions of other major sources of information. In summary, the Forum has to conclude that there are significant issues around both JNCC’s capacity and capabilities when dealing with UKOTs and in its understanding of and liaison with NGOs.
F. Whether UK Government Strategy on the UKOTs is Consistent with the Conclusions and Commitments on Protecting Biodiversity Reached at the Recent United Nations Rio+20 Conference
F1. It is very difficult to be specific here as outcome documents of both Rio+20 and the White Paper are largely aspirational, with little concrete in the way of proposals and actions. The White Paper is mostly in line with the Rio+20 document, but the proof of the effectiveness of both will be in the outcomes. Most aspects are addressed in other sections of this memorandum. One major omission from the White Paper, as noted previously (para B1) is reference to the green growth agenda, which features highly in the Rio document but not at all in the White Paper. Interestingly it does feature in the latest JNCC business plan.
F2. It is worth, however, drawing attention in particular to paragraphs 43, 44 and 53 of Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June 2012. These stress the need for broad public participation, specifically NGOs and civil society generally. Rather oddly, as we outline at paras G12-G16, the tendency of HMG in recent years has been the reverse of this—which is contrary to the text in the White Paper. From strong joint working for many years up to about seven years ago, HMG has unilaterally reduced its involvement with the network bringing together NGOs and others concerned with environmental conservation in the UKOTs, and reduced to zero its contribution to its costs, severely endangering its work.
F3. This is despite the priority action, identified in DEFRA’s 2012 paper The Environment in the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories: UK Government and Civil Society Support: “Continued and improved coordination, cooperation and knowledge sharing on environmental management between the UK and its Territories, and between the Territories themselves.” This was a role that UKOTCF had fulfilled for some time, but has had to reduce because of HMG’s removal of all support.
F4. UKOTCF recommends that UK Government Ministers instruct their officials and agencies to respond positively to the repeated invitations from UKOTCF, its member organisations and other NGOs to restore the productive communication and collaborative working that characterised conservation work for the UKOTs, until unilaterally reduced by officials over the past half-decade. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 85
G. How Weaknesses in Civil Society and Governance in the UKOTs Impact on Conservation Weaknesses in governance in the UKOTs G1. The basic premise of devolving environmental conservation to the UKOT governments must be that they carry out their responsibilities in a manner which reflects best practice. That, of course, is what the Environment Charters lay out: the steps and policies which ensure a high standard of environmental conservation such as mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before high-impact decisions are made. However, there are several aspects of political life in most UKOTs which run directly counter to the necessary high standards. G2. First is the political nature of land use and development decisions. Major development decisions are considered to be the province of Ministers, who tend to feel that they know what is best and that environmental considerations are very much secondary to what they see as economic gains. Once a Minister takes over the decision regarding a major development through a Special Development Order (SDO) or similar process, the officials and departments charged with protecting the environment are effectively gagged and, rather than being allowed to advocate for the environment, their job becomes implementing the Minister’s decision. They are simply outgunned by developers who have direct access to the Minister making the decision. It should be noted that this concept of absolute Ministerial discretion is what enabled the kind of corruption we saw recently in the Turks and Caicos Islands to flourish. G3. A related point is the culture of secrecy in UKOT governments. All Cabinet decisions are made in secret and no reasons are normally given for them. And this culture of secrecy extends into many areas of government, most especially the local boards responsible for considering development applications. As an example, the Bermuda Government asserts that one reason for not requiring an EIA in Ministerial decisions regarding SDOs is that it would “not be appropriate to mandate that Cabinet declare its deliberations over technical officer recommendations”—clearly asserting that secrecy trumps consultation. This means that decisions with huge environmental consequences are often made in secret with no public consultation. G4. This seems a bit ironic in the face of “The Seven Principles of Public Life” laid out in the 2012 White Paper, which includes the principle “Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their actions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.” This could not be further from the reality of several UKOT governments. G5. Another factor is that small populations of the UKOTs mean small constituencies, and often very narrow margins of victory in local elections. This makes it difficult for politicians to carry out long range policies which may be unpopular in the short term, like fisheries management decisions. What politician with a ten- vote majority is going to impose controls over something like spear fishing, when a significant number of his constituents will be angered by them? G6. It seems extremely concerning that HMG, when directly governing a UKOT, seems to adopt some of the same practices of secrecy, lack of consultation and lack of taking account of environmental considerations. We note this (at para B8. Above) in relation to the recent period of direct rule by HMG in the Turks & Caicos Islands and effectively in Montserrat (para B9). Such problems have been noted by several parties in respect of the UKOTs in permanent direct rule from HMG, such as British Indian Ocean Territory, as well as when HMG resumed direct rule in over Ascension, for no explicit reason (see para E21). G7. UKOTCF recommends that HMG officials involved in decision making on UKOTs receive some basic training in environmental conservation and sustainable development, or at least have some technical advice on such matters available and pay regard to this.
The importance of Territory-based NGOs G8. Locally-based NGOs serve vital functions in conservation. They address weaknesses in civil society and local governments, they educate local people and they represent their concerns. They are aware of local issues and work at the grass-roots level to address them. They carry out valuable environmental programmes, at very low cost to all concerned. And when it happens that a local government makes a decision which would have severe environmental consequences, such as approving environmentally unsound tourism development, they are in practice the only force that can speak up for the importance of environmental conservation G9. This last point is really critical. The current UK Government strategy for conservation in the inhabited UKOTs relies almost entirely on the governments of the UKOTs. This assumes that the UKOT Governments are using best practice in their planning and decision-making procedures. The Environment Charters recognise the importance of this by committing the UKOT Governments to (1) making their decisions in an open and consultative manner, (2) requiring Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before making decisions on high- impact development, and (3) requiring that a public consultation be a part of the EIA. But if a local government decides not to follow this best practice, and makes a high-impact decision without environmental assessment or public consultation, the UK Government no longer becomes involved; the only bodies who try to ensure that environmental concerns are taken into account are local NGOs. Ev 86 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
G10. A recent high-profile case in Bermuda illustrates this point clearly. In the case of Tucker’s Point, the Bermuda Government decided that it was going to grant a Special Development Order (SDO) which would allow tourism development on some of the most sensitive and environmentally valuable areas of Bermuda (including rare woodlands and caves which are habitat to numerous endemic species). Local NGOs heard rumours that this was in the pipeline and requested information from officials about it. Far from carrying out public consultation, these requests for information were either ignored or the potential SDO was outright denied until the granting of the SDO was announced as a fait accompli. Huge mobilisation of the Bermuda public, organised by local NGOs, resulted eventually in some of the most egregious elements of the SDO being modified. But, even then, there was no public consultation on the changes that were to be made. Without the NGO community, there is no one who can even try to stop a Territory government from sacrificing biodiversity to short-term economic advantage. G11. Similar examples of the key role of NGOs could be cited from other UKOTs and CDs, including: damaging built development at Beef Island, British Virgin Islands, and Anguilla; unnecessary road development in the Cayman Islands; and current activities (actually promoted by HMG) at Montserrat and Turks & Caicos (paras B8-B9). G12. Local NGOs and the officers of UKOTCF, a body made up of member organisations in the UKOTs and in Britain (as well as the Crown Dependencies), have long been supported by HMG and in return have contributed a great deal to the effectiveness of HMG’s efforts in the UKOTs. UK officials and UKOTCF member organisations, together with UK representatives of UKOT governments, met regularly so that the UK officials could be made aware of issues of concern in the UKOTs, and the Forum (and thereby its member organisations) could be kept up to date on policies, programmes and proposals from the UK Government. Often, these meetings resulted in significant progress. One of UKOTCF’s key roles is to keep its member organisations in contact with each other and the UK Government. It does this in three ways: 1) regional working groups (Wider Caribbean Working Group, Southern Oceans Working Group, Europe Territories Working Group) meet quarterly to discuss the issues of concern to members and to share information and resources; 2) every three years since 2000 the Forum, with support from the UK Government, has held conferences at which local NGOs and governmental conservation bodies could share resources and information; and 3) through its regular newsletters and e-updates, the concerns as well as the successes of conservation in the UKOTs are disseminated. All these are supplemented by individual contacts. G13. However, over the last few years, this mutually productive partnership between the UK Government and UKOTCF member bodies has been gradually eroded by officials, without consultation, to the point of now having been phased out. We are concerned that this is part of a general movement away from support of local NGOs and towards a conservation policy which is driven by UK officials rather than being demand-led from the UKOTs. The meetings between UK officials and UKOTCF have been dropped and officials indicated very belatedly that support for the next three-yearly conference, due in 2012, would not be forthcoming. G14. There seems also to be a tendency amongst recent HMG officials that contacts and funding should be directed mainly through UKOT governments, a move away from a more mixed approach in the past. UKOTCF would like to see a return to a more balanced approach, for the reasons already outlined. G15. The way in which FCO dealt with the White Paper provides the most recent example of its break-off of communications with UKOTCF, the body which many UKOT and other NGOs choose to link with HMG. Although UKOTCF spent much effort in collating information from its network to respond to FCO’s pre-White Paper consultation, virtually none of its some 30 recommendations were taken up in the White Paper (see Moving Backwards in UK Overseas Territories Conservation: Comments by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum on the UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374), appended). When UKOTCF invited FCO (and other government departments and agencies) to a workshop on the White Paper, the FCO then Director of Overseas Territories (after first giving the impression that HMG would participate) replied shortly before the workshop that HMG would not participate (see Environmental Conservation and UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374)—Proceedings of a workshop on 2nd October 2012 at Gibraltar House, the Strand, London, organised by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, appended). In a further letter of 10th October, the then FCO Director of Overseas Territories and the DEFRA Deputy Director of International Biodiversity and Evidence declined a meeting of UKOTCF with FCO and DEFRA Ministers, “as we have recently met with you to discuss your views on the White Paper.” This was not true. The officials appeared to be referring to two meetings in recent months on other topics. After 4 years of refusing to meet UKOTCF on anything, the then FCO Director of Overseas Territories met UKOTCF’s Chairman in June 2012 (see para E23). This was not to discuss the White Paper (except for the then FCO Director to say that UKOTCF would not like the contents) because the White Paper had not yet been published and was not available to discuss. The second meeting, in September 2012, was an invitation by DEFRA to UKOTCF officers to discuss other issues. At a late stage, DEFRA advised UKOTCF that they had invited FCO to attend also, but indicated that the agenda (which did not include the White Paper) had not changed, although HMG raised this matter in the meeting without warning UKOTCF. G16. UKOTCF recommends that Ministers instruct their officials to stop blocking contacts with the body that many UKOT organisations choose to link to HMG, UKOTCF, and seek to restore the positive relationship of the 1990s and early 2000s. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 87
H. How the Introduction of “Marine Protected Areas” could Safeguard the Marine Environment in the Uninhabited Territories H1. It is not clear why the question refers only to uninhabited territories, and it is not practicable to limit our comments to these. UKOTCF has long pointed out the relative neglect of several of UK’s large marine Exclusive Economic Zones and called for proper management of these, including marine protected areas as part of the suite of appropriate mechanisms. These areas are of huge importance for wildlife and ecosystem services, in some cases including sustainable fisheries. It is well recognised that effective management of both fisheries and “protected” areas depends on effective enforcement. However, this has lacked an overall HMG strategy. In fact, the presence of fisheries or other protection vessels have depended on historical accidents, rather than a strategy. The Falkland Islands and South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands acquired such vessels at least partly as a result of rebuilding following the Falklands War of 30 years ago. They are now regarded as amongst the better managed fisheries of the world. British Indian Ocean Territory managed to acquire a protection vessel from the proceeds of sale of a seized illegally fishing vessel. Other UKOTs which did not suffer such mishaps with side-benefits have not received investment for this purpose from HMG. Thus the biological riches and economic assets of Pitcairn, Ascension, and St Helena are being lost through lack of protection, and protection of Tristan da Cunha’s waters are limited to those close to the island, as the lack of a harbour limits the size of protection boat. In the case of Gibraltar, the local government’s wish to protect its no-take waters is actually being impeded by HMG’s effective encouragement of illegal fishing by boats from the neighbouring country (see paras C39-C44). H2. UKOTCF is pleased that various conservation partners are promoting the concept of marine protected areas, with some success. We leave detailed comment to these, whom we understand are submitting evidence. However, UKOTCF should note that it considers that marine protected areas should be managed on the basis of available scientific evidence, while not delaying unduly for that to be amplified. As is evident from the above, it is essential that proper management and enforcement be resourced. The generous support for this from large institutions in some current cases is noted and welcomed. The continued overall responsibility of HMG must, however, be remembered, as well as the interests and wishes of the local communities where these exist. It will be important to put in place mechanisms to ensure that the wishes of local communities continue to be respected over time, as it cannot be assumed that the overall aims of large institutions will necessarily remain aligned. H3. UKOTCF does not share the view that the whole of marine protected areas should necessarily be no- take zones, although it would be surprising if all such areas did not include large no-take zones. UKOTCF welcomes the designation of a large marine protected area by the Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands (part of HMG). UKOTCF also supports the MPA at BIOT, but regrets some of the ways in which this was implemented, particularly the unwise and improper comments by the then FCO Director of Overseas Territories which indicated that the designation was a means of preventing re-settlement by Chagossians. H4. The Pitcairn Islands give a clear opportunity for a large no-take protected area. This area has no current legal large-scale fishery, although there are signs of the initial impact of illegal fisheries in part of the group. The island community has expressed its welcome for such a protected area. So the challenge reduces essentially to resourcing proper protection. This latter need relates also to Tristan da Cuhna, St Helena and Ascension, as noted above. H5. The Caribbean UKOTs, in common with other islands in the region, suffer many fishery problems, and require much fuller treatment than we can give here. There are several marine protected areas in some, but most lack effective no-take zones. This is unfortunate in that the benefits of no-take zones to both conservation and to fisheries in adjoining areas has been well demonstrated, for example in the neighbouring Bahamas (see article on The Bahamas National Park System, pp 46–49 in: A Sense of Direction: a conference on conservation in UK Overseas Territories and other small island communities, Bermuda 22nd-27th March 2003, www.ukotcf.org/confs/bermuda2003.). Other management in supposedly protected areas leaves much to be desired, with HMG officers apparently considering further damaging dredging in one such area in the Turks & Caicos Islands (see para B8). 30 November 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Turks and Caicos Islands’ Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs Summary Turks and Caicos Islands assets for effective sustainable management of natural resources include: — An extensive Protected Areas network. — Protective legislations including: — The National Parks Ordinance. — Marine Pollution Ordinance. Ev 88 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
— Coastal Protection Ordinance. — Fisheries Protection Ordinance. — Planning Ordinance. — Other Legislation. — Significant unspoiled land and wetland resources.
Management deficiencies include: — Inadequate labour resources for adequate enforcement. — Lack of funding for critical scientific research. — Lack of funding for critical scientific monitoring, such as water quality testing. — Lack of political will to implement needed reforms to current development trends.
The Extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOT’s embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriate trade-offs, environmental protection, social development and economic growth
1. The Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) have made great strides towards developing strategies for balancing development with sustainable management of natural resources in recent years. Environmental protections are supported by a well-developed and managed Protected Areas System, in addition to protective laws that provide for effective management of fisheries and other natural resources.
2. Unfortunately, the vast majority of economic growth in TCI has come at the expense of the natural environmental, cultural and social baseline. On the island of Providenciales, the privatization and development of public lands has substantially degraded environmental and cultural resources. Relatively unchecked development practices allowed private interests to exploit natural resources and “externalize” environmental costs without restraint.
3. In 1960, Providenciales had no automobiles, paved roads or airport and a population of 518 people. The vast majority of the land area on the small, 37-square-mile island was public or “Crown” land. Ecosystems were in close to pristine condition and provided ample sustenance for all residents, human and non-human. The people were poor, but not impoverished. The quality of life was very high. Crime was virtually non- existent, and cultural values were well-defined.
4. Today, with the exception of two Protected Areas, virtually all of the land on Providenciales has been privatized and developed for tourism, residential and industrial use. Critical upland and wetland habitats have been cleared, dredged and filled. Marine ecosystems are threatened by pollution and overuse. Fisheries catches are declining. The human population has exponentially increased to approximately 26,000. Illegal immigration and crime are rampant, and younger generations are adopting cultural values from nearby North America.
5. The above-mentioned benchmarks indicate that the pattern of privatization and development of land on Providenciales is not sustainable. The TCI are the current “hot trend” in Caribbean travel destinations, with a branding of “beautiful by nature.” However tourism development on Providenciales has been anything but “beautiful by nature,” with a steady erosion of ecological values, resulting from on-going land clearance for development. Unless the prevalent development model is altered, the current ecological values that TCI enjoys on the remaining islands will be lost. Ironically, the very aspect of the Islands that attracts tourists in annually record-breaking numbers has been rapidly eroded by its own appeal, paradoxically fueled by a historic paradigm of development that views nature as a resource to be exploited for individual human profit.
How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs
In recent years, funding available to the Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs (DEMA) has been dramatically reduced, as budget cuts have been implemented.
6. UK has eliminated the Overseas Territories Environment Programme, merging it into the more rigid and restricted Darwin Plus programme that does not necessarily anticipate or address the needs of all of the territories.
7. UK government bodies seem to have become unaware of the role of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Conservation forum, and have done a great disservice to all UKOTs by writing UKOTCF conference funding out of their budget.
8. UK Government’s cuts to UK conservation bodies active in UKOTs such as Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Zoological Society of London mean that work in UKOTs is dependent on UKOT-sourced funding, which is often sourced from UK Government due to UKOTs restricted access to international funding—which means the same funding cut from UK bodies has to be sourced by UKOTs and goes to assist those UK bodies in UKOT work, meaning there is less to spend within UKOTs themselves. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 89
How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change 9. The UK Government is speaking the right language but practice leaves a lot to be desired. Recent developmental approval in TCI by the UK Government during Direct Rule has included some quite potentially destructive proposals. There has been little enforcement in in-filling of wetlands on low-lying islands. 10. Furthermore, the Turks and Caicos Islands currently have a monopoly supplier of electricity that produces electricity exclusively from diesel powered generators. Numerous studies have indicated that due to the excessive cost of electricity generation in TCI, solar and wind technologies are not only economically viable, but offer a less-expensive alternative for private individuals. While the Islands have abundant solar and wind resources, these renewable energies have not been tapped, and are in fact discouraged by current policy. Currently, a home owner or private individual is not allowed to generate their own electricity with renewable technologies. Additionally, there are no plans to implement progressive net metering policies that would greatly reduce the cost of electricity for the average person and have a dramatic impact on the production of greenhouse gasses in TCI.
Whether the recommendations in our 2008 Report, Halting biodiversity loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined-up government to further conservation have been implemented 11. These recommendations have not been implemented in TCI. The document is not circulated or referred to in any existing legislative or operational framework.
Whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference 12. TCI has currently not had any active policy to implement strategies arising from that Conference.
How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation; and 13. UK Government in direct Rule set a poor precedent in Conservation; it did not criticise the former administration’s quite anti-conservation stance, did not reasonably repair problems caused by that administration, and has not encouraged new administrations to become more conservation-minded, such that the environment was not mentioned in any political platform in the 2012 elections. 14. The UK Government’s Direct Rule administration’s willingness to entertain developments clearly in violation of Planning Ordinance, the Fisheries Protection Ordinance and the National Parks Ordinance and having potentially severe environmental impact has set a poor precedent for the elected government to follow. In fact, the statement that these decisions are best left to an elected government demonstrates a clear disregard for extant legislation and a government’s obligation to follow its own law. 15. The UK Government in direct rule dissolved the Conservation Fund, which was established to support conservation efforts in TCI, and absorbed it into the General Fund to cover general budget deficits. No alternative to the Conservation Fund has been established or suggested, and the loss of economic support has been detrimental to conservation efforts. 1.
How the introduction of “Marine Protected Areas” could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories. 16. The Turks and Caicos Islands have a well-developed Marine Protected Areas network. The limitations of this network exist as an extension of the lack of resources and funding needed for management and enforcement of the existing legislative framework. 17. While the Protected Areas network is extensive, management plans are only in place for three Protected Areas within the system. Management plans and the economic and labour resources needed to implement them are urgently needed. 30 November 2012
Written evidence submitted by Tara Pelembe, Head of Environmental Management Division, St Helena (1) What particular aspects of environmental support/admin/funding from the UK Government are welcomed? What environmental support/admin/funding is not welcomed? Would the Governor taking a closer interest in environmental protection be appropriate? All support from the UK Government that is currently received is welcomed—this comes in the form of funding and technical expertise. The Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) has been an important funding source for the development of Enviromental projects and, through these, raising the profile of the importance of the environment on island. We hope that the new Darwin Plus continues to develop this important role. Ev 90 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
The funding of St. Helena’s airport has included the environment as a core component of the project development and of the implementation monitoring. St. Helena also benefits from technical environmental support through the Department for International Development (DFID) technical cooperation funding to St. Helena. Advisory and training posts within the new EMD have been recruited via this funding source. We continue to develop this support where the opportunity arises. We are, for example, currently exploring the possibility of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) providing the scientific authority role for St. Helena as required by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) input into the South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI), via the JNCC is a welcome, tangible way of connecting and sharing expertise within the South Atlantic Overseas Territories. There have been two recent gaps in access to advice within UK government which have resulted in a noted decrease in communication with the related UK departments—ie there is now lack of clarity around focal points for OT environmental issues within DFID’s Overseas Territories Directorate (OTD) and within Defra. A dedicated Overseas Territories Environment officer within Defra would be a welcome step, as would dedicated people within the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). A programmatic, rather than project, approach to funding would be welcome to ensure longer term sustainability for work on island.
(2) What more should the UK Government be doing to support environmental protection in the overseas territories. Does the 2012 White Paper, which sets out the UK Government’s strategy, meet your expectations? Mainstreaming the environment is a key objective under St. Helena’s National Planning and is being incorporated in the development of the programme and project management systems being developed for capital/infrastructure projects There are a number of environmental awareness/protection strands in the airport project with environmental staff in Basil Read, the Project Monitoring Unit, SHG and DFID’s Airport project team, who work together on environmental issues. The UK Government White Paper 2012 appears to embody the principles of sustainable development with explicit focus on economy, society and the environment—the three pillars of sustainable development. How, and if, this translates into reality and actual support in each of the territories will become clearer over time. On St. Helena — The Department for International Development (DFID) has committed £250 million to the construction of an airport to stimulate economic growth. This is linked to funding to support economic development while the airport is being built. — A new Environmental Management Directorate34 has been created to take forward mainstreaming of the environment across the island. — The Sustainable Development Plan35 has three National Goals—one focussing on economic growth, the other on social development and a third on environmental management. Recommendation: Regular (c. two yearly) reports on progress (against agreed indictors) of sustainable development in the UKOTs might be a good tool for picking up on whether UK and OT governments are delivering and whether trade-offs are appropriate. Recommendation: In 1999 when the White Paper—Partnership and Prosperity was produced, to ensure the environment was given appropriate profile within UK and OT governments, the Environment Charters were produced. These had commitments for both the UK and OT Governments against which progress could be monitored. There are differences of opinions on how effective the Environment Charters were but they did provide a basis for securing support and resources and also covered the wider environmental management, which appears to have a lower profile than conservation, biodiversity protection and climate change. It is therefore recommended that a charter or something similar is developed between UK and OT governments outlining in more detail the nature of agreed environmental commitments.
(3) To what extent is the UK Government discharging its international responsibilities concerning the environment and biodiversity? The UK Government has recently (April 2008) created an Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy.36 This strategy provides a framework for cross Whitehall input into biodiversity in the UKOTs, and establishes a mechanism for implementing this. From an EMD perspective the main manifestations of this are 34 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/pages/environment.html 35 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/760/sustainable-development-plan-201213–201415 36 http://www.DEFRA.gov.uk/publications/2011/05/26/pb13335-uk-ot-strategy/ Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 91
— Funding: the creation of the new Darwin plus which combines all previous HMG funding sources for TO biodiversity conservation. — Support: In particular the ability to write to HMG officers for advice and support around a range of areas, the invertebrate identification service that FERA (the Food and Environment Research Agency) provides, the technical and advisory support provided by Royal Botanical Gardens Kew and JNCC.
Recommendation: Links into Multilateral environmental agreement processes need to be specifically tailored to UKOT situation and capacity, with adequate interpretation and time being given if meaningful input is required.
Recommendation: Increased and improved access to a wider range of support for a range of environmental areas, that is available within relatively short spaces of time. Currently this is delivered for St. Helena via a calldown contract.
How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change
The UK Meteorological Office has a memorandum of Understanding with the St. Helena Government to fund the running of a recording station on the island and provide technical training, information and support. The data generated can provide the foundation for our work around climate change.
JNCC has produced a suite of materials on climate change in the UKOTs.37 These provide a good foundation for climate change adaptation and mitigation policy.
On St. Helena — There is a target to develop a climate change (adaptation and mitigation) policy in the next year. In the development of the policy, we are likely to look to UK government to tap into expertise and advice on the policy development.
Recommendation: Although there has been support to some general work on climate change in the UKOTs and to specific developments of climate change strategies in the Caribbean, St. Helena has not really benefitted from these. St. Helena still requires a comprehensive study to determine what predicted climate change impacts will be, so that we can incorporate recommended adaptation and mitigation measures into policy and planning.
On St. Helena JNCC have supported the creation of an environmental management Directorate and associated policy and legislation through secondment of a staff member and funding for data management and research.
JNCC and the St. Helena Government (SHG) Environmental Management Directorate (EMD) also partner on a Darwin funded marine mapping project.
DFID have supported this through their Technical Cooperation budget to St. Helena providing funding for the following roles: — Director of environmental management. — Environment Risk Advisor/Trainer. — Terrestrial Conservation Advisor/Trainer. — “Call-down” support for specialist technical advice.
JNCC/DEFRA have also given funding support for training courses and small projects.
(4) Do UK government departments work effectively together on overseas territory issues? Would you welcome stronger support from any UK departments in particular?
From an OT environment directorate perspective, it is difficult to gauge whether UK government departments are working together effectively on overseas territories issues. We have strong links with DFID, and JNCC. We have good links with FCO, who have worked to develop a sustainable approach to fisheries across the UKOTs.
We have occasional links directly with Defra (mainly on multi-lateral environmental agreements) and sporadic, if any links with other UK government departments.
Stronger links with Defra and with DCMS would be welcomed. The former, to be able to tap into environmental expertise that is broader than that linked to biodiversity (provided through Defra’s JNCC). The latter, to link into expertise around the built heritage—conservation, preservation and advice around which is currently underdeveloped on St. Helena. 37 http://jncc.DEFRA.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=5283 Ev 92 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
(5) The UK Government has consolidated its environmental protection funding for the overseas territories into the “Darwin Plus” Fund. Is this a positive development and is the Fund big enough to support the work that is needed? The concept of a single fund rather than multiple funds, is one that we support. It streamlines processes, enables the building of capacity to write applications to a single funding source. St. Helena has benefited from the Darwin Plus Fund (although EMD’s submissions weren’t funded), and we will continue to apply. Additional funding would of course be welcome if this meant that additional projects could be funded. A programmatic approach to funding would also be welcome, so that a more sustainable approach to environmental management is encouraged. Project funding does not lend itself to long-term sustainable environmental management.
(6) Do your environmental departments have enough staff and the technical expertise you need? There are arguably never “enough” staff and technical expertise. On small islands, the range of technical expertise required is unlikely to ever be 100% available within the staff cohort because of the range of the spectrum of environmental issues. However currently St. Helena is at a stage where it has more staff and greater access to technical expertise than ever before. The EMD has 24 staff. In addition we tap into technical expertise from organisations and individuals on island, and are in the process of setting up a second “call down” contract where we tap into a range of technical expertise provided by an external organisation (funding for which is provided by the Department for International Development through its Technical cooperation budget for St. Helena). The Darwin Initiative and OTEP funding to the island has also helped to bring technical expertise on to the island to build on the local expertise we have and as such, we currently have invertebrate and marine specialists doing baseline research in these two areas. The development of the SAERI is also anticipated as being a useful system for providing, and developing, technical expertise within the region.
(7) What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in the territory? Is there a role for the UK Government to ensure that this legislation is enacted? SHG has recently reviewed all of its legislation to see what aspects of environment are covered, what gaps are there, and is in the processing of drafting a new environment law to update and address gaps. The law is in the process of being drafted (this will be done over the next 10 weeks) and then it will go through the same process as any other law required to be enacted on island. There is currently no indication that the law will not be enacted at the end of this process. As such, for St. Helena there is currently not a requirement for UK government to ensure that the legislation is enacted. If, for some reason, the new environmental law is not enacted as anticipated, input from UK government might be beneficial.
(8) What estimates have the territory’s government made of the value of natural resources and ecosystem services to the economy of the territory? No work on the economic value of the environment has been carried out.
(9) What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory government to account for their environmental practices? — Under the new National Environmental Management Plan, there is a target to establish an Environment Scrutiny Board. This is planned to be established within the next six months. — Environmental Impact assessments are policy and legal requirements that are embedded in the planning process. — The St. Helena policy process requires environmental assessment of all new St. Helena Policy. — Executive Council memos require a statement on the environmental impact of the required decision. 18 April 2013
Further written evidence submitted by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum Introduction This document supplements the original written submission from the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) in November 2012 and the oral evidence given to the Committee on 17th April 2013. It arises from points in the oral evidence where UKOTCF offered to provide supplementary evidence and other points where relevant information has become available. These points are addressed in the sequence that they arose in the session on 17th April. To minimise confusion in cross-referencing, we label the sections by letters following on from those used in our original written evidence. The sections in this supplement address: I. Environment Charters. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 93
J. Reluctance of some parties to give evidence to EAC. K. Problems in HMG governance in respect of UK Overseas Territories. L. Gibraltar fisheries and marine conservation. M. Necessary qualities for effective Governors. N. Some further aspects on funding. O. Raising awareness in Britain of the importance of its Overseas Territories P. Some reasons for UK taxpayers to support environmental conservation in UK Overseas Territories. If the Committee requires further clarification, then we would of course be happy to assist with such.
I. Environment Charters I1. The reasoned and clear reports by the Ombudsman for Bermuda on the legally binding nature of Environment Charters have featured in our written and oral evidence. The Ombudsman for Bermuda issued a further report on this topic to the Bermuda Parliament on 17th May. The full report (Diligent Development— Getting it Right) is available at http://www.ombudsman.bm/systemic_reports.html. It is subtitled: Update on Legal Status of UK Environment Charter. Some key extracts from these reports are: Last year, when I tabled Today”s Choices—Tomorrow”s Costs (“TC-TC”) regarding the Special Development Order process, I made a finding that the Civil Service had erred at law by not recognizing that Bermuda”s signature on the 2001 UK Environment Charter is a legal commitment. In a press release dated 2 May 2012, the then Minister challenged the legality of my investigation of the procedure leading up to and informing decisions to grant SDOs. He also called into question my conclusion that the Charter sets out legal obligations: “We have taken advice from both the Attorney General”s office and the FCO via Government House, and conclude that the UK Environment Charter does not constitute law. It is unenforceable. Rather, the UK itself considers the Charter to be “aspirational”.” In June, I responded with a brief Special Report (“5.16 Report”) that demonstrated that the Privy Council agreed with the distinction I made between a decision and the procedure leading up to it. Therefore, as Ombudsman I was within the law to investigate the SDO procedure. My S.16 Report also clarified and provided additional evidence that the Charter is a legal agreement. This included: — a decision of the International Court of Justice about what constitutes a legal agreement between two governments; — the rationale for the Charter set out in the 1999 White Paper; — contemporaneous statements of both the UK and Bermudian Governments regarding their intentions that the Charter commitments are to be implemented; and — subsequent evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee of the UK House of Commons by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) affirming the commitments of the Charter. Since then, I have received additional information, including the only judicial decision to date about the legal effect of the Charter. Accordingly, it is important and appropriate that the Legislature and public be informed about this. This report pulls together in one document the evidence already presented in TC-TC and the S.16 Report, along with an overview of the legal landscape. Bermuda”s approach to development of its scarce land resources is at a turning point. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, it is time that Bermuda puts its words into action. The correct legal approach is clear and now is the time to act. With every decision made with blindfolds on, we fall further behind and do a disservice to our island and our future generations. We can do what is right today, or we can wait years for our courts, after costly litigation, to force us to do the right thing. The choice is ours. The choice is now. Is Bermuda legally obliged to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments (“EIA”)—with a robust public consultation component—prior to approving developments that are major or likely to have significant adverse environmental effects? Yes. By signing the UK Environment Charter in 2001 Bermuda legally bound itself to conduct EIAs before approving major projects. Bermuda”s obligations are further confirmed and reinforced by: 1. other commitments made in the UK Environment Charter and Rio Declaration; 2. responsibilities imposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity; 3. the common law doctrine of legitimate expectation; 4. recent case law; and 5. international best practices. From a practical perspective, Bermuda is obliged to conduct an EIA prior to approval in principle for development proposals that are either “major” or “likely to have significant adverse effect on the environment”. Ev 94 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
I undertook, on the public”s behalf, a comprehensive investigation of the scope and quality of information analyzed and recommendations made by civil servants for the Tucker”s Point SDO [Special Development Order]. My independent investigation confirmed that the current SDO process is inadequate: an EIA, coupled with a proper process for public consultation, was required to lift the conservation protection and to approve the SDO. One purpose of an EIA is to identify risks, ways to mitigate risks, and alternatives to development proposals (such as site or design). Another purpose of an EIA is to ensure transparent public consultation, disclosure and input. The government is bound to follow the nearly universal EIA process as a result of the following: — commitments made when it signed the UK Environment Charter; — common law doctrine of legitimate expectation; and — international best practices. The mandatory language and structure of the Charter is clear: it creates legally binding commitments. According to one of the drafters, the words were chosen carefully to designate the future obligations we were undertaking at the time. The Charter commitments are explicit and detailed. We, like other countries subject to identical Charters, must stick to our word. Having signed the Charter, Bermuda has an undisputed obligation to conduct EIAs prior to approving major developments or those likely to have significant adverse environmental effects. Implementation of the commitment to ensure EIAs does not require domestic legislation or government expenditure. In 1992, the UK signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”), an international legally binding treaty, which sets out responsibilities to conserve biological diversity and to ensure sustainable use of species and habitats. In ratifying the CBD, the UK assumed legal (as well as a moral) responsibility for its Overseas Territories (“OT”) with respect to biological diversity. For Bermuda, the responsibilities under the CBD remain with the UK. The primary method by which the UK fulfils its own responsibilities under the CBD with respect to OTs is by way of the Environmental Charters. The UK cannot unilaterally extend its multilateral environmental responsibilities to the OTs. The 1999 White Paper signalled that—as priority actions—the UK must (and the OTs were encouraged to) undertake certain responsibilities. Section 8.15 of that White Paper stated: These responsibilities already exist, but the UK and its Overseas Territories have not always addressed these issues sufficiently consistently or systematically. Examples include damage to coral reefs and the effects of introduced species on native species and habitats. We intend bringing together the responsibilities, common objectives and cooperative approaches of the UK Government, Overseas Territory governments, the private sector, NGOs and local communities by drafting and agreeing an Environment Charter with the Overseas Territories. The Charter will clarify the roles and responsibilities of these stakeholders, set out in a shared vision which also takes account of the wide variety of circumstances and local resources in each territory. The exact form of the Charter and variations between territories will be determined in consultation with them. In 2007, the FCO reaffirmed the commitments of the Charter in evidence before the Environmental Audit Committee of the UK House of Commons. The FCO asserted that the Charter is the basis to work with Overseas Territories” governments on implementation. The responsibility for doing so is a cross-UK government responsibility of the FCO, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Department for International Development. As recently as January 2012, in a policy document, “The Environment in the United Kingdom”s Overseas Territories: UK Government and Civil Society Support”, DEFRA defined the Charter as a “formal individual agreement, listing commitments to develop and implement sound environmental management practices in the OTs”. Based on the common law doctrine of legitimate expectations, the Government of Bermuda can be legally held by the courts to perform actions that it promised to do. Legitimate expectations arise when the government makes it known that it will follow a specific course of action, including conduct set out in treaties. Government can depart from the expected course of action only where it has given proper notice and has given those affected an opportunity to be heard. Once a legitimate expectation has been established, which is the case here, the onus shifts to the government to identify an overriding public interest to justify going back on its commitment. The onus therefore is on government, to follow what is literally, and legally, a legitimate expectation. EIAS must be comprehensive, involve full disclosure, be done at the earliest possible time (but can be required at a later stage), involve proper public consultation, and provide adequate time. The source of the obligation to require an EIA can be legitimate expectations resulting from statements of government officials in recognition of the need to account for residents” concerns and wishes. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 95
A recent case from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court is directly on point with the issues facing Bermuda: Webster et al v. Attorney General (Anguilla) and Dolphin Discovery. In that case, the Court reviewed the adequacy of EIAs and public consultation based on commitments under the UK Environment Charter for the construction of a Dolphinarium and shopping complex. The Court found that the Charter (singly or taken together with the government”s environmental strategy and action plan) established a policy and therefore created a legitimate expectation that the public would be consulted. To some degree, Bermuda has acknowledged (but as discretionary only) its obligations arising from the UK Environmental Charter. Our Department of Planning issued Guidance Note 106 which explains the importance of EIAs and when they are required. GN 106 recites the Rio Declaration requirement for EIAs and sets out a comprehensive list of the purposes of EIAs. These purposes include: — to incorporate environmental information in development decision-making; — to examine alternative and superior options; — to identify positive and negative environmental impacts; — to recommend mitigation measures; and — to allow for full and early consultation with stakeholders. The current SDO process fails to meet these purposes. In addition, it does not recognize our current legal obligations or modern planning standards, nor does it provide for adequate public consultation. With no EIA, decisions are being made in the dark—Ministers and the Legislature do not have reliable and independent information and the public is not given the opportunity to be heard. Not only is there a lack of full environmental understanding, but there is also a lack of financial understanding and the true effect that the development proposals will have on our island. A combination of SDO conditions based on an ill-informed process and a hazy mishmash of studies are nowhere near the equivalent of a proper EIA. To suggest otherwise not only does a disservice to the people of Bermuda but also raises red flags as to the reasons why a universally accepted process is not being used in Bermuda for the development of our scarce land resources. By having an EIA process, our government would be in the position to mute suspicions that information is deliberately being withheld and that the grant of SDOs benefits the interests of a few rather than Bermuda as a whole. It would also ultimately secure inter-generational justice through the principles and practices of sustainable development. To continue forward without the legally necessary due process of a proper EIA, without considering the impact, is like walking ahead blind without guidance—the legal equivalent of walking into barbed wire in the dark. Except here, the damage, once built: cannot be undone—we just cannot put the lava back in without being burned. In the Throne Speech of 8 February 2013, the Government stated: The Government will build upon an earlier legislative amendment that ensured that Special Development Orders would be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny by implementing a protocol that is clearly articulated, tronsparent and fair. This protocol will guide the request for, consideration of and grant of SDOs. No environmental expert consulted has been able to suggest what possible protocol Bermuda could create that would be better than an EIA. Most countries of the world, with the exception of a few countries such as Syria and Iran, require EIA for major developments. Does Bermuda really want to be in the company of these countries? Do we want to strike out on our own, defy the judgments of the highest courts, and ignore global best practices? It is time for Bermuda to be realistic, join the 21st Century, and keep our promises. EIAs must be done prior to approval of major developments and all development proposals that may cause significant adverse impact on our fragile environment. The absence of EIAs is like producing a cookbook devoid of recipes. In Save Guano Cay, the Privy Council adopted the statement of the President of the Court of Appeal: “The ecology of the Bahamas is said to be “fragile” and possible deaths of those [coral] reefs due to “global warming” coupled with environmental degradation may result from indiscriminate development of the islands, it is quite understandable that thinking persons would be concerned to protect, as far as humanly possible, their environment, not only for themselves, but also for their descendants who may have to inhabit these islands in the future.” All persons in Bermuda who have a stake in the well-being of the island that we leave for our children and grandchildren must be similarly concerned. In conclusion, as Ombudsman, I am obliged to follow my own governing statute, the Ombudsman Act 2004. Section 2(1) of that Act obliges me to point out government “maladministration”, which is defined to include “inefficient, bad or improper administration and ... includes ... administrative action that was ... contrary to law ... based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact or irrelevant grounds ... related to the application of arbitrary or unreasonable procedures.” I would be derelict in my duty if I did not point out that our word must be our bond—not just because it is the law but also because it is the right thing to do—for now and for tomorrow.” Ev 96 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
I2. UKOTCF notes that the procedure of agreement and relevant wording of Environment Charters signed with other UKOTs is similar to that between Bermuda and UK, and there is no reason why those Charters are any less binding than Bermuda”s.
J. Reluctance of some Parties to give Evidence to EAC J1. During the oral session, RSPB mentioned that they know of at least one overseas territory NGO that wrote evidence for this Committee but then decided it would be wiser not to submit it as it was too fearful of local repercussions. UKOTCF can add that it knows of bodies from at least four UKOTs that similarly decided that they would not risk giving evidence, because of potential reprisals. It is difficult to appreciate in Britain how, in these small communities, there is little de facto freedom of speech. J2. In this context, we must commend Dr Nikki Chapman and Mr Bryan Naqqi Manco for their courage in giving evidence and their organisations for allowing this. Subsequent to the giving of this evidence in March 2013, Mr Manco has been attacked in an anonymous article in the online newspaper TCI News Now (http://www.tcinewsnow.com/headline-Environmentalist-takes-on-local-authorities-6004.html), subsequently quoted widely. The article mixes partial reporting of the Committee”s proceedings with personal information about Mr Manco. Much of this information was not previously in the public domain (and has presumably been unlawfully released by someone with access to personnel files of a previous employment), and even more of it is erroneous. We understand that Mr Manco has written to correct some of the material but TCI News Now has not published a correction or apology for publishing erroneous personal information. It seems that some other local publications are also launching personal attacks, as has at least one contractor for TCI Government (see paras K27–28). J3. This sort of unaccountable personal attack inhibits individuals from giving evidence on future occasions and their organisations from allowing them to. In this case, the Turks & Caicos Islands Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs and its overseeing Ministry of Environment and Home Affairs commendably authorised Mr Manco to give fair and balanced evidence including both successes and remaining challenges concerning environmentally related matters in TCI. It is unlikely that, with this experience, if the Committee were seeking witnesses now, any UKOT organisations or individuals would feel safe enough to give evidence. J4. This situation recalls the experience of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in its 2007–08 inquiry on Overseas Territories. Its recommendations included: 13. We are concerned that witnesses from Overseas Territories cannot at present be guaranteed protection against legal action or even intimidation or other abuse arising as a consequence of their giving evidence to select committee inquiries in the UK. We recommend that the Government should introduce legislation to extend the Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act 1892 to Overseas Territories, or as an alternative, that it should urgently require Overseas Territories to introduce equivalent legislation as a matter of good governance. J5. Recommendation 17, relating specifically to the Turks and Caicos Islands, included: In such an environment, people will be afraid to publicly come forward with evidence. We conclude that the UK Government must find a way to assure people that a formal process with safeguards is underway and therefore recommend that it announces a Commission of Inquiry, with full protection for witnesses. J6. This recommendation led to a Commission of Inquiry and eventually a three-year period of direct UK rule of TCI, from 2009 to 2012. It seems that the opportunity to change the culture of fear in deploying free speech has effectively been missed despite that three-year period of British direct rule.
K. Problems in HMG Governance in Respect of UK Overseas Territories K1. As we noted in written and oral evidence, the problems in conservation legislation and enforcement seem also to be a problem in some cases when HMG is in direct control of a territory or certain aspects. This was evident also in the session with officials from UKOTs. We undertook to update our written evidence on this matter. K2. Some proposed legislation in the Turks & Caicos Islands to implement international conventions was put on the back-burner by the interim FCO direct administration. Laws proposed after a major review in Montserrat seem to have been delayed for financial reasons, and local views in respect of planning appear to be overridden, while HMG is in charge of funding. There appear to be problems in St Helena—which are particularly concerning while major developments proceed.
ST HELENA K3. HMG has a strong influence on the governing of St Helena, including the management of the environment. This is for two main reasons. First, the island depends on direct budgetary support from HMG. Second, the Air Access project is also HMG funded. These impact on almost every aspect of life in St Helena. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 97
The Air Access Project K4. This is not just about building an airport. What also matters for long-term sustainability are the related construction and land use activities to develop the infrastructure for—and make sure that Saints benefit from— the projected influx of visitors, who will be very different from those arriving after a long sea voyage. The operation of air services involves also contracts with carriers, importation of different types of goods and the related quarantine/biosafety considerations on an isolated island which is highly vulnerable to invasive species. A related issue is how sea freight will affect the island”s economy and family budgets after the subsidy for the RMS St Helena is withdrawn. K5. There are two current environmental issues. The first is that changes to the configuration of the site made since the project was agreed have not been accompanied by sufficient attention to further adjustments to mitigation measures where there are unavoidable impacts on habitats of important flora and fauna. Catch-up work being done by the St Helena National Trust and by Buglife under a Darwin Initiative project may help, but it is a pity that the contractors did not seek specialist advice when starting to amend their plans. The recent milestone of 1 million cubic metres of fill at Dry Gut being reached while design changes are still not finalised show that the contractors and their government supervisors could surely have made it clear much earlier that work to supplement the original EIA should be undertaken. K6. The second point is more general: that the Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Programme (LEMP) was to have been developed in parallel with completion of the original Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and refining design details. The initial deployment of the LEMP funding should have started at the start of the construction project, whereas it has only recently (see issue 28 of St Helena Airport News) got to the design and planning stage. (The LEMP funding of £870,000 is a rather niggardly sum for a project of this size in an area of known global ecological importance and sensitivity. Prosperous Bay Plain is widely recognised to be an evolutionary hotspot.) K7. Both these features indicate that the powers that be on St Helena (essentially DFID and FCO) appear to have forgotten the discussions with conservationists at the start of the proposals. Then, various conservation bodies, including UKOTCF, indicated that, were the development on an area of similar significance in Britain (not that there are any), they would object. However, they recognised that, both for economic sustainability and, through that, conservation of a non-pristine environment, an airport was probably necessary—and there was no real choice as to where to put it. Accordingly, they agreed that they would not oppose it provided that environmental impact was minimised. It would seem that the last part of this agreement has been forgotten or otherwise disregarded.
Budgetary Support and Freedom of Information K8. The second issue is that, on most aspects of life in St Helena, departments in London are in the driving seat. There are consultations and serious annual budgetary negotiations between DFID/FCO and locally elected councillors. However, the bottom line is that HMG calls the shots and that the Governor is appointed to a position where his authority is buttressed by legislation that remains colonial in nature. That is not surprising, since it is HMG which ultimately carries all the contingent risks associated with governing the territory. K9. That is why it is especially important that decisions are reached as openly as possible; and, in a period of huge change, that civil society on the island is as fully engaged as possible in these changes. As environmentalists, UKOTCF and our associates, including those in St Helena, are keenly aware that good environmental management and good access to information go together. The principles have been widely appreciated in many international agreements to which the UK is a party; and they are reflected in the Guiding Principles and the specific Commitments from both HMG and the St Helena Government of the 2001 St Helena Environment Charter. K10. How to apply these principles is another matter. On 12 January 2005, the St Helena Executive Council advised the Governor that the UK Freedom of Information Act was not suitable to local circumstances and should not apply to St Helena; but that consultation should be initiated over providing a suitable framework to apply the principles of Freedom of Information in St Helena. The Attorney General undertook to co-ordinate the consultation process. However, since then there has not been any sign of draft legislation being prepared. The demands on legal drafting skills in relation to St Helena are considerable, but this is an area where it is right for St Helena to be able to draw on FCO support, possibly through its Good Governance Fund. K11. We believe that FoI legislation appropriate to St Helena”s circumstances is urgently needed and will have long-term benefits both for the Air Access project and for the development of greater participation in the island”s democratic life.
TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS K12. In the Turks and Caicos, the direct British Government rule for three years effectively abandoned the line previously promoted by HMG, for all the territories, of taking a long-term environmentally sustainable view in favour of short-term financial considerations, despite the resulting threat to the environment. At the request of local partners, UKOTCF raised some of these issues with FCO. In the following paragraphs, we list the issues raised with FCO and the responses received. Ev 98 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Conservation issues in FCO”s direct governing of Turks & Caicos Islands (TCI) K13. A role which UKOTCF has always undertaken for its partners in territories is to raise issues of concern for them with FCO in London, especially when they appeal to us to do this, usually when they feel their voice is not being heard in territory. For many years UKOTCF was able to do this quite informally, through regular contact with FCO and, in many cases, such interventions helped achieve a satisfactory solution. UKOTCF is encouraged that, with the appointment of a new FCO Director Overseas Territories, correspondence about such issues has recommenced, and thanks his staff for taking the time to engage in this way, and for following matters up with Governors and others. As we express the concerns of mainly (but not solely) civil society in territories, we are inevitably not always going to be able to agree with one another. However, re-establishing a dialogue is a welcome step in conducting meaningful discussions, and it is important to be able to disagree on some points whilst keeping an open communication channel. K14. UKOTCF has had for over 15 years, and still has, a very strong involvement in conservation issues in TCI. It has assisted both governmental bodies and local NGOs on many projects and issues and, at local request, led some of these. Local partners have drawn to UKOTCF”s attention several major issues relating to FCO”s period of direct rule of TCI from 2009 to November 2012, especially the latter part of that; they consider that these have set conservation in TCI back by many years. These are certainly having major negative impacts on TCI”s environment, and on HMG”s reputation there and elsewhere. However, some of them could still be corrected or alleviated. K15. These are not criticisms of the taking of FCO”s decision to take direct control. However, the implementation of this in the recent case is contrasted with the earlier one. Twice in some 20 years, UK Government has had to take back direct responsibility for governing TCI. In the early 1990s, the then FCO direct government fulfilled the requests of local people by implementing protected area legislation and designating some such areas, as well as helping establish a non-governmental conservation body. A decade later, UK Government agreed with UKOTs the Environment Charters. These, and other UK Government actions, encouraged UKOT Governments and other stakeholders not simply to focus on short-term financial gain, but to look at sustainability and to protect the environment—because of its intrinsic importance, the ecosystem services that it provides, and the potential for long-term sustainable economic development, notably high-value, low-intensity tourism. What is concerning is that the recent direct FCO Government of TCI seems to have acted precisely in the opposite direction to FCO”s previous advice to UKOTs. This has both damaged and—unless there are changes—will continue to damage TCI”s environment, and has provided a bad example, undermining the Environment Charter process in other UKOTs also. K16. UKOTCF cannot simply ignore matters raised with it by responsible local partners, but equally is anxious to give FCO the chance to comment. For this reason, UKOTCF tried to raise the matters initially with the TCI Governor, and then followed up through FCO at the kind invitation of the new Director Overseas Territories. We hoped that, on at least some issues, the FCO”s responses would enable us to convey a message of attempts by the disputants to find mutually agreeable approaches. We are still looking for this, despite the Governor”s understandably defensive statements. Nevertheless, UKOTCF is pleased that the Governor has now commented on the environmental issues raised by our local partner organisations, as his previous comment to UKOTCF that these matters were being used by political interests rather than being of environmental importance indicated that, because he perceived that there were political pressures, the environmental issues were somehow lessened. K17. The particular points drawn by local partners to UKOTCF”s attention include the following (with responses by FCO and follow-up by UKOTCF added).
1. Caves Near Providenciales Airport K18. The Remipede crustacean species Micropacter yagerae is the only member of its genus and of its family, Micropacteridae. It is known only from the caves by the international airport at Providenciales, TCI. These caves are important also for other wildlife. Plans have been approved to expand the airport car-park by destroying these caves. No Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been done, thereby breaching the Environment Charter and UK”s international commitments. Local bodies had thought the caves were relatively safe due to private ownership; however, it turns out the government had arranged compulsory purchase of the area. The Planning Board ignored the request of the Director of the Environment not to hold its meeting while she was out of the country, and apparently wrongly advised members that the Environment Department (DEMA) did not object. The airport re-design could easily be modified to avoid expanding the car-park into this area, there being much space beyond (west of) the terminal buildings, but the airport authority did not draw the attention of the designer to the importance of the caves. The airport authority has since made unsupported statements that the work will not affect the caves. All the preparatory work for this, including compulsory purchase and the failure to undertake an EIA, was done under direct UK rule. The work, if it proceeds, could lead to the global extinction of a species, genus and family—and this could readily be prevented by relatively minor redesign, which could even be cheaper to implement. This unnecessary destruction of caves could still be stopped. K19. FCO responded: I understand from the Governor”s office that the caves highlighted in your note as being under threat from the airport expansion actually lie outside the parcel of land that will be used for this Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 99
development. This has been confirmed by an independent [a] surveyor”s report that was submitted to the Governor”s Office by the CEO of the TCI Airport Authority. I know that this issue was of particular concern to you and hopefully this reassurance will be welcome news to you and other environmental stakeholders in TCI. K20. UKOTCF replied: It seems that the information supplied to the Governor and yourselves is somewhat incomplete—as, indeed was reflected in TCI evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday [19 March 2013]. I am advised that the situation is that the entrance to the cave lies outside the parcel of land that is now proposed for this development, but the situation of the caves themselves is far from clear. The caves spread widely from these entrances. No-one can say that the development will not impact the caves, although impacting seems likely. The reason that no-one can say this is that TCI Government (in breach of the Environment Charter) failed to require an adequate Environmental Impact Assessment from the developer. The purpose of EIAs is to avoid getting into such unsatisfactory situations where the impact of a development cannot be predicted. Because of this failure, conservationists in TCI are now attempting to enlist skilled volunteers to undertake rapidly the difficult task of mapping the underground and underwater caves. Such last-minute emergency efforts should not be necessary when environmental governance in a territory follows best practice. K21. I am advised too that workers who undertook the recent expansion of the apron at the airport informed local conservationists that a bulldozer broke through to an underground cave during that work. However, the airport authorities apparently did not report this to the planning or environmental authorities. In addition to environmental considerations, questions of contingent liability to TCI and HMG could readily arise. K22. We trust that, in line with the final sentence of your email, no work will start on the currently proposed phase of the airport development until completion of the cave surveys, and that it will not proceed unless the environmental bodies can confirm that the proposed construction work, servicing and operation will not be damaging to the biodiversity, given its international importance. K23. FCO responded: our Governor”s Office has followed up with the TCIAA who have provided the below information. K24. On the allegation of a bulldozer breaking through into a cave, the TCIAA have advised that this did not happen. In addition, they have informed us that there are currently no bulldozers on the site and that the caves are located on privately-held land that is not within the parameters of the airport development. K25. Secondly, on the issue of whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out: DEMA”s predecessor, the Department of Environment and Coastal Resources ([D]ECR), carried out a survey of the site at the request of the TCIAA. A walk-round of the site was conducted and, following this, plants considered of interest were removed for replanting. The DECR”s findings were submitted to the relevant planning authorities and full planning permission was duly granted. It was actually during this survey that the caves were initially discovered. K26. UKOTCF replied: Thank you for following up in respect of the airport in your later email. However, we do have to suggest that the Governor be slightly more questioning of statements by the TCI Airport Authority. Their comment that the “walk-round” discovered the caves is demonstrably untrue. The caves and their importance have been well known for years. For example, UKOTCF personnel were escorted to the cave by a senior TCI government official (not in the environment department) in 2008. The caves had already been studied by TCI and US researchers, and some of the results, including the description of a new species (in a new genus, in a new family), published in the scientific literature. Any competent environmental impact assessment would have discovered this information, related it to the proposed development, and examined non- damaging options. It is to make such alternatives in a cost-effective way that is one purpose of EIAs. Another is to protect the positions of developer, authority and others. It is unfortunate that the Governor, as then government, chose to breach the Environment Charter, of which he indicates he was well aware, by not requiring an EIA. A walk-round does not constitute an EIA. K27. On 10 &11 May 2013, UKOTCF received an unsolicited email (and a correction to it) from the architect to the TCI Airport Authority: Dear Dr. Pienkowski, We write as the architects for the expansion of the existing air terminal. The purpose in writing is to set out the record of events leading up to the construction start a few weeks ago. We have become aware of various communications concerning the cave in relation to the air terminal works. Some of the information conveyed to you and others borders, and I use the word reluctantly, on the hysterical. I do hope that the following helps not only to set the record straight, but also to reassure the relevant parties that the correct procedures have been followed. The time line is as follows: 1. Submission of Detailed Planning and Building Permit application: 2 November 2012. 2. Meeting with Planning Board to discuss the proposals: 19 December 2012. Ev 100 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
3. DPP granted: 20 Feb. 2013, following clarifications that plot 14 was not part of the airport property. Torrin Surveys, a government registered surveyor, certified the latter. 4. Site meeting with deputy director of DEMA and Dr. Salamanca. Attempts were made to delay this meeting but the deputy director was instructed to proceed with the meeting. 5. Minutes of site meeting issued by DEMA on 13 March 2013. On the same date Dr. Salamanca forwarded a copy of the flora and fauna report relating to the car park site. 6. 30 day notice issued to DEMA of intention to clear the car park: 14 March 2013. Notice expired on 13 April 2013. 7. Items five and six, above, issued to Planning on 14 March 2013.8 8. Building Permit granted: 15 March 2013. 9. The contractor met with DEMA prior to actually starting the excavations for the new car park—to make 100% sure that there were no outstanding issues. The caves are located some 320ft. from the nearest point of the new car park—and a similar dimension to the cliff face of plot 14. It is not understood why DEMA are so concerned about the cutting into this cliff face. It was formed in 1999, when the current terminal was constructed. It may be that nutrient run-off, combined with weathering of the soft limestone, gives the impression that this is an older face. In the event, this cliff face is staying as existing. As a keen amateur student of the papers by Dr. Iliffe, I read the paper “Micropacteridae, a new family of Remipedia (Crustacea) from the Turks and Caicos Islands. Stefan Koenemanna,, Thomas M. Iliffe, Joris L. van der Ham. 2005”, and noted that “The cave cave consists of a crescent-shaped fissure extending along the base of a larger sinkhole. A narrow ravine-like passage extends down for 20m to a tidal, anchialine pool in total darkness with a maximum depth of 14 m.” It would appear that the cave may extend about 15m in a horizontal dimension. In an extract from a message to me from Prof. Iliffe, he refers to the small size of the cave: “Hi Rolf” I am quite concerned as to the fate of this cave since I have heard that an extension of the airport parking lot may threaten it. Although it is quite a small cave, it contains the only known site in the world where this particular type of remipede is found. Several other species of cave adapted fauna also inhabit this cave.” Sincerely, Tom Iliffe Prof. Thomas M. Iliffe Department of Marine Biology Texas A&M University at Galveston I was able to re-assure him that the works did not threaten the cave. In the paper cited above, there are references to other diving expeditions to the cave—for example,, “Yager, J, Schram, F R, 1986. Lasionectes entrichoma, n. gen.,n. sp. (Crustacea, Remipedia) from anchialine caves in the Turks and Caicos, B.W.I. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.99, 65–70.” My reason for mentioning this is that it indicates a long period of knowledge concerning the cave. It beggars belief that no steps appear to have been taken in all these long years to safeguard this unique habitat. Considering an extreme scenario, there seems to be nothing stopping the cave from being destroyed tomorrow. An appalling situation, which surely DEMA could put right immediately, under existing legislation. TCIAA are very interested in the cave and I understand would welcome publicity for travellers—to the extent (if that can be achieved without damage)—and encouraging visits. I also noted a reference to the excavation and filling in of a “cave” during the runway extension work. A small hole—too small to allow a person to pass through—was found on 10 November 2010. This was photographed by the consulting engineers. It has nothing to do with any cave. The Islands are replete with such holes and a typical residential site of, say, half an acre might have around a dozen of them. If larger, as sink holes, they are preserved because they often contain trees. Otherwise, they are simply bulldozed if in the way of new houses/buildings or driveways. TCI does have some serious environmental issues. Take the coral reefs for example: whilst reefs are extremely robust and have survived millions of years under extreme conditions and damage, there are issues of pollution in the TCI that appear to have received little attention. Reef recovery can exhibit remarkable characteristics, including for example, even mechanical damage (such as in the Florida Keys). In the TCI, however, little attention appears to have been given to a much more serious cause—pollution. Turtle Cove Marina, for example, exhibits characteristics of sewage effluent from boats, despite stringent regulations. During high season this pollution is highly visible to the naked eye and outflow Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 101
to the reefs ensures a steady supply of poisons—from which coral reefs have little chance of recovery until it is stopped. On a final note: I do think when listening to witnesses concerning the TCI, it is important to check their background. A typical example are the presentations made on 18 March 2013 to the Environmental Audit Committee. The report by “TCI News Now” of 22 April 2013 makes sad reading. Possibly also worthy of note is the fact that there seem to have been many instances where design firms have made application for and were granted permission to dredge and establish canals without proper if any hydrological studies or credible EIAs . Considering the potential impact of global warming, dividing the islands into roughly smaller islands would have serious consequences, from an environmental and hydrological stand point. Much work needs to be focused on this. One may only speculate why this is not a focus of the environmentalist. Regards, Rolf Rothermel K28. UKOTCF replied on 12 May 2013: Dear Mr Rothermel Thank you for taking the trouble to write to UKOTCF about the expansion of the airport car park and concerns about the airport cave and its wildlife, including a unique species, genus and family of remipedes, found nowhere else in the world. I do not know how much background you have been given about the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF), but let me explain first that we are a non-Governmental not-for-profit organisation, and a federation of members and associate organisations and other stakeholders from both Britain and the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs). The UKOTCF network is not opposed to built developments and has, indeed, worked in partnership with developers. It is, however, concerned that proper processes are followed. A key role we play, on behalf of our partners is to raise concerns which they have expressed to us. It is in this role that we raised concerns about some aspects of the expansion of the airport. In this particular case, UKOTCF was undertaking its role of bringing matters raised by our network partners to the attention of UK Government, because of its shared responsibility for environmental matters in the UKOTs generally, and its specific direct responsibility in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI). I am surprised by your use of the word “hysterical.” I am not aware of any information that we have received or passed on that in any sense could reasonably be described in this way. Thank you also for your time-line. There is no reference in this to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and I understand that none was undertaken. This failure puts the TCI Government (for part of the time until recently under direct UK Government control) at variance with the Environment Charter in not requiring this of a developer. The Environment Charters, signed by UK and UKOT Governments in 2001 agreed certain commitments. The Ombudsman for Bermuda has determined that the Environment Charters are legally binding agreements, of similar standing to the anti-money-laundering agreements. Amongst the Commitments of the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands relevant in the present case are that it will: 3. Ensure that environmental considerations are integrated within social and economic planning processes... 4. Ensure that environmental and environmental health impact assessments are undertaken before approving major projects and while developing our growth management strategy. 5. Commit to open and consultative decision-making on developments and plans which may affect the environment; ensure that environmental impact assessments include consultation with stakeholders. 11. Abide by the principles set out in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and work towards meeting International Development Targets on the environment. The 1992 Rio Declaration set targets (reaffirmed and further endorsed in both subsequent environment and development summits in 2002 and 2012) for safeguarding biodiversity and preventing loss, so the threat of loss of an endemic family is particularly pertinent here. As I am sure you are aware, the purpose of having independent, thorough, and open EIAs prior to development work is to preclude just the sort of situation currently on the ground regarding the airport extension, by highlighting issues and reaching solutions before ground works begin, as well as protecting all the participants. Regardless of the commitments made by TCI Government, I am surprised that, as a responsible professional, you did not yourself insist on an independent EIA being undertaken, both as normal practice throughout the world and to protect your own position. Indeed, I see that you have promoted such an approach in at least one publication in the past. Ev 102 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
UKOTCF has, not unexpectedly, sought information as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted for the airport development, and whether the designers and architects were made aware of the environmental sensitivities of this area. UKOTCF is pleased that you personally have acquainted yourself with Dr Illiffe”s research work, and that of others. However, especially in the absence of an EIA, the basis of your re-assurance to Professor Iliffe is unclear. It may be related to some confusion in your email between the cave system and the entrance to the cave. This may also be the basis of your references to plot 14 and to 320 ft. The statements are invalid because of the lack of a proper EIA. Whilst the initially explored cave and the entrance to it are in plot 14, the cave system extends to unknown distances in all directions. This is typical of limestone areas, and you yourself allude to this. The fact that Prof. Illiffe cites the cave as small does not negate the need for a thorough survey of the true extent of the cave, and whether excavation works nearby will affect it. After all, the remipede is a very small animal, and can obviously navigate tiny passages which people cannot access. Even more importantly, the water systems which could be impacted at some distance could be the same system as at the cave entrance. At present, in the absence of a proper EAI, the extent of the cave”s tunnels and chambers is not known, and if this basic information is not available, then it is not possible to state that the airport extension works will not affect the caves. There appears to be a similar misunderstanding on your part as to the concern about the cliff face. This is not about the face itself but the fact that pushing it further back could impact the unsurveyed cave system. The fact that it has already been cut into is not relevant to this concern. There have been previous efforts by concerned local people to raise awareness that the airport caves were in need of protection. UKOTCF was made aware of such concerns in 2008. Any competent independent EIA would have made this information available to you and the others concerned with this development. Your plan could then have made use of some of the large area available instead of unnecessarily risking this important system and endangering the only place in the world supporting the species, genus and family mentioned. Thank you for the information on the discovery of a hole during the runway extension. I am interested in your distinction between a “hole” and a “cave”; what definitions are you using in this classification, and what is the relevance of whether or not a person can pass through? As any caver could advise, the width of passages in cave systems is hugely variable. Assertions that they are not linked are worthless without proper survey. You are correct in noting that TCI does have some serious environmental issues, such as the coral reefs and marine pollution. However, your assumption that UKOTCF and others have not addressed these is quite wrong. UKOTCF, on behalf of its partners, has raised concerns about these, for over 15 years, and recently drew attention to at least six others in TCI (as well as others in other UKOTs). The serious problems caused by the dredging of Leeward Channel in 2007–08, without any hydrological studies or EIAs, have been publicised by many concerned TCI persons. In fact, a consortium of local stakeholders took legal action, and stopped this illegal dredging. However, each case of potentially environmentally damaging actions has to be highlighted as an issue, and because in the past some environmentally damaging actions were not able to be challenged does not provide an argument against challenging current and future potentially environmentally damaging actions. We think that there is little value in your implicit argument that, if others have damaged the environment, TCIAA has the right to do so as well. We thank you for taking the time to send this communication, but must also express disquiet at your citing of the article in TCI News Now about the evidence given by a TCI representative to the UK Parliament”s Environmental Audit Committee”s Inquiry into Environmental Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories. We are concerned that this article was written anonymously, inaccurately reported the evidence given to the committee, and contained irrelevant and erroneous personal information on the witness. It seems that this could only have been obtained improperly from a previous employer. The “newspaper” concerned did not check facts with the person they were attacking and has not published the corrections he supplied. I advise you that your case is not supported by citing such scurrilous sources. I would prefer to place confidence in the fact that the witness is held in high regard in TCI and internationally, as one of the most knowledgeable ecologists on the TCI environment. Last month, he was the recipient of a prestigious international award from a UK Government agency in honour of the quality of his conservation work in TCI and commitment to the environment. If you have not yet done so, you could benefit from watching the video of the oral evidence session (on UK Parliament website).
2. Dolphinaria K29. For reasons which are not readily understood, the Governor, late during the period of his direct rule, changed TCI law to allow the keeping of marine mammals in captivity, thereby enabling establishment of dolphinaria. This runs counter to widespread modern practice and to HMG”s previous attitude towards dolphinaria in UKOTs. There was little local support for the change, and much local opposition. As a consequence, there is a current proposal for a dolphinarium on Providenciales (by Jamaican interests) and apparently another on Grand Turk (by US interests). There are strong local objections to these on both animal- welfare and environmental grounds. The Governor commented that the decision is no longer his (which is technically correct, but his previous personal actions made the proposed developments possible). He Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 103
commented also that the objections received are on animal-welfare, rather than environmental, grounds. We can only suppose that he has been misinformed, as some environmental objections that had been made have since been copied to us.
K30. FCO responded: the Governor amended the regulations in order to allow marine mammals to be kept in captivity with a licence. This was not contrary to UK policy on the Overseas Territory because the issue is a matter for the elected governments of the Territories, not for HMG (there are dolphinariums for example on Cayman). A balance had to be made between those demanding the interim administration allow a decision on the proposal before the elections and those wanting it definitely stopped before the elections. Amendment to the regulation meant that the application could be considered under the planning process by the elected Government of TCI. It is also not the case that there is little local support for this change. All objections, whether environmental or on the basis of animal-welfare, should be raised in the normal way through the TCIG”s planning application process.
K31. UKOTCF replied: With regard to the Governor”s comments, we note that research commissioned by the UK Government in the 1980s meant that not even the very well funded dolphinaria in UK could meet the environmental and welfare standards necessary, and all such facilities have been closed down. HMG has since discouraged the introduction of dolphinaria in UKOTs, although—as you point out—it is a local decision. This makes it all the more surprising that the Governor, while in direct control of TCI, chose personally to change the previously existing law which made the keeping of marine mammals illegal, rather than leaving this to the elected Government—and without consultation, in breach of the Environment Charter.
K32. UKOTCF notes also the evidence on this topic (and others) given to EAC on 19 March 2013 by Bryan Naqqi Manco, of TCI Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs.
3. Deep Dredging
K33. A few years ago, during the corrupt previous administration, deep dredging was allowed through a channel in a protected area, causing severe damage to the coral reefs and a commercial conch farm, and severe erosion and destruction of a popular nature trail on a nearby island nature reserve. The development was of dubious legality and was to provide access to a similarly dubious mega-yacht port which went into bankruptcy with only one yacht ever using it. Ownership of the facility has now passed into a company seemingly run by a British legislator, and consideration is being given to further deep dredging, despite the partial recovery from the earlier devastation. It appears that again, in breach of the Environment Charters and UK”s international commitments, there is no EIA, and the development was encouraged by the FCO direct government. The applications for planning permission were made in October 2012, during the direct UK administration, but (in common with TCI procedurally flawed practice) were not posted at the site (and then on posts requiring boat access) until January 2013, with the deadline for objection being indicated on the posts as in November 2012— over two months before the notices were posted.
K34. FCO responded: there has been no encouragement for the dredging application by the Interim Administration or the UK Government; indeed neither has been involved in it in any way. An application for planning permission to dredge in order to maintain an existing channel has been made in the normal way and is being considered under the TCIG”s planning process.
K35. UKOTCF notes that it is slightly puzzling that the Governor”s office indicates that it has not been involved in any way, since the process started during the period of direct UK rule by that office. It is not clear either why that office did not enforce proper process.
4. Joe Grant”s Cay
K36. Through work of the civil recovery team and the Special Investigation and Prosecution Team, land at Joe Grant”s Cay has been recovered after illegal sale by the previous government. Bizarrely, the direct FCO government put this unspoilt area up for sale for built development, rather than turning it into a nature reserve. An overseas benefactor would be prepared to fund the nature management of this and other areas if TCI Government would set it aside as a nature reserve, it already being the basis of considerable low-intensity, high-value nature tourism—which would be lost by built development.
K37. FCO responded: Joe Grant Cay was recovered by the civil recovery team (not the SIPT). However, 200 acres of Joe Grant Cay were not recovered because it was subject to a charge to, and is thus effectively owned by, a bank. The bank is entitled to sell the land to get its money and the land is now for sale. The only way the Interim Administration or Elected Government could stop this is by spending three million dollars to buy the land from the bank. The Interim Government did not have money to do so. It is the decision of the Elected Government whether it wants to do so.
K38. UKOTCF notes that it is unclear why a bank is allowed to benefit from its acquisition of what was effectively stolen property. Ev 104 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
5. High-rise Developments K39. In contrast to previous policies, the direct FCO government has encouraged high-rise developments. K40. FCO responded: the Interim Administration has not encouraged high rise development. The Interim Administration did say it would take no decision on a proposal for a 28 storey development and would leave this to be handled by the Elected Government. K41. UKOTCF notes the evidence to EAC on 19 March 2013 by Bryan Naqqi Manco, of TCI Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs. It is not clear why the UK Interim Direct Government allowed the developers to pursue the loaded questions in the so-called consultation exercises.
6. The Conservation Fund K42. The direct FCO Government abolished the Conservation Fund. This was a rare example of a popular tax, based on an ear-marked element of taxes on tourists and other visitors. It was originally introduced by TCI Government over a decade ago as a condition of UK grant-aid. Whilst there was some mis-use of the fund during the period of the corrupt government, the basic concept was sound, and widely applauded in other countries and territories. Clearly, some changes would be necessary with the switch to VAT, but the different methods of tax-collection do not present an insuperable problem. K43. FCO: Conservation Fund: this was not a popular tax. Rather it was a hypothecation of part of Accommodation Tax. As part of the rationalisation of public finances, which the Interim Administration undertook, a number of “funds” were abolished, many of which (like the Conservation Fund) either had no real money or were badly run, or both. It is down to the Government—either Interim Administration or Elected Government—how much money they want to spend on conservation and allocate it properly during the budget process. The existence of all sorts of funds was simply unhelpful and led to bad government. The view of the Governor and CFO is that the “basic concept” is not sound. K44. UKOTCF notes the unexplained reversal of HMG policy from requiring TCI Government to introduce the Conservation Fund, based on a publicly announced hypothecated increase in accommodation tax, to a cancellation of this while HMG was in direct control of TCI. UKOTCF notes also that, whilst there was much discussion before the introduction of the Conservation Fund and its supporting tax, there was effectively none before the cancellation of the Fund by two unelected officials. There was some prior consultation by the Direct Interim Government”s tourism advisory commission—but this was on the indicated basis that it was envisaged that the Conservation Fund and its tax base would continue. This constitutes yet another breach of the Environment Charter by HMG while running TCI”s Government. The importance of the Conservation Fund was summarised eloquently for EAC on 19 March 2013 by Bryan Naqqi Manco, of TCI Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs. The tax on accommodation for tourists was increased from 10% to 11%, explicitly to contribute the extra one percentage-point to the Conservation Fund. The accommodation tax has recently been increased to 12%, so it even more unclear why the contribution to the Conservation Fund has been cancelled (and not subject to as prominent consultation and announcement as its introduction).
7. Lack of Briefing on the Environment Charter Commitments by HMG of its TCI Officials K45. It seems that officers sent from UK to run TCI during direct government were not briefed by FCO about the existence or content of the Environment Charter, in place as an agreement between UK and TCI Governments. This may account for some of the problems. However, the omission is difficult to account for. In 2002–03, TCI had been the pilot UKOT to develop (in line with the first Commitment of the Charter) a strategy for Charter implementation. And, in 2009, just before direct rule, UKOTCF produced the second review of progress in implementation of the Charters in all UKOTs. This was a major element of the UKOT conservation conference in Cayman that year, supported by HMG and in which FCO, DFID and DEFRA officials and a DEFRA minister participated. It was not an obscure topic! K46. FCO responded: Environment Charter: It would be helpful to know on what basis you feel that officers sent from UK to run TCI during direct government were not briefed on the existence or content of the Environment Charter? The Governor”s Office in TCI is well aware of the Charter and the principles set out within it. K47. UKOTCF replied: One of the conversations about the lack of awareness of the Environment Charter amongst the Governor”s staff took place in the Governor”s office in his presence, and he did not comment when his personnel indicated both that they had not seen the Environment Charter before and how useful it would have been had they done so.
L. Gibraltar Fisheries and Marine Conservation L1. When UKOTCF representatives gave oral evidence to the EAC, we had anticipated that the Report dealing with fisheries, and wider issues, would have been available; this unfortunately was not the case. This followed from UKOTCF”s written evidence in which we made reference to the work being undertaken on marine living resources around Gibraltar. That being the case, we were somewhat limited in what could be said to the Committee. This work has now been largely completed and the report “The Management of Marine Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 105
Living Resources in the Waters around Gibraltar” was published on 4th June. It can be downloaded from the Gibraltar Department of the Environment website www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/stories/PDF/environment/ Management_of_marine_living_resources_in_the_waters_around_Gibraltar.pdf and is also available in hard copy from their offices. It was accompanied by a Ministerial Statement in the Parliament in Gibraltar www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/stories/PDF/pressoffice/pressreleases/2013/376–2013.pdf which can also be downloaded. We would suggest that the Report is taken as additional evidence for the EAC enquiry. Given the recent publication date, it has not been possible to gauge with any accuracy any responses to the findings and recommendations of the report save those from the Government of Gibraltar, which are positive and leading to uptake of at least some of the recommendations in new Regulations. L2. The authors of the report attempted to provide a technical report with a sound basis in science. However, as the Report points out, it is extremely difficult to separate management considerations based on science from the political considerations which often overlay any decision making process. That being the case, and given that it was impossible not to encounter wider policy, organisational and political processes (by and large not involving Spain) in the preparation of the Report, such additional information was collated and further information on these elements has been provided to the Government of Gibraltar in a separate form. It is clear, that while the Report provides significant background on fisheries and other environmental matters to enable management decisions to be made it will, on its own, not provide the solution to the overall problem, which lies in the territorial/sovereignty dispute with Spain coupled with the very difficult socio-economic issues pertaining in Spain. The latter is not of Gibraltar”s making. Indeed the neighbouring Spanish inhabitants would be considerably worse off without inter alia the employment opportunities in Gibraltar; and the responsibility for sovereignty and territorial waters resides entirely with HMG as they relate to foreign affairs and defence matters. L3. Legislation already exists in Gibraltar—the Nature Protection Act 1991—to regulate activities adversely affecting the marine environment including those relating to fisheries. It is this legislation that prohibits the activities of Spanish boats in British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW) and for which enforcement has been found lacking—an issue we raised in our oral evidence. In 1999 when the Foreign Affairs Select Committee considered issues pertaining to Gibraltar, the then UK Government was of the opinion that a so-called “Understanding” derived by the then Government of Gibraltar which allowed for the Royal Gibraltar Police (RGP) to “turn a blind eye” to infractions by Spanish fishing boats was an effective solution. So effective in fact that the Minister at the time desired the Government of Gibraltar to repeal the Nature Protection Act so that Spanish boats could fish in BGTW. This does seem a rather bizarre way to interpret making of good law and its enforcement. In practical terms, enforcement is the major issue here. Spanish boats are encouraged by Spanish Ministers and the local governments in Andalusia to enter BGTW as they regard them as Spanish— thus promoting incursions by Spanish fishing boats. This is reinforced by armed Guardia Civil boats accompanying the fishing boats in what is clearly an infraction of BGTW and the sovereignty of Gibraltar— matters which it should be reinforced are the responsibility of HMG rather than the Government of Gibraltar. There have been some suggestions made by HMG that it is difficult to know whether a boat from the Guardia Civil is undertaking right of navigation under international maritime law when in BGTW rather than breaching sovereignty by undertaking activities in BGTW. This is somewhat disingenuous. If a Guardia Civil boat is circling Spanish fishing boats within BGTW in an attempt to keep (unarmed and considerably smaller) RGP boats away, it is fairly obviously not undertaking innocent right of passage. It is at the least very unusual for Royal Navy vessels to intercede. The explanation usually given is that the Royal Navy does not have a role in fisheries protection duties and only deals with breaches of sovereignty but in these cases does not regard these activities as such a breach. L4. Following the oral evidence given by UKOTCF to the EAC a number of Parliamentary Questions were asked apparently, at least in part, to follow up on that evidence. They were: Gibraltar Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to extend the UK”s claim to a territorial water surrounding Gibraltar from three to 12 nautical miles. [156092] Mr Lidington: We have no plans at present to extend British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to 12 nautical miles but we retain the option to do so, as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters there have been over the last six months. [156133] Mr Lidington: There have been 176 unlawful incursions into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters by Spanish state vessels in the period from 1 November 2012 to 30 April 2013. Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to deter illegal incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters by Spanish Civil Guard boats. [156134] 20 May 2013: Column 511W Mr Lidington: The Royal Navy challenges Guardia Civil vessels whenever they make unlawful incursions into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW). We also make formal diplomatic protests Ev 106 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
to the Spanish Government about all such incursions. We will continue to do all that is necessary to uphold British sovereignty over BGTW. Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the Spanish Ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office over the last 12 months in respect of Spanish incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters. [156135] Mr Lidington: The Spanish ambassador has been publicly summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office once in the last 12 months in respect of unlawful incursions into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters by Spanish state vessels. Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that Spain complies with its obligation under the Cordoba Agreements. [156136] Mr Lidington: As part of regular diplomatic engagement, the UK Government continues to encourage Spain to comply with its commitments under the 2006 Cordoba Agreement, which represented a significant step forward in co-operation between the UK, Spain and Gibraltar. The UK Government continues to recognise the value of dialogue and supports a return to a trilateral process in which Gibraltar is actively involved. We make this position clear to the Spanish Government whenever it is appropriate to do so. We have also ensured that the European Commission is aware of the UK position. Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has been put under pressure by his Department to allow Spanish fishermen to fish illegally in British Gibraltar territorial waters; and what assessment he has made of the recent evidence from Dr Tydeman to the Environmental Audit Committee on 17 April 2013 alleging that such pressure has been applied. [156142] Mr Lidington: My Department has regular discussions with the Government of Gibraltar and has supported their efforts to find a solution to the fishing dispute, encouraging all parties to show restraint and cooperate with the Government of Gibraltar. The UK Government has a single policy on Gibraltar, which is agreed across Whitehall Departments including the Ministry of Defence and discussed with the Governor. I will write to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee about the Gibraltar related-issues raised in the oral evidence that the Committee has taken from Dr Tydeman. L5. We would note the following in respect of the answers provided: (a) It is our understanding that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has formally requested of HMG an extension to the limit of territorial seas from three nautical miles to 12 nautical miles in December 2012. We do not know the official response to that request but it is clear from the Parliamentary answer that it has been declined. The request by the Chief Minister accords with a recommendation in the Report that the territorial limits should be expanded to 12 nm on scientific grounds. (b) On the question of incursions, the figure quoted in the parliamentary answer (which could be an underestimate and does not provide information on the number of boats for each incursion) shows that the chances of an incursion on any given day between 1 November 2012 and 30 April 2013 were 97%, in other words virtually every day. (c) Mr Dobbin asked what steps are being taken to deter Guardia Civil boats. The answer did not address this but what actions are taken at the time (d) The Minister”s response to this question on actions is slightly misleading as the word “challenges” could be interpreted as some form of direct action by the RN, when in fact all that happens is a standard radio message is sent asking the Guardia Civil boats to leave BGTW. It would useful to know on how many occasions the RN intercepted Guardia Civil boats on such occasions. Also, given the 176 illegal incursions by Spanish fishing boats in the time period quoted, what actions were taken by the RN on those occasions if not accompanied by Guardia Civil boats? (e) It is our understanding that the Spanish Ambassador was called into the Foreign Office not in respect of incursions by Guardia Civil boats but after one of the two recent occasions when a Spanish naval boat was patrolling within BGTW and clearly not undertaking innocent right of passage. UKOTCF very much welcomes the statement that HMG supports the Government of Gibraltar and encouraging all parties to show restraint and cooperate with the Government of Gibraltar. UKOTCF looks forward to seeing the practical implementation of such aspirations. As with other sections, if this supplementary evidence is insufficient or requires further clarification then we would of course be happy to assist with such.
M. Necessary Qualities for Effective Governors M1. The Committee asked what we think should be included in the specifications for governors, and we indicated that we would amplify in writing our initial brief thoughts. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 107
M2. One previous governor described his job at the time as being “to fulfil the constitutional and representational duties of Governor, paying due regard to the interests and needs of both the territory and the UK Government.” His duties and responsibilities, with the approx proportion of time spent on each, were: Presiding Officer of Cabinet 17% Supervision of Ministries and [non-political] Portfolios; day-to-day government business 18% Head of Public Service 15% Reserved Powers (external affairs, internal security, police, drugs etc) 20% Community and representational activities 25% Leadership and management of Governor”s Office 5% M3. The role and responsibilities of a Governor, and certainly the time spent on different aspects of them, will considerably depend on the extent of constitutional devolution to the elected local Overseas Territory Government or other officials. And each UKOT will present a variety of challenges at different times. However, the following personal qualities would all always be virtually essential: — self-reliance; — resilience; — strategic perspective; — sound judgment; — adaptability; — empathy; — ability, when necessary, to focus with palpable enthusiasm on the relatively trivial and/or ephemeral, never mind how many more important and/or urgent issues are lurking in the background; — teamwork skills and ability to influence; — communication skills (oral and written); — leadership; — resource management skills (staff and financial); — the calibre to demonstrate by actions, as well as words, support for the territory, its environment and people, without undermining HMG policies or priorities; — ability to seek good briefings on key issues (not necessarily just from official sources) and utilize them; — striving to act as if one would need to live the rest of one”s life in the territory (even though one will be there for only a few years)—with the consequences of one”s actions on the territory and UK; — enthusiasm to support aspects, such as environmental conservation, of long-term benefit to the territory but liable to be subordinated to short-term interests (a former governor has noted that even the minister with responsibility for the environment had other responsibilities—including commerce and tourism—where short-term political, financial/budgetary and economic interests repeatedly tended to override; so that, although responsibility for environmental conservation was essentially devolved to the local government, the governor”s was often the only voice in Cabinet prepared to question the environmental wisdom of a particular policy or decision); — an appreciation for the people of the territories and for different cultures; — knowing one”s way around the Whitehall machine and how to oil it; and — overall, honesty, integrity and readiness to be held to a higher standard, with a conscience about the environment and a general appreciation for different cultures. M4. Fundamentally, it is essential that any Governor be able to take an independent and dispassionate strategic view of his territory”s economic, social and environmental interests and to represent that as necessary (even where constitutionally it is strictly not his business), not only to his elected government and the local public but also to the responsible authorities (not just FCO) in Whitehall and to members of the UK parliament. M5. Conversely, the following undesirable qualities are to be avoided: — Unwillingness to ask for help in areas where he/she is inexperienced (eg auditing the budgets of government departments run by locally elected politicians; planning and environmental impact legislation) — Enjoying being treated with deference (developing an inflated sense of entitlement and self- importance) — Having a spouse or partner who tries to steer the job. This is a tricky point to express in politically acceptable terms, but it has undoubtedly been a significant factor with several unsuccessful past Governors. If there is a spouse or partner, this is a factor to be considered. Equally, supportive spouses, often with their own distinctive skills and experience to contribute both in support of the Governor and of local civil society and UKOT government organisations, have been a major factor with several outstandingly successful Governors/Administrators. Ev 108 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
— Having a tendency to ride personal hobby-horses, since this easily leads to unbalanced priorities, forfeiting local respect and frustrating staff in the Governor”s office — A weakness for extramarital sexual proclivities or alcohol. A Governor has a right to a private life, but should avoid overly amorous or excessively drink-influenced behaviour and inappropriate language in public situations. Sadly, this is not invariably the case. — A readiness to change, or not resist change to, laws with no regard for the island/territory, leaving the territory (and UK) to clean up after his/her departure. M6. Relevant past experience is highly desirable. This could include roles such as: — a desk-officer or more senior FCO post in relation to UKOTs; — experience (in FCO, other departments or relevant outside bodies) in relevant specialist contexts, such as environment, legal, security/intelligence, support to Ministers and senior official committees; — experience as an Ambassador or High Commissioner (although a Governor, unlike a normal Head of Mission, has no resident EU, NATO or other peers with whom privately and urgently to discuss matters when crisis or disaster strikes). M7. In the absence now of a Colonial Service, an appropriate mix of experience in the FCO is likely to be a good background for a Governor, not least because it is important that a Governor has enough experience of in-fighting within the FCO to be able to deal with the problems of liaising via inexperienced desk officers and sometimes being bullied or ignored by an unsympathetic Director or acting Director of Overseas Territories (and the equivalents in DfID for territories where it likes to call the shots). However, one should not consider this as the only background. There have been outstanding Governors who came from non-FCO backgrounds, as well as some Governors and Administrators with FCO backgrounds who have proved disastrous. M8. Although a posting as Governor is sometimes appropriate for a senior FCO officer approaching retirement, it should never be a place to park someone who is known to be “difficult” to place (“I don”t want X to be Ambassador in any country that I”m dealing with from London!”). One problem in the senior management of FCO, and consequently of understanding at top policy level, is that direct experience of UKOTs is extremely rare. It seems that some appointments of younger governors in recent years may have been intended to overcome this; the governors might have gone on to top posts in their later appointments. However, these attempts do not so far seem to have achieved this end. The Governor”s role is so different from most FCO posts that it may be quite difficult for even a successful younger Governor to get back into the mainstream after leaving his/her UKOT. Indeed, there are some signs that doing the job well may have to cut across FCO norms so much that it then becomes less likely that such persons will reach top levels in FCO. M9. Nevertheless, the personal qualities outlined in the earlier part of this section are key.
N. Some further Aspects on Funding N1. As noted in earlier evidence, the different funding mechanisms by FCO, DFID and DEFRA have been combined in a new programme “Darwin Plus.” In our oral evidence, we mentioned that we do have some reservations about Darwin Plus, and noted the further move away from the constructive shared-responsibility approach that used to dominate the funding approach by HMG. N2. In our earlier written evidence, we expressed concern also that funding was moving away from small projects (especially important for NGOs), despite their excellent track record. We now have further information which indicates that this concern was justified. The following tabulation shows the number of grants in a range of size-classes awarded for environmental projects from 2004 to 2013. The grants from 2004 to 2011 were by the FCO/DFID Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP). (Data are not available for the 2005 round.) There was no invitation for bids for a round in 2012. 2013 was the first round of awards by Darwin Plus. Grants Number of grants awarded in the size ranges (£k): awarded in: <25 25–75 75–125 125–175 175–225 >225 2004 7 4 6101 2006 5 8 1000 2007 6 22 4000 2008 3 3 5000 2009 2 7 6000 2010 1 7 3210 2011272411 2012 0 0 0000 2013 2 2 5235
N3. It is evident that there has been a decline over the years in grants of <£25k & £25k-75k, with very few being made by Darwin Plus. N4. During the course of providing oral evidence, there were some questions in relation to financing biodiversity conservation and in particular the EU BEST initiative. We would like to go into a little more detail than was possible during the EAC meeting. There has been, and still appears to be, some confusion over BEST. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 109
Its origins lie in discussions between UKOTCF and its partner umbrella organisations in the Netherlands and France (linked as “Bioverseas”) with the European Commission about consideration of a voluntary scheme in the OCTs (Overseas Countries and Territories, including UKOTs) to match the system of Natura 2000 and related processes within the EU. This idea was later taken up by the Commission at a conference in Reunion in 2008 and subsequently promoted within the European Parliament by Maurice Ponga MEP and colleagues. N5. This led to the release of an initial tranche of €2 million from the EDF for allocation by DG Environment for a preliminary exercise, which was called BEST. This had the intention of showing the need for such funding on a permanent and larger scale. Since then there has been a second tranche and a call has been made for a third tranche with a deadline of 9th September 2013. This, however, is not an open call for proposals as were the first two but through an open call for tender with 2 LOTs aiming at one or two service contracts for four years on “Measures towards sustaining the BEST Preparatory Action to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories”. This has the stated aim of covering all ORs (Outermost Regions, ie remote parts of the Member State, rather than Territories) and OCTs with a need for partnerships, collaboration, solidarity and clever networking; synergy and complementarity with on-going initiatives. N6. Much of the confusion is in what purpose lies behind the funding which has been exacerbated by imprecise language from the European Commission, the personnel of which persistently referred to BEST as an active process when in fact it was a preliminary exercise (a sort of pre-BEST) to promote the establishment of BEST. Sadly, both tranches of funding, aside from that to IUCN to promote the need for BEST, were allocated to one-off projects and not to those that would provide sustainable outcomes. Also the first tranche was the subject of much criticism when all the awards relevant to specific territories were allocated to proposals led by French outermost regions or OCTs—in what the European Commission described as a fair and balanced outcome (and two other projects led by international bodies with no on-the-ground involvement). Many, including UK interests most certainly did not see it as “fair and balanced”. It should be noted also that several of those projects funded were in territories eligible for other EU funds to which UKOTs are not. A review of the outcomes showed some ongoing issues and a very fundamental difference in the way BEST was considered within DG Environment. The main issues were: — Despite this supposedly being a simplified application procedure, it took a huge amount of time to prepare and ended up with an application which, in paper form, was the size of a London telephone directory. — It was clear that those territories that dealt with the Commission on a regular basis had far greater knowledge of the processes and procedures in form-filling and making applications. By and large the outermost regions also had considerably great capacity than others especially including the UKOTs. — There was, and continues to be, a lack of transparency in the decision making process on BEST applications, decisions being apparently made in-house by officials with little knowledge of OCTs. — Although these early tranches were initially perceived to be precursors to a much larger and bigger funded process, it became clear that DG Environment personnel were not interested in running such a scheme as they did not consider themselves fund managers. Instead, they promoted the idea of BEST as being some sort of coordinating mechanism for existing funds, such as Regional funds. This means that pre-BEST would become converted into a virtual BEST. As UKOTCF has pointed out to the Commission, this would be of no use to the UKOTs as they are not eligible for such funds. N7. This put more pressure on proposals, also apparently resisted within the Commission, to expand LIFE + funding to encompass the OCTs. While this would be worthwhile as any additional funding for environmental projects in the UKOTs would be welcome, it should not take the place of a BEST equivalent. Also, as it would be open to competition from countries much nearer to home, it would be unlikely to provide very significant funding. Current proposals would provide 0.3% of the EU budget while NGOs have proposed that 1% is required as a minimum. Further, the proposals place new restrictions on elements available to applicants, further limiting their usefulness. N8. We would like to draw attention also to the differences in scale with respect to funding. As regards financial support for biodiversity conservation, ORs are eligible to receive funding within the overall EU financing framework established to support conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within the Community. During the current funding period (2007–13), a number of Community funds, including the EU funds for rural and regional development, (eg the European Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF)), the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)) provide possibilities to support the protection of biodiversity. The implementation of the EU policy on cohesion and regional development is supported by a number of Community funds, namely the EU Structural funds (ie, the ERDF and the ESF) and the Cohesion Fund. Among other things, these funds also provide possibilities for financing initiatives and projects aimed at implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan, including the Natura 2000 Network. In addition, the ORs are entitled also to receive funding from the LIFE+ fund that specifically supports environmental and nature conservation projects within the EU. As for the OCTs, funding for biodiversity conservation can be provided as a part of the general EU framework for development cooperation (EDF) and financial assistance to these countries. The current EDF funding period covers years 2008–13 and provides an overall budget of EUR 22,682 million. Of this, EUR 286 million is earmarked for cooperation with the OCTs. Ev 110 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Under the 11th EDF, OCTs have a budget of €343.4 million. This is allocated against a plan which can have only one sectoral priority and that is rarely the environment. The Outermost Regions will receive €7.8 billion in Community investment over the period 2007–13 with €4.5 billion coming from the European Regional Development Fund. Clearly, not all of this is available for environmental projects but the amount does show the scale of differences in what is available, by comparison to the OCTs (including the UKOTs). In the proposed budget for 2014–20, €0.9 billion has been allocated from the structural funds for outermost regions. By contrast, the amount available for BEST has been three tranches of €2million with the future not looking optimistic. Also by contrast is the allocation of ERDF funds of €3.37 million in 2011 to “Redevelopment of Capelinhos Lighthouse—Interpretation Centre” project, which aimed to develop the site as an historical, environmental and sustainable tourist attraction. N9. It is worth recalling also the difficulties and costs of securing grants from even those EU budgets available to UKOTs. Many UKOT partners need help in making the complex applications. For example, UKOTCF (at the request of territories and FCO) co-ordinated an application for the current MPASSE project on Management of Protected Areas to Support Sustainable Economies (MPASSE). This part-supports work in the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and the Turks & Caicos Islands on conservation and interpretation. This took 7 years of unpaid work by UKOTCF while the European Commission considered the application, appointed consultants to help in that assessment (but did not penalise these for making mistakes which caused major problems and unnecessary costs to the applicants), and finally issued contracts. A further error by the Commission reduced the grants available to the territory partners and especially UKOTCF. The Commission also noted that its own procedures were so complex that it insisted on diverting much of the original budget to employ further consultants to deal with these (in addition to the administrative work covered by UKOTCF and the territory partners). The costs of the administrative consultant (not including the costs of at least three other consultants employed by the Commission in respect of this relatively small project) proved to be more than the grant for conservation work by each of the partners.
O. Raising Awareness in Britain of the Importance of its Overseas Territories O1. All UKOTs are different, but one can use a common framework, citing individual UKOTs, when seeking to spread awareness of the territories within the UK. UKOTCF has experience of this in working with different territories, for example in its conferences and regional working groups, as well as in facilitating strategy development. O2. If the Ministry of Education were interested in being joined-up, it would be possible to include Overseas Territories in the National Curriculum—not to pack this further, but to use, for example, in biodiversity issues, as well as in human social diversity aspects.
P. Some reasons for UK Taxpayers to Support Environmental Conservation in UK Overseas Territories P1. In the oral session on 17th April, we supplied some reasons why National Lottery funds should be available in practice, as well as in law, to work in support of conservation in UK Overseas Territories, but lack of time prevented our giving further reasons why UK taxpayers should support environmental conservation in these distant places. We committed to supplying supplementary evidence on this point. P2. It is very important to note that the UK territories are not eligible for international aid (as they would be if they were independent). The international community assumes that UK supports its citizens in its sovereign territory—as do other nations (such as Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the USA) with territories. For the same reason, the UKOTs cannot even access Global Environment Facility funds, to which UK taxpayers contribute in a major way. Why should UK taxpayers pay less to conservation in its own Overseas Territories than, say, to Indonesia? P3. UK taxpayers already support DfID”s work in developing countries—why should UK citizens in UKOTs miss out? P4. Are we a United Kingdom or not? A former colleague from the Outer Hebrides, who has worked in conservation in her islands, in England, and in UK Overseas Territories has said: “We in the Outer Hebrides know that we are subsidised in the Scottish and UK budgets, and you guys don”t seem to mind because of what we contribute to conservation etc. Why is it so different if the UK citizens live in UK islands a bit further away?” P5. It is not really the case that UKOT people make no contribution to UK taxes. As they are British citizens, it is not surprising that, at any one time, substantial proportions of UKOT people are living and working in UK, paying taxes and contributing in other ways. Whilst the proportion is low from some territories, for others it reaches about 40% of the total population. P6. As noted earlier, UKOTs are effectively excluded from grants from the National Lottery—unlike the Dutch territories, which receive grants from the Dutch Postcode Lotterij. P7. By far the greatest biodiversity for which UK is responsible globally is in the Overseas Territories. UK answers internationally for its territories. It has accepted responsibility for this biodiversity. As this Committee Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 111
and the Foreign Affairs Committee have previously recognised, it is beyond the financial capacity of the small communities in the territories to cover the relevant costs. It would be ridiculous to expect the 42 Pitcairn Islanders to provide the resources and human skills for the management of the Henderson Island World Heritage Site; similarly for the 250 Tristan Islanders to be expected to fund the Gough and Inaccessible WHS, containing possibly the world”s most important seabird colonies. The same point applies, in varying degrees, to other UKOTs. P8. The economies of many UKOTs depend on their special environments—fishing, tourism, storm protection, etc. So, if UK supports sustainable development and conservation, this assists the UKOTs to become less reliant on central UK support—their economies can become stronger through establishing sustainable fisheries, increased sustainable ecotourism (a growing and high-value component of the tourist industry), and more resilience to severe weather damage, so decreasing the amount needing to be spent on eg after- hurricane recovery. P9. The heritages of the UKOTs are closely intertwined with Britain”s heritage. Just a few of many examples are: Explorers from Cook to Shackleton and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; The East Indies trade & Napoleon (as well as architecture) on St Helena; Shakespeare”s The Tempest and Bermuda; The Bounty and Pitcairn; Gibraltar”s long military and naval history for Britain; Pirates, Loyalists, and 100 years ago the best salt in the world, in the Turks & Caicos Islands; Plantations to pop music recording in Montserrat. 8 June 2013
Letter from Rt Hon David Lidington MP, Foreign and Commonwealth Office I am writing on behalf of the UK Government to respond on the Gibraltar issues raised in the oral evidence taken by the Committee from Dr Chris Tydeman, Chair of the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) in April and in UKOTCF’s supplementary written evidence in June. In his oral evidence Dr Tydeman commented on the UK Government’s position on enforcement of the Gibraltar Nature Protection Act 1991 within British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW). However, under the Gibraltar Costitution the UK Government is responsible for external affairs, defence and internal security, while HM Government of Gibraltar (HMGoG) is responsible for all other matters, including the management of the marine environment and the Nature Protection Act. The UK Government respects the Constitution and supports the rule of law. We have neither urged HMGoG to abolish the Nature Protection Act nor put HMGoG under pressure to allow Spanish fishermen to fish illegally within BGTW. Instead, we have supported HMGoG’s efforts to find a solution to the dispute with Spanish fishermen, encouraging all parties to show restraint and cooperate with HMGoG. We believe that dialogue and cooperation offers the best chance of ensuring respect for the law and enabling environmental protection. Illegal fishing by Spanish vessels within BGTW has posed problems since the passage of the Nature Protection Act but the issue has become a major source of friction since March 2012 when HMGoG ended an informal agreement with the fishermen, made in 1999, which had allowed limited fishing despite the provisions of the Act. The offending fishermen have received support from vessels of the Spanish Guardia Civil, which make unlawful incursions into BGTW with the aim of preventing the Royal Gibraltar Police from enforcing the law. Other unlawful Guardia Civil incursions into BGTW have also increased significantly. This is utterly unacceptable and contrary to international law, specifically the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We have protested in strong terms to Spain, including summoning the Spanish Ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 15 November 2012—the first EU Ambassador to be summoned for many years. The summoning of the Ambassador was a response to two particularly serious incursions; one by a naval vessel and one by a Customs vessel. However, the summoning was in the context of the repeated protests that we had previously made to the Spanish Government about incursions, the vast majority of which concerned Guardia Civil vessels. The Prime Minister and I protested to the Spanish Prime Minister and the Spanish Minister for the European Union respectively following an incident on 23 June 2013 in BGTW. In the course of an unlawful incursion by a Guardia Civil vessel, a Guardia Civil officer is reported to have discharged non-lethal shots from a firearm while in pursuit of a Gibraltarian jet ski. In his oral evidence Dr Tydeman claimed that the Nature Protection Act was not being enforced effectively because the Royal Navy is not tasked with fisheries protection. However, in accordance with the Constitutional division of responsibilities, it is the Royal Gibraltar Police and not the Royal Navy that is tasked with enforcement of Gibraltar law, including the Nature Protection Act. The main tasks of the Royal Navy Gibraltar Squadron (RNGS) are to protect visiting warships and to uphold British sovereignty within BGTW38. 38 British Gibraltar Territorial Waters have a limit of three nautical miles from the land except where the median line between British and Spanish territory is less than 3 nautical miles. Ev 112 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
As the Committee will be aware, there is a long-standing difference of position between the UK and Spain in relation to sovereignty over Gibraltar’s waters. We are confident of British sovereignty over BGTW, since under international law territorial waters flow from sovereignty over the land. Yet for many decades there have been unlawful incursions into BGTW by vessels of the Spanish State. Although such behaviour is a challenge to British sovereignty, it has not posed a threat to it. Incursions cannot change international law. The Royal Navy upholds British sovereignty by challenging all unlawful incursions by State vessels by means of radio warnings, issued either by RNGS vessels or by units ashore in Gibraltar, and through close monitoring until the offending vessels leave BGTW. In his oral evidence Dr Tydeman questioned statements that I purportedly made in the House on 16 October 2012 about Royal Navy activity in Gibraltar. I believe that he may have been referring to the debate of 15 October on an Urgent Question tabled by Jim Dobbin MP(HC 15 Oct 2012 : Column 24), as I did not speak about Gibraltar in the House on 16 October. In that debate I said that the Royal Navy challenges Guardia Civil and other Spanish State vessels whenever they make unlawful maritime incursions into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters. I can confirm that the Royal Navy has continued to carry out this task of upholding sovereignty throughout the fishing dispute and has issued warnings to all Guardia Civil vessels which have attempted to support illegal fishing. Private vessels, such as those that fish illegally within BGTW, are not State vessels and their activities are not included in the 176 unlawful incursions by State vessels to which I referred in my Written Answer of 20 May 2013 and which UKOTCF quote in their written evidence (HC: 20 May 2013: Column 510W). The policing of private vessels is a matter for the Royal Gibraltar Police. British Forces Gibraltar (BFG) closely monitor movements of Spanish State vessels within BGTW and determine whether they are lawful according to the rules on innocent passage, as defined in UNCLOS. Many of the passages through BGTW by Spanish State vessels constitute lawful “innocent passage”, as defined in UNCLOS. However, whenever BFG assess that a movement is a violation of the right of innocent passage they categorise it as an unlawful incursion. They then issue appropriate warning(s) to the vessel(s) concerned and we protest to the Spanish Government on diplomatic channels. In their written evidence UKOTCF refer to “suggestions” from the UK Government that it is difficult to determine whether a Guardia Civil vessel is violating British sovereignty. It is unclear to which UK Government statements this refers. We have always been clear that British sovereignty is violated when: — A Spanish State vessel attempts to exercise jurisdiction in BGTW, for example by interfering with the jurisdiction of the Royal Gibraltar Police. — A Spanish State vessel passes through BGTW without attempting to exercise jurisdiction, but her passage is neither continuous nor expeditious and is therefore in contravention of UNCLOS Article 19 governing the right of innocent passage. The UK Government is clear that unlawful incursions by vessels of the Spanish State are an unacceptable violation of British sovereignty and contrary to international law, specifically the provisions of UNCLOS. We maintain diplomatic pressure on the Spanish Government to stop this behaviour. We remain fully committed to upholding British sovereignty over Gibraltar and BGTW, in accordance with the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, and we rule out no options in doing so. However, our differences with Spain on Gibraltar issues should be resolved by political and legal means rather than by naval confrontation. I believe that an escalation on the waters would be likely to heighten tensions and make it more difficult for HMGoG to find a solution to the fishing issue, and for progress to be made with Gibraltar and Spain on other Gibraltar-related issues. I hope that this clarification of the UK Government’s position is of assistance to the Committee. I would be happy to provide further information if the Committee would like me to do so. 1 July 2013
Further written evidence submitted by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum Introduction This document supplements the original written submission from the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) in November 2012, the oral evidence given to the Committee on 17th April 2013, and the supplementary written evidence of June 2013. It updates some earlier material and arises also from points in the written evidence recently made available by the Committee and the oral evidence session on 9th July. To minimise confusion in cross-referencing, we label the sections by letters following on from those used in our earlier written evidence. The sections in this supplement address: (Letter Q is omitted to avoid confusion with references to questions and answers in oral evidence.) R. HMG’s shared responsibility for environmental conservation in UK Overseas Territories Environment Charters. S. Problems in HMG governance in respect of UK Overseas Territories (continued from Section K) T. Gibraltar fisheries and marine conservation (continued from Section L) U Final remarks. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 113
If the Committee requires further clarification, then we would of course be happy to.
R. HMG’s shared responsibility for environmental conservation in UK Overseas Territories R1. UKOTCF is concerned that the written evidence from some UKOT Governors, which appeared on the Parliament web-site in July, seemed to ignore HMG’s responsibilities for UKOTs in respect of international multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and in some aspects of good governance generally. Whilst there is limited recognition of HMG’s shared responsibility in respect of Gibraltar by virtue of the latter’s inclusion in the EU, the shared responsibility for all the UKOTs under various MEAs is omitted. (However, the Gibraltar Governor’s submission implied that, because fisheries came under environmental legislation, they were not the Governor’s responsibility.) Noting that the evidence submitted by most Governors seemed to be based on a common template (from which they varied in different degrees), one presumes that this omission of mention of HMG’s shared responsibilities reflects a view of HMG. This was reinforced by the Committee’s questioning at the oral session on 9th July 2013. At this, Ministers and officials seemed to want to play down HMG’s shared responsibilities in this area but were at a loss as to how to find a justification of this change of position in the face of the points made on the basis of law and HMG’s international commitments. R2. UKOTCF has previously noted the greater readiness of HMG to engage with the UKOT Governments in respect of its shared responsibilities for financial regulation, by distinct contrast with its shared responsibilities for environmental protection. In particular, UKOTCF noted the clarity with which this came through in the oral session with Ministers, who made clear their lack of engagement with environmental issues, especially compared with financial ones. This is despite both the fine words in the 2012 White Paper, and the conclusions in the detailed analyses by the Bermuda Ombudsman that the Environment Charters signed between HMG and UKOT Governments are of the same standing as the anti-money-laundering agreements. (It is notable also that, whilst the Environment Charters remain easily accessible on UKOTCF’s web-site (www.ukotcf.org), they are not available on HMG’s new minimalist web-site although they can be accessed by the determined on the old, rather better FCO website, archived by the National Archives website.)
R3. We recommend that the Committee reinforce the conclusion that HMG shares with UKOT governments the responsibility for environmental protection in the UKOTs. R4. UKOTCF presumes that the failure to mention the Environment Charters in the Governors’ evidence (the only exception is where the Bermuda Governor refers to the work of the independent Bermuda Ombudsman) and their playing down by Ministers in the oral section results from a deliberate effort to downplay the importance of the Charters and also the commitments by both HMG and the territories , embodied in paragraph 11 of the Charters, to “Abide by the principles set out in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and work towards meeting International Development Targets on the environment”. The authority of the Charters derives from the texts not being determined unilaterally by HMG but being the result of careful negotiations with each of the territories. The format of the Charters thus recognizes the shared but differentiated responsibilities in respect of the environment of both HMG and the governments of the territories. UKOTCF is pleased, however, to note that the Joint Communiqué of the December 2012 Joint Ministerial Council (JMC), to which HMG referred in oral evidence, did reconfirm the commitment to the Environment Charters, and agreed to work together on the priority action “to continue to implement Environment Charters, and to work towards the full implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements where these have been extended to the Territories”. R5. We note that the HMG evidence on 9th July, as well as reiterating the commitment to the Environment Charters, mentioned carrying some matters forward through its “mainstreaming”39 exercise. UKOTCF welcomes progress here. It notes that mainstreaming is effectively provided for in the Charters through the commitment to “Ensure that environmental considerations are integrated within social and economic planning processes.” Furthermore, the cross-sectoral development of strategies to implement the Charters that UKOTCF facilitated in several territories included all the elements of the current mainstreaming and some additional ones. The UKOTCF-facilitated exercises were designed as open processes, and the current “mainstreaming” exercises might benefit from a more transparent approach. R6. UKOTCF is concerned that the positive commitments and shared responsibilities, under international commitments, for conservation underlined in the Environment Charters, to which Ministers indicated they remain committed and wish to treat as priorities, appear to be undermined by other Ministerial comments within a couple of weeks of giving evidence to the Committee (Written Answers 18 July 2013): Matthew Offord (Hendon, Conservative): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all Overseas Territories entrench the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals into their respective legislation. Richard Benyon (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Natural Environment and Fisheries), Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative): UK practice is that treaties are only extended to Overseas Territories if the territories request extension. Environment is an issue devolved 39 Note that, in an attempt to improve the quality of drafting in Whitehall, a DFID Minister, in a widely reported minute of June 2012, included “mainstreaming” as one of the terms not to be used. Ev 114 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
to Territory Governments and it is for each Overseas Territory to decide how to deliver any obligations arising from Multilateral Environmental Agreements that have been extended to it. If an Overseas Territory considers the Convention on Migratory Species to be of relevance, we will work with that Territory to extend the Convention to it. Matthew Offord (Hendon, Conservative): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department takes if a UK Overseas Territory is in contravention of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Richard Benyon (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Natural Environment and Fisheries), Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative): Environment is an issue devolved to Territory Governments. Where the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals has been extended to a UK Overseas Territory it is the responsibility of that Territory to decide how to deliver any obligations arising from it. If requested we will work with the Territories to which the Convention has been extended to help them meet their obligations. R7. This seems to be an abnegation of responsibility, in the same ways as were previously criticised by the Environmental Audit Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee in their 2008 Inquiries, as well as HMG’s international commitments. Indeed, several of the HMG responses to the Committee in the 9th July session seemed to be aimed at separating responsibility for the environment (delegated to UKOT governments) from responsibility for international treaties (HMG). This ignores the fundamental point that environmental responsibilities bear on both HMG and the territories. Indeed, it was to address this reality that HMG developed the Environment Charters. The attempt flies in the face also of British Overseas Territories Law (Hendry & Dickson, 2011), quoted by Dr Offord in the 9th July session—which makes clear that HMG “is responsible for compliance by the Overseas Territories with obligations arising under international law, whether deriving from customary, international law or from applicable treaties.” On 9 July, Mr Benyon accepted that point in respect of CITES, and also in Dr Offord’s example of water pollution; so it is of concern—and puzzling—that he rejected it in respect of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species barely a week later in Parliamentary Answers on 18th July. (The information at paras G1-G5 and oral evidence Q57-Q60 on 17th April are also relevant here.) R8. Even if HMG accepts its shared responsibility to environmental conservation in the UKOTs (to which UKOTCF believes HMG has committed itself under international agreements and the Environment Charters), the enthusiasm of officials and the extent to which UK government departments are prepared to initiate an active dialogue over how they can help—see all the UK commitments under the Charters—will have a great bearing on how well HMG and the territories can together realise the vision of “the natural environment managed to the highest international standards.” We have already mentioned UKOTCF’s work in facilitating complete sign up by UKOTs and Crown Dependencies to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and HMG’s general support for this. Now, HMG’s approach has clearly moved from proactive to reactive, with DEFRA noting that, if a territory asked, HMG would help. The recent record is that help is given reluctantly. Last year, the Isle of Man finally managed to get itself added to UK’s ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 18 months after it formally requested HMG to do this at a time when the Isle had met all requirements. This was achieved almost totally due to the commitment and persistence of Isle of Man environmental officials, rather than enthusiastic support from HMG (see para B7 of our earlier evidence). No other UKOT or Crown Dependency has managed this since the inclusion of several territories by UK at the time of original ratification some 20 years ago. As we have indicated earlier, UKOTCF recommends that HMG move without delay to add the uninhabited UKOTs to its ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and encourage the remaining inhabited territories to join also. R9. UKOTCF welcomes the fact that, since the July session and after several years of waiting, the Government of Anguilla has asked HMG to add Anguilla to UK’s ratification of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). UKOTCF trusts that HMG will progress this speedily. We hope also that the last remaining UKOT not included in CITES, the Turks and Caicos Islands, is also added soon, especially as TCI has much of the domestic legislation in place. Only one UKOT, Anguilla, remains out of the UK’s ratification of the Convention on Migratory Species, and we encourage its joining. R10. Discussions at the Committee’s session on 9th July included consideration of the UN’s Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, when HMG indicated that this Convention applies only within Europe. The treaty itself (at depository’s web-site: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf) makes clear that states within Europe have the right to join but others may join with the approval of a Meeting of the Parties. Some non-European states have already done so. The Meetings of the Parties have indicated that other parties are welcome. R11. However, a further point has emerged. It is normal, in signing or ratifying a treaty, for a nation-state which has separate territories within its sovereignty to indicate either which territories are included or which are excluded. Indeed, Article 29 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (to which the UK is a Party) provides that “unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.” In a “Memorandum on Application” the FCO, on its Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 115
web-site (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130104161243/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/publications- and-documents/treaties/uk-overseas-territories/memorandum-application), explains that, the term “entire territory” includes the UK Overseas Territories unless expressly excluded by a declaration upon ratification. HMG has certainly done that for other treaties. R12. However, UK did not qualify its ratification of the Aarhus Convention (except for a declaration about the meaning of Article 1 and the preamble). No geographical declaration was made at the time of ratification or later (http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27& lang=en#EndDec). — In the case of their ratifications: Denmark excluded Faeroes and Greenland; — Netherlands limited coverage to its European Territory; and — France excluded three of its Territoires Outre-Mer, but not the other TOMs or any Departments Outre-Mer. The Aarhus Convention does not require explicit extension, and is consequently applicable to all UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies by virtue of its ratification by the UK on 23 February 2005, which made no geographical reservation. R13. Therefore, the Aarhus Convention applies to all UKOTs and Crown Dependencies. This is also the view of the Depository; the UN considers that the UKOTs are within the Aarhus Convention (see, for example, the map of included areas: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/AarhusMap.html. This has a category of “Overseas territories excluded by countries’ declarations”, including for example Greenland. In contrast, the UKOTs are included in the Convention, as exemplified by the Falkland Islands, the only one of them physically large enough to show on this small-scale world map. The dates of signing and ratification are confirmed as those of UK.) R14. This means that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the Committee, and the House when answering Dr Offord’s question (2 July 2013: Column 591W): Dr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British Overseas Territories have ratified the Aarhus Convention to Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. [162338] Mark Simmonds: The UK’s ratification of the Convention, which was deposited with the UN on 23 February 2005, does not currently extend to any of the UK Overseas Territories. R15. It seems that HMG may have overlooked consulting the UKOTs when it, possibly inadvertently, included them in its ratification of the Aarhus Convention. R16. In this context especially, it is unfortunate that HMG has given no practical support to assist any UKOT to implement freedom of information provisions—as admitted by the Minister, with commendable openness, on 9th July. We welcome the comment by the FCO Director of Overseas Territories that this freedom of information measure could be promoted more actively. R17. The Committee might like to recommend that HMG take positive steps to encourage and assist UKOTs to implement freedom of information measures—not just because it would minimise the effects of the rather confusing situation that HMG has got itself into with the UN and the UKOTs—but because (as acknowledged by Mr Simmonds) it would be the responsible thing to do in terms of both UK’s international obligations and to meet its commitments under the Environment Charter agreements signed between HMG and the UKOTs. A keen interest in Freedom of Information has been expressed in several territories, notably in the recent Legislative Council Elections in St Helena (see paras S18-S19 below) R18. UKOTCF finds it difficult to reconcile the priority that the White Paper and HMG’s evidence to your Committee claim to give to environmental conservation with the lack of effective action and the side-lining— or even omission—of UKOTs in their policies. By agreement between Government Departments and in public statements, DEFRA leads for HMG on biodiversity of UKOTs. As repeated by Ministers to the Committee, it is generally accepted that over 90% of the global biodiversity for which UK is responsible is found in (and depends on) the UKOTs, rather than on Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Yet, UKOTs are not mentioned once in DEFRA’s business plan. The Minister noted in evidence that the business plan is an over-arching strategic document. It remains remarkable that such a document should make no mention of any commitment to support 90% of the global biodiversity for which UK is responsible—a key role in terms of UK’s international reputation at the forefront of environmental biological sciences and conservation. R19. In addressing this point and Dr Offord’s question as to where to find DEFRA’s objectives for the UKOTs, Mr Benyon referred to the Natural Environment White Paper (June 2011). However, this includes only one mention of the UKOTs. The paragraph, in its entirety, says: 5.11 We will also continue to give priority to the UK Overseas Territories (OTs) Biodiversity Strategy, through a co-ordinated approach across government that is led by the National Security Council. The Government will continue its engagement with the OTs in their efforts to conserve their biodiversity through programmes such as the Flagship Species Fund and one-off initiatives such as the £200,000 contribution towards a project to eradicate rodents on Henderson Island in the Pitcairn Group. Moreover, the Darwin Initiative is also making a significant difference to wildlife in Ev 116 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
our OTs. An additional £1.5 million has already been invested in Darwin projects in the three years from 2010, and this sum will increase further as a result of the new Darwin funding referred to above. At the time, UKOTCF wrote to the Secretary of State at DEFRA to seek clarity as to the respective roles in relation to UKOTs biodiversity of the National Security Council, DEFRA, FCO and other departments. The response by Mr Benyon suggested that we had “misunderstood” the wording “led by” with the reference to the National Security Council. This was a little odd, as our letter had asked the question about this, rather than made a statement about it R20. In the same letter, the Minister responded to our query regarding the National Ecosystems Assessment (2011) raised in this DEFRA White Paper but which did not appear to address the UKOTs and about which we sought clarification and offered possible collaboration. Furthermore, none of the many distinguished participants listed as involved in producing this (expert panel members, user group, client group) include UKOT bodies or those with direct experience of UKOTs. We were referred to a 2007 document produced by JNCC (Valuing the Environment in Small Islands—An Environmental Economics Toolkit (2007) van Beukering, P., Brander, L., Tompkins, E. and McKenzie, E.) which, although of some relevance, did not relate to the new initiative. R21. Similarly indicative of the de facto low priority HMG assigns to this area is the fact that the one DEFRA post which has UKOTs as about one-third of its responsibilities has only just been filled, after half a year vacant. UKOTCF looks would be delighted to work with that officer, but notes that she faces a formidable challenge working in the context of such a lack of enthusiasm and continuity. We note that when the EAC decided to learn something on the ground about the UKOTs, it felt constrained to make a visit to only one territory and by just two members of the committee. That means, however, that the committee has more recent experience of the UKOTs than do DEFRA ministers or officials. There are good stories to be told about biodiversity in the UKOTs, many with part-funding from HMG. However, when the then DEFRA Secretary of State spoke at a meeting of the CBD of HMG’s support for the rat eradication programme on Henderson Island, she identified the island only as being in “the Pacific”, with no mention that the Henderson Island World Heritage Site is part of the Pitcairn Islands, a UKOT. It is as if ministers are afraid of acknowledging internationally that that there are Overseas Territories that are happy to be British. R22. NGOs in Britain and the UKOTs, and others in the UKOTs, find it surprising that there is not at least one full-time post in DEFRA dedicated to UKOTs biodiversity (over 90% of the global biodiversity for which HMG is responsible)—and other NGOs have called for more. DEFRA’s suggestion, during the 9 July session, that the occupant of a post in DEFRA dedicated to lead on the UKOTs might have not enough to do (“be left twiddling their thumbs”) has no basis in past experience. UKOTCF is concerned that DEFRA senior management responsible for this area could so badly underestimate the capacity needed, and the essential nature of a lead person at an appropriately senior level. Even the previous holder of the part-time UKOT post in DEFRA repeatedly noted that he did not have the time to meet all requests, and the notorious one-stop shop for UKOT environmental enquiries to HMG set up by DEFRA in 2009 never actually functioned (see also Q69 in oral evidence 17th April). The confusion over lines of communication on environmental matters between UKOT governments and HMG was evident from the HMG’s evidence on 9th July. UKOTCF does concur with Mr Simmonds’ stressing of the importance of UKOTs exchanging expertise between each other and co-operating on initiatives. This is a cost-effective approach that UKOTCF pioneered and developed, with some FCO support—which has unfortunately been discontinued. R23. For comparison in relation to personnel levels, UKOTCF itself (a small charity, rather than a fully resourced government department) has working on UKOT environment issues: one half-time paid person, two full-time unpaid volunteers (including one who, when he left UK Government service some years ago, was at about the current grade of a current DEFRA Deputy Director) and at least another 2.5 full-time equivalent unpaid skilled volunteers. This total of 5 FT-equivalents does not include the personnel employed by UKOTCF’s member and associate organisations in Britain (which would probably about double the number of FT-equivalents to at least 10), nor those in our member and associates organisations in the territories. Our colleagues in RSPB have already indicated that that they have 3 dedicated UKOT staff, and can call on the time of others. Even with all these personnel resources, the NGOs also cannot cope with all the reasonable requests from UKOT NGOs and government departments on environmental matters centred on biodiversity. If the reason for the lack of a full-time UKOT post in DEFRA is really the risk of the incumbent twiddling their thumbs, we invite DEFRA to grant UKOTCF the equivalent funds to two-thirds of a Principal-level post; we guarantee that our personnel funded by that grant will be kept busy and will achieve real conservation progress. R24. The real reason for DEFRA’s failure in this area appears to be lack of interest, of focus and of willingness to work with relevant partners. (Q71–72 of oral evidence 17th April also refer.) UKOTCF has met the current DEFRA Deputy Director, International Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Evidence only once, on 10 September 2012, shortly after he took up post. UKOTCF had been invited by a DEFRA officer to a meeting to discuss a specific issue, and this was later combined with an introduction to the new Deputy Director. Unfortunately, DEFRA had forgotten both that they had called the meeting and its purpose. This became apparent only when the Deputy Director started the meeting by asking what UKOTCF had called the meeting for. This was despite the fact that, when UKOTCF had noted a few days before that DEFRA had invited also FCO to attend (even though the original subject was purely a DEFRA matter), UKOTCF had enquired whether there had been a change to the agenda, DEFRA had replied in the negative. As a consequence of this confusion, Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 117
the meeting did not go well. Recognising that all sorts of problems could have resulted in DEFRA’s error, UKOTCF’s Chairman wrote in friendly style to the Deputy Director on 11 September 2012, suggesting that it might be helpful to start again. No reply has yet been received, 11 months later. R25. On a point of detail, one point of DEFRA’s evidence on 9th July, noted that two members of JNCC staff were on secondment to UKOTs. We understand that the arrangement is that one JNCC staff member is on secondment to St Helena for two years, and that the consequent gap in JNCC’s staffing is being partly filled by a secondment of nine months from Bermuda to JNCC (as correctly noted by Mr Benyon). In relation to Mr Benyon’s comment that JNCC does not develop policy, it is difficult to reconcile this with the fact that junior staff at JNCC prepared the DEFRA/FCO/DFID document United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy. Furthermore, it would seem that DEFRA has instructed JNCC to review and revise that document, with both NGOs and UKOT governments expressing concern during the one consultative meeting (in March 2013) at JNCC’s failure to involve them and at the lack of transparency of the process. R26. UKOTCF notes that a substantive answer to Dr Offord’s question “in regard to Defra what assessment of environmental sustainability has the Department made of the Overseas Territories?” was not provided (unless DEFRA has since written to the Committee on that point). (Paras E6 onward of our earlier evidence are also relevant.) R27. UKOTCF notes that, in his comments following this question, the Minister referred to the new Darwin Plus initiative. UKOTCF has noted previously (paras C12-C17; N1-N3; oral evidence 17th April Q77) its major concern at all HMG grant support for UKOTs being pulled together under the Darwin Initiative. Whilst the Darwin Initiative has provided some excellent approaches for grants for work in foreign countries (where HMG has no responsibility other than as a good world player), it is not an appropriate model for UKOTs, where HMG has a shared responsibility. The Darwin Initiative decisions are not linked to strategy and are reactive, rather than living in a framework of shared priorities. UKOTCF has attempted to raise these points with HMG on several occasions but Departments have not been prepared to engage. Our concern is that Whitehall departments appear to regard devolving to an independent scientific committee such funding as they are prepared to provide for projects in the territories as the primary way in which they need to support good management of the natural environment in the territories. As the list of UK commitments in the Environment Charters show, that is far from being the case. Many of the issues we have highlighted in our earlier submission and in Section S (below) show that the obstacles to good environmental governance often have to do with defects in formulating or implementing policies. These need to be addressed in ways that cannot fit within the Darwin Plus straitjacket. R28. The Committee might like to recommend changes in policy, practice and attitudes and a restructuring of resources and staffing, so that protecting the overseas 90% of the UK’s global biodiversity can addressed effectively by DEFRA, DFID, FCO and other government departments, as well as by support via NGOs.
S. Problems in HMG governance in respect of UK Overseas Territories (continued from Section K) S1. In its session on 9th July 2013, Committee members noted that the Cayman Governor’s concerns over some aspects of the locally elected chief minister had been reported to FCO for some years before action was taken. UKOTCF is aware of a similar situation in the Turks & Caicos Islands, where the then Governor expressed similar concerns from shortly after his appointment in 2005 and for about two years, before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee itself came across the problems in 2007–8. In evidence before that Committee in 2008, FCO indicated that there was not enough evidence for an investigation. It is difficult to understand how such a fundamental breakdown in communications at a senior level in FCO could have happened, and UKOTCF hopes that no similar situation would occur under the present or any future Director. S2. The Committee may want to recommend that better monitoring be undertaken by HMG of the performance of UKOT Governments, so that gentle and light assistance can be arranged, rather than the late, crisis interventions of the past. However, it is difficult to see how this can be achieved within a system where many Governors are career members of the Diplomatic service and in carrying out their duties are often acting on instructions from departments in London; and have their own careers to protect by not causing waves. Perhaps the Committee will conclude from the fact that, in addition to their Inquiries important findings relating to environment, so many issues unearthed are not purely to do with environmental or sustainability issues that they need to recommend that the Foreign Affairs Committee conducts a wider-ranging Inquiry into the Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies, but one which also takes evidence from all government departments and agencies that have any significant engagement with the UKOTs and CDs. That should include several which have not been called on to give evidence to this inquiry, notably Treasury, Justice, MOD, Department of Transport, DCMS, the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI)
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS S3. UKOTCF notes that the written evidence to this Inquiry from the Governor of the Turks & Caicos Islands indicates that “the environment is not one of the reserved areas for the Governor; it is the responsibility of the Turks and Caicos Islands Government (TCIG). My role, therefore, is to work to ensure that the Constitution, law and proper process are followed. As Chair of the Cabinet I would also be part of any collective Cabinet discussions on issues of the environment and development. It is the Governor’s responsibility Ev 118 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
to approve development agreements on the advice of the Cabinet.” Whilst this was correct (subject to the general point about HMG’s shared responsibility for environmental matters, as noted at paragraphs R1-R8 above) at the moment it was written in April 2013, it is somewhat misleading. In fact, it had been correct for only about five months. For the preceding year of his appointment (and all of his predecessor’s term), this was not the case, as under that period of direct HMG rule, the Governor was the Government of TCI. S4. The Governor’s own evidence quotes the joint response of the Ministry of the Environment and Home Affairs and the Department of the Environment and Maritime Affairs in citing the direct HMG rule administration as setting a bad example: “ “In the recent election, candidates did not set the environment as a priority. This may be as a result of the situation during the period of the Interim Administration [where the focus was on solving financial and political emergencies rather than the environment.] However, within the relevant departments in TCIG (DEMA, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Health) I believe there is high priority and even passionate consideration for the environment and sustainable development. However, the political will at the moment is focused on economic considerations. Unfortunately, this current attitude fails to recognize that the entire TCI economy is based on the maintaining a baseline of environmental integrity.” “ S5. The TCI Governor goes on to report that: “There are no examples of where developments or projects proceeded which would have damaged the environment under the Interim Administration, and none so far under the elected Government. The Interim Administration worked to ensure that environmental issues were fully taken into account.” In view of the evidence already submitted by UKOTCF (paras B8; G6-G7; K12-K47; and below at S7-S12), we are surprised at this comment, not least because it was the Governor who unilaterally cancelled the Conservation Fund, raised from a tax on tourists. Unlike the establishment of the fund, this was done without consultation with the Governor’s environmental officials or the public and was not widely announced. Several of the commercial enterprises responsible for collecting the tax were unaware, even as recently as June 2013, of its cancellation (and of the funds being put directly into the general budget). This action by the Governor removed what HMG had previously insisted that TCI initiate (in return for grants on related matters) and had considered would be the major funding source for TCI environmental work. We note the parallels with the point made by Dr Offord in relation to Cayman’s environmental tax. In the case of TCI, actions by the Governor during the period of his direct rule have removed a long-term sustainable form of funding for environmental conservation. UKOTCF notes also that the Governor agrees that long-awaited environmental legislation has been delayed during this period. S6. On a point of detail, we should note that Mr Simmonds’ statement (in response to Dr Offord’s point noted above) about the French model needs amendment. He was actually referring to the model of the departments outré-mer, rather than the territoires outré-mer; the status of the latter is closer to (but not identical with) those of UKOTs. S7. Paras K18-K28 of UKOTCF’s earlier evidence related to the caves near Providenciales Airport which hold important wildlife, including an animal species which has been found nowhere else in the world. UKOTCF personnel visiting TCI in June 2013 obtained further information. At the end of March, a team of experienced volunteer cave divers further explored the caves near the airport, in close collaboration with well qualified personnel from the TCI Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, DEMA (see para K20). The dive team reported a passage leading off the main chamber of the cave, and leading in a general southerly direction. The dive team followed the passage for a short distance, but were able to ascertain that it reached at least a depth of 45 feet below sea level and was located generally underneath the existing airport and runway. On the basis of this and in particular the depth below surface, DEMA noted that the proposed extension of the airport could take place without endangering the existing cave structure. DEMA recommended that, in order to prevent potential noise impacts to bat populations, the Airport Authority provide DEMA with a schedule of works, in order to facilitate DEMA’s monitoring of construction activities. If at any time indicators of stress to bat populations, such as observation of daytime exiting of the cave, works should be halted and alternative methods of construction implemented. They recommended further that funds be secured to have the wildlife populations quantitatively surveyed by expert consultants. If deemed significant, TCIG should attempt to secure the parcel of land, currently in private hands, by compulsory purchase, to preserve an ecological asset of incomparable value. Those conducting the survey thought it likely that the cavity into which earlier airport works had broken (para K21) was probably part of this system (contrary to the comments by the TCI Airport Authority’s consultant, para K27). UKOTCF noted also that, contrary to the comments by the TCIAA consultant (para K27), the car-park cliff face would be staying as existing, part of this had been cut into to make a new road- ramp. However, it seems that fortuitously no break-through occurred here, even though a further visit by the expert divers in late May 2013 revealed much sediment in the water, possibly the result of vibration by the heavy equipment working overhead to create the new car-park; it is hoped that this will eventually settle without causing serious damage. Conservation (and the reputations of UK and TCI Government) have been lucky in this case. However, this underlines the importance of undertaking proper environmental impact assessments. The Committee might like to recommend that UKOT Governments (whether locally elected or run by HMG) should not exempt themselves from the need for environmental impact assessments and that these Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 119
should be conducted to exemplary international best-practice standards, as commitments in the Environment Charters require. S8. UKOTCF paragraphs K29-K32 reported that, for reasons which are not readily understood, late during the period of direct rule, TCI fisheries law was amended to allow the keeping of marine mammals in captivity, thereby enabling the establishment of dolphinaria. We expressed our surprise at this change to the previously existing law which made the keeping of marine mammals illegal, rather than leaving this to an elected Government—and without consultation, in breach of the Environment Charter. UKOTCF has now learnt that, not only was this a personal initiative by the Governor but also he failed to consult DEMA, the only TCI Government Department with responsibility and competence for the fishery laws. The Committee may like to recommend that UKOT Governors (and Ministers) simply keep to the Environment Charters’ Guiding Principles and Commitments in terms of seeking expert advice and consulting openly beforehand on decisions affecting the environment. S9. As noted above, in his evidence to the Committee, The TCI Governor indicated that his role “is to work to ensure that the Constitution, law and proper process are followed.” S10. In paragraphs K33-K35, UKOTCF noted the earlier illegal deep dredging in a National Park and adjacent to a Nature Reserve, which caused severe damage to the coral reefs and a commercial conch farm, and severe erosion and destruction of a popular nature trail on a nearby island nature reserve, and that consideration was being given to further deep dredging, despite the partial recovery from the earlier devastation and the fact that dredging is prohibited in a National Park. Several legal and procedural flaws were noted. FCO had responded (para K34) that there had been no encouragement for the dredging application by the Interim Administration or the UK Government; indeed neither has been involved in it in any way. S11. In common with many responsible persons in TCI, UKOTCF has now learnt that Governor Todd personally asked how to get around the legislation to allow dredging at Leeward, this being within a protected area where such activity is not allowed by law. He also raised the possibility of removing some areas from the protected area or changing the protected area law. Given that these actions were by the Governor personally, there would seem to have been some breakdown in communications between the Governor and FCO. The Committee may wish to recommend that Governors be instructed neither to seek to subvert laws nor to pressure others to collude in doing so, or to reinforce any such instructions already in existence. S12. UKOTCF is concerned also that the unfortunate example set during the period of direct HMG rule has been followed by the relatively newly elected TCI Government, which in August 2013 announced that it is seeking to promote this and other built developments in statutorily protected areas, by changing the law to allow dredging through protected areas, and by excluding areas from the National Parks. (The announcement indicated also a review of protected areas, a rather surprising use of resources, as there have been several such reviews commissioned by TCI Government in recent years, which appear to have been overlooked.) The National Parks Ordinance has survived intact for 20 years and throughout the administration that preceded direct UK rule—and judged as “likely to be corrupt” by the judicial enquiry. The protected areas themselves have also been maintained throughout this period, except for some well publicised examples of illegal damage such as the initial dredging that it is now proposed to repeat and extend. It is shocking that the current threats to these well established laws and protected areas have their roots in decisions taken in disregard of competent technical advice during the period of direct rule by HMG.
ST HELENA S13. With regard to St Helena, DFID’s evidence on 9th July seems remarkably untroubled that the essential environment mitigation plan had not even started to be put into operation 18 months after the construction of the airport was under way, including changes in design, some with obvious impacts on biodiversity. Best practice is to have such a process in place before construction work commences. (See also our previous evidence at paras K3-K11, and the written evidence of Buglife, which UKOTCF strongly endorses.) S14. A major problem running through the St Helena Airport exercise seems to have been a serious under- estimate of the novelty and complexity of the operation within a fragile desert, home to uniquely adapted and rare animals and plants. St Helena has never before seen a construction project of this scale or nature. We are not convinced that there are no notable environmental consequences, considering the fact that a major component of the Airport Environmental Management Plan (a legal requirement of the development permission) has not moved forward alongside the evolution of the detailed design and planning stage, as we would have expected. We expect that highest possible standards of environmental management would be required in such an ecologically sensitive and internationally important site. Some questions have been raised as to whether attempts to limit expenditure may have led to an approach giving undue priority to cost-savings, rather than to quality of the work and to avoiding environmental damage. In this context, it is notable that the declared cost of the construction contact, at about £200 million, is significantly less than the £300 million figure used by DFID in its consultation document of 2009. There is no independent inspection/audit outside of the project management or contractor’s teams, and there is the potential for conflict of interest in view of the contractual process put in place by SHG and DFID. Halcrow is appointed as the Engineers for the project which includes the Environmental Monitor. However, they are responsible to their employers whom they advise. They cannot be considered independent. In this situation, it was inevitable that St Helena would look Ev 120 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
to DFID for guidance, but DFID’s own experience in this type of project appears to be limited. In this context, it is worth noting that DFID’s performance in its previous major programme in a UK Overseas Territories (Montserrat) has recently been subject to serious criticism by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the independent body established by the present Government to be responsible for scrutinising UK aid. Both DFID and the Committee may well feel that it would be appropriate for this body to study this project also. S15. It is important to bear in mind that the airport is being built on an area of such global biodiversity importance that the loss of any small area is a major impact. This was why DFID and other parties agreed that the airport’s physical footprint would be as small as possible when conservation bodies responsibly agreed not to oppose the project. Careful planning and timely initiation of construction works, alongside appropriate signage to avoid unnecessary damage to ecologically sensitive sites are all actions required to ensure that the minimum possible footprint is achieved. Unfortunately, corporate memories of governmental bodies seem to have forgotten this. It is not unsurprising that the project has necessitated the introduction of people, within SHG, Halcrow & contractors Basil Read who, at the start of the project, had limited experience of St Helena and the management of its environment. Despite this, there has been a reluctance to involve others who could have contributed more constructively, particularly in the light of the delay in the Landscape & Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) and the fast pace in which the airport project took off from signing to physical works, with design and build working simultaneously. This has clearly had consequences on the quality of the environmental management. Alongside this, the overriding requirements to keep within budget and complete on time may have resulted in acceptance of lower standards of management, leading to the loss of more natural areas and their unique invertebrate species. For example, the initial airport approach road was designed in a way that breached international safety and security rules and had to be re-aligned. However, for no apparent reason, the contractor had already bull-dozed the original route, so that it seems that more important habitat was lost than necessary. Why was it necessary to strip the land area for the initial approach road when the existing road has continued to be used for six months and no further construction works on the road has taken place? Changes to the design to meet the new requirements have required a further re-design of the approach road necessitating more land-take. Has this resulted in more land-take then would have been necessitated with the second design? Were more sensitive alternatives considered and what additional efforts of mitigation were carried out? Despite the on island presence of specialists who could have given assistance, they were not invited to help. Top-soil has been collected and stored and is visually monitored as is the adjacent land, and there were plans to initiate studies on soil substrate for the mole spider, but there was possibly more that could have been achieved had advice been sought. Was it the speed of the works that prevented adequate environmental response, or was it that the resources were inadequate to respond/cope, or was it a lack of environmental priority? S16. The facts that the Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan was not started before the airport construction started, and it is still not in place about half-way through the planned construction process do indicate a lack of priority attached by DFID to this aspect. We are well aware that DFID blames EU tendering procedures for this, but the steps taken as each problem arose appear to have been delayed by lack of resources applied. Whatever the cause, this lack of environmental capacity has had several consequences: — There is limited base-line information against which to measure impact; — There is limited base-line against which to assess the impact of mitigation measures; — The few pre-project trial mitigation exercises have not been followed up, so that these are unassessed also (notably the Wirebird Mitigation Project has had no post-project long-term Wirebird monitoring programme put in place to support the maintenance of the long term benefits of the investment); — There is no capacity for independent environmental assessment of the frequent changes of airport construction design; and — The attempts that the contractors are making to manage their environmental impact, although well- intentioned, would have benefited from the early engagement of local knowledge and experience. Approaching established environmental NGOs to identify where additional assistance could be found would seem a sensible start. In initiating a project in a new country in a novel environment, it seems extraordinary that local knowledgeable people have not been more openly engaged or sought for their experience, even in an informal manner. The approach taken seems to have assumed that all the necessary skills and experience to deliver this project are available in-house or within the Project Management Unit team. When so little is known of the ecology of Prosperous Bay Plain, this is an odd assumption. It is too late to solve some of these failings but the consequences are that the costs of mitigation for those aspects that can still be mitigated are likely to be higher than would otherwise have been the case. The Committee may wish to recommend that the funding for ecological work and mitigation be ring-fenced despite the late start to this work. S17. UKOTCF worked with local Governmental and NGO partners in St Helena on the strategy to implement the Environment Charter in 2004–5. At that time, there was good collaborative working between St Helena Government and the St Helena National Trust, together with the latter’s constituent organisations. We are disturbed to discover that DFID, the St Helena Government and the contractors have not sought to involve the Trust and its skilled personnel in designing or implementing environmental work—except in a few cases at the Trust’s instigation when problems have arisen. (There have been occasional exceptions, but these have not Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 121
been effective. For example, the Airport Project Director did share the Environmental Assessment for an open drain with the Director of the Trust and the RSPB but only within two days of it going before the Governor in Council, thereby necessitating a speedy and limited response without time for adequate research and consultation.) This seems perverse, especially when the project itself lacks the required level of environmental capacity. Such involvement would help address some of the bullet-pointed problems in paragraph S16 above. The Committee may wish to recommend that DFID, St Helena Government and the contractors openly engage St Helena National Trust and its partners at as early a stage as possible in consultations on construction and operational design and in all environmental aspects, and consider resourcing the Trust for the major impact this will have on their work. S18. The Air Access project, with all its associated impacts on the well-being of Saints in the island and overseas, is far more likely to be successful if the public are trusted with information by departments of both the St Helena and UK Governments. One encouraging move under Governor Andrew Gurr was that ExCo meetings were open to the public (with the right to go into closed session when appropriate); and reports of that day’s Executive Council (ExCo) meetings were read by the Governor on the radio that same evening and then published in the weekly local newspapers. It is a pity that this practice has been discontinued, on the grounds that the public showed little interest in attending. There is, however, encouraging evidence of renewed openness, with many of the newly-elected councillors having made clear in their messages to the electorate that they favoured effective and properly-resourced Freedom of Information legislation. This is shown in a report about a controversial decision (on re-siting the local jail): “As we had said before the election that we would strive for openness and transparency so this part of the ExCo meeting was held in public. About a dozen people attended. Once we had made the decision we then held a public meeting the next evening and around 20 people came.” (Source: http://sthelenademocracy.blogspot.co.uk/ ) S19. There is a wider point, relevant to all territories with a locally elected government. That is that decisions taken on public policy should be recorded in a form that makes clear, rather than obscures, the reasoning behind them. What are sometimes called “Minutes” in a number of territories seldom meet the criteria set out in the following guidelines: “It is essential to record the decision made and where applicable the person who has responsibility for carrying out that decision. The minutes ideally should record the discussion in such a way that a reader can understand the reasoning behind the decision made by that committee and, where alternatives were suggested, why these were regarded as unsuitable by the members. Your recorded notes should focus on points made for and against a proposal or idea and the reasons to support these points. Minutes should be written so that they are complete, and in sufficient detail to enable a person who was not present at the meeting to fully understand what business was transacted.” (Source: Guidelines on Recording Minutes, South Eastern Education and Library Board; http://www.seelb.org.uk/data_protection/PDFs/Guidance_on_minute_taking.pdf). This is relevant also to paragraphs R10-R17.
TRISTAN DA CUNHA S20. The 75,300-tonne bulk carrier MS Oliva ran aground and was wrecked on 16th March 2011 at Spinners Point, the far north-west promontory of the uninhabited Nightingale Island, Tristan da Cunha. This and neighbouring islands are amongst the globally most important areas in British territory. The spilling of its fuel and cargo of soya bean resulted in severe damage to wildlife and devastation of the fishery which is the main economic activity at Tristan. The ship was registered in Malta. This was only a few years after a drilling rig under tow had broken loose from its tug, and wrecked on the shore of Tristan da Cunha, with consequent impacts by invasive marine species which it carried. Questions have repeatedly been asked by many about: 1. Why did the Oliva incident occur? 2. What are the prospects for recovery of the fishery? 3. Why did so many birds die despite the valiant efforts of the Tristan Islanders? 4. Who was responsible? 5. What lessons have been learnt?
Why did the incident occur? S21. A Malta Marine Safety Investigation Report (https://mitc.gov.mt/mediacenter/PDFs/1_MV%20OLIVA_ Final%20Safety%20Investigation%20Report_Publication%20Copy.pdf) makes clear that the shipwreck disaster was caused by poor procedures, inadequate planning and charting and ignoring of radar signals. The ship’s officers knew they would pass close to some islands on their voyage from South America to Singapore, but not when. They failed to follow their route properly on charts, relying mainly on a satellite navigation system. Just after four in the morning, the ship passed only 3.25 nautical miles from Inaccessible Island—a World Heritage Site that was later polluted by escaped oil. The second mate saw its radar echo but “assumed it was either rain clouds or an iceberg.” Soon after 0500, the chief mate “noticed a large echo on the radar screen, very close ahead. He assumed it was a heavy storm cloud and thereafter, he felt the vessel’s impact of running aground. “The vibration of the vessel running aground and the change in the main engine noise woke up most of the crew, including the master.” The investigation report says the chief mate had been unable to sleep until Ev 122 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
five hours before he was due on night watch, because of a cold, and had taken medicine. “He required two wake-up calls before he arrived on the bridge to take over his watch. The combination of the cold, medication, lack of sleep, the time of the day and reaction to the ship’s grounding suggested that the chief mate was probably not fit to stand a navigational watch.” The report also says that bridge management systems were not followed. Charts were not marked with a “no go” area around the islands, and a plotting error meant that the ship’s projected route took it straight over the mile-wide Nightingale Island. The ship slid on the sea bottom as conditions worsened and at about 0300 the next day, a rock pierced one of the holds. The engine room flooded and an oil slick appeared. The unnamed Greek captain and the Filippino crew were taken off by a fishing vessel and boats from a cruise ship—and the captains and crews of these have been rightly commended. Nearly 48 hours after the collision, Oliva broke in two in heavy swells, spilling 1,500 tonnes of oil into the sea, and most of its cargo of soya beans. S22. People on Tristan spent weeks trying to save the lives of rockhopper penguins that were plucked from rocks after the cargo ship broke up in heavy swell. Months after the incident, scientists found rotting soya beans had killed sea creatures and caused severe damage to the lobster fishery that provides islanders with most of their income. Seventeen months after the incident, the Nightingale fishery remained closed and the quota at Inaccessible Island had been halved. In September 2012, the ship’s owners agreed to pay compensation to the islanders. S23. The Malta Marine Safety Investigation Report’s conclusions and its report of safety actions now taken by the shipping company are: 3. Conclusions Findings and safety factors are not listed in any order of priority. 3.1 Immediate Safety Factors 3.1.1 Oliva ran aground because the planned course the vessel was following on the plotting sheet was found to have taken the vessel directly over Nightingale Island. 3.1.2 Although the bridge team was aware that the vessel would be passing close to some islands, it was not aware as to when that event would take place. 3.1.3 Although the vessel did not have BA (British Admiralty) Chart 1769, other appropriate available charts covering the area had not been used. 3.1.4 Both the second mate and chief mate were not aware that the vessel was heading towards Nightingale Island. This was because there was no indication on the plotting chart to alert them of the dangers ahead. 3.1.5 Both the second mate and chief mate saw some echoes on the radar screen, but did not investigate them and dismissed them as rain clouds. 3.1.6 There was no suitable mark placed across the ship’s track to indicate the need to change to a hydrographic chart. 3.1.7 Neither officer had consulted BA Chart 4022. Although this chart was of an unsatisfactory scale, it could have prompted them to adopt a precautionary approach when radar echoes were sighted on the radar. 3.1.8 The combination of the cold, the medication, lack of sleep, the time of the day and reaction to the vessel’s grounding suggests that the chief mate was probably not fit to stand a navigational watch. 3.1.9 Although the company had provided comprehensive guidance and procedures in its SMS (Safety Management System) to prevent this accident, these were not followed on board. 3.2 Latent Conditions and other Safety Factors 3.2.1 The passage plan did not comply with the company’s instructions of clearing distances when a vessel was in open waters. 3.2.2 The master made no reference to the passing of Islands in his night orders. Reference to the Islands, could have alerted the second mate and chief mate to the significance of radar echoes. 3.2.3 The handing over checklist required the chief mate to establish the proximity of any hazards to the vessel. This appears not to have happened and he relied on the brief hand- over he received from the second mate. 3.2.4 The chief officer did not check the position which the AB (Able Bodied Seaman) plotted on the chart. 3.3 Other Findings 3.3.1 The company had adopted the concept of bridge team management to address performance variability. However, in this case it appears that the crew members’ interaction was not effective and they did not identify and eliminate the factors that resulted in the grounding. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 123
3.3.2 The lifeboat was lowered soon after daylight as a precautionary measure, but was lost when the painters parted. Had the fishing vessel not been in the near vicinity, given the remoteness of the area, the crew of Oliva would have found themselves in a difficult position without a lifeboat. 3.3.3 Although the master had saved the VDR (Voyage Data Recorder) data, he was unable to retrieve it as he abandoned the vessel. 4. Safety Actions Taken 4.1 Safety actions taken during the course of the safety investigation TMS Bulkers Ltd has carried out its own internal investigation, which has resulted in a review of its procedures. These include: — instructions on the use of plotting sheets during ocean navigation; — requiring all officers on board to complete computer based training in voyage planning and bridge team management. — TMS Bulkers Ltd. also intends to increase the frequency of internal navigational audits so as to identify any potential problems of a similar nature within its fleet.
What are the prospects for recovery of the fishery? S24. The Tristan Administrator reported that, by December 2012, there were signs that a limited fishery of lobsters around Nightingale and Inaccessible Islands could resume and that the fish catch was free from contamination and taint. However, it may be some years before the long-term effects on the juvenile lobsters could be assessed. It was concluded that there are still many uncertainties but things do look more positive than in 2011. Tristan will continue to adopt a precautionary approach to the management of the fishery.
Why did so many birds die despite the valiant efforts of the Tristan Islanders? S25. It took a week for salvage crews to make the 1,700-mile voyage across the South Atlantic to the wreck, while the captain and crew were sheltered in homes. The fishing vessel Edinburgh transported 3,718 penguins to Tristan da Cunha, where 80 islanders worked for three months to clean and feed the birds. Conservation workers arrived from South Africa to help, bringing medicines. A works shed was transformed into a penguin hospital, and recovering birds took over the island’s swimming pool. However, only 12% of those taken to the main island survived to be released into the sea, and the survival of those released is unknown. Dr Ross Wanless of Birdlife South Africa, who called the outcome “an unmitigated disaster”, criticised insurers for delay in sending bird experts to join the clean-up. Cape Town in South Africa, the nearest port to Tristan, is the world’s leading centre for cleaning oiled penguins and has achieved high rates of survival. However, timing is crucial. An expert has commented that the unnecessary deaths of thousands of penguins seems to have been caused by the inability of the SANCCOB (Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds) team and their equipment to get to the islands, which seems in turn to have been caused by a lack of oil-spill planning by the FCO, a lack of cooperation by the insurer and a failure of leadership by FCO personnel. Another expert commented that FCO chose to shift the blame on the distance between Cape Town and Tristan. However, there has been little change in this distance in recent years, so that should not have affected planning.
Who was responsible? S26. Although there were many statements by FCO extolling the excellent and caring work of the islanders (with which UKOTCF and all we have heard from agree) and the wonderful cooperation provided by the insurer, remarkably little has been forthcoming about the ship’s officers and owners—and no indications of any legal action despite the incident occurring in UK territory. Enquiries were unanswered, apparently because such information would somehow endanger the delicate legal negotiations. In contrast, there have been extensive and highly detailed revelations about the oiling incident in the Gulf of Mexico and of the wreck of the Costa Concordia in Italy and the conduct of its captain. One correspondent commented that, as far as he could see, this had only helped the claimants in that matter. How is the Oliva incident different? It is difficult to believe that such secrecy could have happened if this wreck had been in Europe. It is difficult to understand the approach of the UK Government. Still, today, we do not know the terms and conditions of the settlement with the insurer. Would this endanger the settlement, which has already been signed and finalised? Do the islanders themselves know what has been negotiated on their behalf?
What lessons have been learnt? S27. Tristan da Cunha is one of the globally most important parts of UK territory in terms of world biodiversity. It has many endemic species, including 10 unique bird species. Two of its four islands (including one of those impacted by pollutants from the wreck) are World Heritage Sites and Wetlands of International Importance, while the other impacted is proposed for the latter status. In the past few years, Tristan has suffered two major wrecks, an oil-rig which had broken its tow having struck the main island a few years earlier. The risk of damage to this uniquely important area—and to the fragile economy of the territory—from pollution and the introduction of alien invasive species are immense. However, each incident seems to have to generate Ev 124 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
an improvised response. The responses of the Tristan Islanders and of the fishing and tourist vessels were superb, but where was the infrastructure? Had this been in place, the superb efforts of the Islanders in respect of the penguins might have been rewarded with more success—and other threats could have been addressed promptly. S28. In the Foreword to the 2012 White Paper the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, said: “ The Coalition Government has a vision for the Territories: of flourishing communities, ... of natural environments protected and managed to the highest international standards. ... the Territories are more vulnerable than the UK. We have a broad responsibility to support them and to ensure their security and good governance. ...We have not in the past devoted enough attention to the vast and pristine environments in the lands and seas of our Territories. We are stewards of these assets for future generations. ... And it doesn’t stop with Government. The strategy aims to support coalitions and partnerships across and between the private sector, professional bodies and civil society in the UK and in the Territories. I particularly welcome the growing partnerships between the Territories and local authorities and with the NGO community on environmental and other issues. ...The White Paper ... focuses on the security of the Territories, their economic development and their natural environment. It looks at how we can foster high standards of governance and build strong communities. It promotes the development of wider partnerships for the Territories. ... We will report regularly on progress and welcome scrutiny from the public and parliaments.” It is difficult to see these commitments in play in this case. Maybe there have been lessons learnt. If so, why has the Government declined to answer the enquiries about them? Is there now a contingency plan and, if so, what is it? S29. The final subsection of Section S would logically relate to Gibraltar. However, for easier handling of this large text, we separate this as Section T.
T. Gibraltar fisheries and marine conservation (continued from Section L) Summary T1. It is all but impossible to consider the issue of illegal fishing without taking account of the political situation. A number of key issues are raised including enforcement of the Nature Protection Act 1991, including: the role of the Royal Gibraltar Police and the Royal Navy; perceptions of the UK Government failing to protect the interests of Gibraltar in order to mollify the Government of Spain; the roles of UK government departments and agencies and their activities both between Departments and within the FCO; considering whether the policies outlined in recent UK Government White Papers are being applied properly with respect to Gibraltar; the situation within the EU, especially with the European Commission, in respect of the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; reflections on Gibraltar’s politico-legal status within the Mediterranean and its absence from environmental mainstream processes; and, related to this, its relationship to UN environmental processes. Some recommendations are made regarding working practises within the UK Government and enhancing external relations within the Mediterranean.
Issues of concern T2. A number of questions became evident and these are outlined below followed by a discussion around the issues. 1. Enforcement of the Nature Protection Act 1991 insofar as fisheries are concerned. (a) Why is the Royal Gibraltar Police expected to enforce the legislation without sufficient backing from HMG and the necessary equipment? (b) Why is so much pressure placed on the Commissioner of RGP having sole responsibility for taking decisions that are clearly of international importance and not just domestic to Gibraltar in nature? (c) Why is the Royal Navy not clearly empowered to assist in fisheries protection as it is elsewhere in the world? (d) If the role of the Royal Navy is restricted to territorial infractions, why is it not dealing with boats from the Guardia Civil “guarding” illegally operating Spanish fishing boats when they are clearly not using BGTW for through navigation purposes and in breach of territorial integrity? 2. Matters relating to the policies of HMG. (a) Why is the apparent overarching aim of the FCO appeasing/mollifying/not upsetting the Government of Spain, rather than protecting the interests of British citizens in Gibraltar? The reasons given at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in December 2012 (and in general) seem rather one-sided in favour of Spain. (b) How will any decision be taken and by whom that enough is enough with respect to Spanish actions, and that some equal and opposite action is required by HMG? (c) Will this involve the National Security Council? (d) Why the need for representatives of HMG to give thinly veiled advice to the consultants that it would in everyone’s interest to allow some fishing by Spanish boats? (e) Why, apparently, is the Royal Navy under instructions not to engage in the fishing dispute? Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 125
(f) Given that the staff (including the then Director and his PA in 2012) in the Overseas Territories Directorate were unaware of the individuals dealing with Gibraltar in the Western Europe Directorate, or the location of their offices in the FCO, is there sufficient (any?) liaison between those different sections of the FCO? (NB recent discussions at the FCO suggest that this is subject to some potential change but only in respect of non-EU related matters). (g) Given the extraordinary mess over the designation of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in BGTW, is there adequate coverage of Gibraltar by DEFRA and its statutory advisors, JNCC, and adequate liaison between them? (h) Given the unique situation of Gibraltar as a UK Overseas Territory, and also being in the EU, is sufficient recognition given to managing the necessary relationships? (i) Are JNCC appraised of the processes required by the European Commission in respect of submissions to the Commission relating to UK waters? (j) Does JNCC/DEFRA deal with Gibraltar as if it was like any Overseas Territory or are special measures in place to deal with its EU obligations? (k) Noting that the Government of Spain has already produced a management plan incorporating BGTW, what measures have been put in place to deal with the obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure that there is no repeat of the situation arising out of the SAC problems (in which Spain designated BGTW as part of their own SAC without HMG raising objections)? (l) What advice has been given by DEFRA/JNCC in respect of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive for Gibraltar? (m) Given the new emphasis on Blue Growth within the EU, what steps are being taken to ensure that the existing priorities of environmental protection and sustainable development continue to be met? (n) What liaison is there by FCO/DEFRA with MoD over environment management issues? (o) Why were the representatives of Defence Forces in Gibraltar not aware of the guidance notes issued by MoD on management within designated sites such as SACs? (NB Gibraltar is specifically mentioned in the relevant guidance note.) 3. White Papers—there have been two White Papers issued by the current Coalition Government of consequence here. The first “The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature” which was issued by DEFRA in 2011, and the second is specific to the UKOTs “The Overseas Territories Security, Success and Sustainability”, issued in June 2012. The former did raise one interesting issue and that was the reference to the National Security Council leading on matter related to UK Overseas Territories. (a) What is this coordinated approach and how will it be achieved? (b) What is its relevance to Gibraltar? The latter document sets out quite clearly the UK’s responsibilities for the UKOTs: P 14: “Defence and Security: the UK is committed to defend the Territories.” “International Support: the UK is responsible for the external relations of the Territories and uses its diplomatic resources and influence to promote their interests.” P 22: “We will continue to maintain an independent ability to defend the Territories—including their territorial waters and airspace—from any external security threats they may face.” “We will also ensure that the Territories are able to trade, to exploit their natural resources… free from undue external interference.” “The Royal Navy is tasked with... upholding the sovereignty of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.” P 48: “economic activity, including tourism and fisheries is managed in a way that is consistent with the long term sustainable use of the natural environment, including over-exploitation.” P 88: “Conclusion … We are defending robustly Territories which face external threats.” (c) To what extent can the UK government claim that they are meeting all of these in respect of Gibraltar? (d) The White Paper seems largely to be one-size-fits-all—to what extent is Gibraltar being a part of the EU taken properly into account? This is equally true of the HMG’s “UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy” where no regard is given to Gibraltar’s role in the EU. 4. The EU situation—which appears to be somewhat confused. (a) Is the European Union consistent in its approach to Gibraltar? (b) Which Commissioner(s)40 are responsible for matters relating to the ongoing disputes with Spain relevant to EU matters? 40 Options here include Commissioners for: Environment; Maritime Affairs and Fisheries; Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship; Inter-institutional Relations and Administration; Internal Market and Services; Taxation, Customs, Statistics, Audit and Anti-Fraud. Ev 126 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
(c) Given the number and range of possibilities, what role does the Commission President play if any? (d) Does the UK Government make its position clear and sufficiently often to the European Commission on matters pertaining to Gibraltar? (e) Does the UK Government supply relevant information in a timely manner and in the correct form to the Commission? (f) Is there sufficient liaison/provision of advice between DEFRA and JNCC in particular with Gibraltar on environmental issues? (g) Is there sufficient understanding in the Commission of issues pertaining to Gibraltar especially in DG ENV and DG MARE. (NB Officials in DG ENV were unaware that Gibraltar was not part of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the member of staff dealing with marine SACs was unaware of the case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). No meetings were possible with DG MARE, although representatives from Gibraltar have met with the Commissioner, but no feedback has been received to assist in drafting this note). (h) Why is Gibraltar effectively ignored and excluded from the EU Alboran Sea strategy? (i) Given the recent problems in North Africa, would it not be a good idea to promote involvement in such regional programmes with Algeria and Morocco? (j) On wider issues, what role will Gibraltar play in any re-negotiation of the EU Treaties? 5. Gibraltar’s status as a Mediterranean entity. It is clearly accepted as being part of the EU—it has received structural funds; has had proposals for SACs verified; and has an elected MEP. However, it is hardly, if ever, included as a Mediterranean entity alongside the seven existing member states. (a) Why for example is Gibraltar excluded from the extremely relevant EU-funded MEDPAN project? (An EU transnational cooperation programme of the EU Cohesion Policy, including “partners from 13 countries including the whole Northern Mediterranean seacoast” [except Gibraltar] to strengthen the competitiveness, employment and sustainable development of this area.) The EU makes considerable use of existing politico-legal processes in the Mediterranean, such as the Barcelona process and the Barcelona Convention to implement its own instruments, policies and processes. Specifically as regards fisheries, it uses the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM). (NB the GFCM deals not only with commercial fisheries, of which Gibraltar technically has none, but also with matters of direct concern to Gibraltar such as recreational fishing (which has a code of conduct), artificial reefs and non-fish species interactions). Gibraltar is currently outside all of these processes and at a major disadvantage, as it cannot work directly with them, as such matters are the responsibility of the UK Government. This is especially true for the more environmental processes such as the Barcelona Convention and its protocols and the GFCM, given the interactions with fisheries in the historical, current and ongoing dispute. (b) How does the UK Government see Gibraltar as a Mediterranean entity, especially within the EU? (c) What steps is HMG taking to see Gibraltar as part of these processes? (d) Does the desire not to upset the Spanish Government restrict or prevent HMG from entering into these politico-legal processes on behalf of Gibraltar? (e) There have been indications that HMG may be considering becoming a party to the Barcelona Convention—what progress on that front? (f) And similarly for GFCM? 6. UN procedures (a) Why is Gibraltar regularly excluded from the list of Mediterranean entities? (b) Why has HMG not dealt with this anomaly? (c) What action has been taken by HMG with UNESCO following the exclusion of Gibraltar from the Strait Biosphere Reserve? (d) Why has no action been taken with respect to IUCN ignoring Gibraltar? 7. Spain (a) If the Government of Spain is so convinced about their case, why did they not make a derogation as to their position on BGTW when they became parties to UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)? (b) Why have they never tested their case in the international courts?
THE FISHING DISPUTE T3. It is apparent that the dispute with Spanish fishermen is at least as much about territorial waters and sovereignty, as it is about fishing. That is notwithstanding the genuine difficulties of local Spanish artisanal fishermen, but that is a socio-economic issue for the Spanish authorities, not those of Gibraltar. Predicated on Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 127
the existence of BGTW under UNCLOS, and the recognition by the EU of Southern Waters SAC, it is quite clear that the Government of Gibraltar were, and are, entirely within their rights in enforcing the 1991 Nature Protection Act which the previous government had effectively by-passed with the so-called “Joint Understanding”. Indeed, had they not done so, it would have made the law effectively useless and undermined the rule of law and potentially created an ongoing issue with law enforcement in Gibraltar. Indeed citizens of Gibraltar fishing in Gibraltar waters have asked why they have been stopped and arrested under the same legislation when Spanish boats have not. Legislation brings with it consequences for both the legislators and those affected by the legislation; if those are ignored by either, this brings the law into disrepute. There is clearly backing for breaking the law from the Spanish capital as has become ever more apparent from recent statements by Spanish Ministers and actions in recent days concerning the new artificial reef.
THE ROLE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT T4. During discussions with those representing the UK Government, it has been apparent that—even if not stated overtly—their first thought was not protecting the interests of the citizens of Gibraltar (at least as they saw the issue) but in not upsetting the Spanish Government. Until late in 2012, when statements were made by the UK Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in support of Gibraltar and the summoning of the Spanish Ambassador following an incursion by a Spanish navy craft, little had been placed in the public domain in defence of Gibraltar by HMG. More robust statements have been made subsequently, following the delays at the border but predicated on not disturbing the good diplomatic relationship with Spain. This does seem to be mostly a one-way relationship, with Spain seemingly having little regard for such a relationship. The UK idea of diplomacy appears to be to back off in any near-conflict situation despite immense provocation both at the border and through the actions of the Guardia Civil. T5. During the preparation for the marine resources management report, less than thinly veiled hints were received from several quarters that it really would be in the best interests of all concerned if the recommendations in the Report would allow for some sort of fishing by Spanish fishermen. This ranged from “surely a few boats won’t make much difference” to “what about the Spanish boats undertaking some of the monitoring”. The former would have been entirely presumptuous and would have required a prediction on the outcomes of the analysis that, aside from a very preliminary report already provided at very short notice, was far from complete. It would also have been political in nature and would have exceeded the remit. The second “preferred option” would require (a) a knowledge of the monitoring regime which we did not have; (b) a scientific licence to allow any boats to catch fish with nets (otherwise illegal in BGTW under the 1991 Nature Protection Act); and (c) a means of verifying the location and type of any catches which would require monitoring in Spanish ports (most unlikely to be effective) or almost certainly require landings being made and checked in Gibraltar, also more than somewhat problematic. Apparently the FCO, who have made no comment on the Report, either privately or publicly, find it acceptable as it leaves the door open (albeit very narrowly) for some Spanish fishing and (in HMG’s view) for the GoG to back down gracefully.
THE NATURE PROTECTION ACT AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES T6. Even if no change to the NPA 1991 was to be the outcome of the recommendations of the final Report following detailed analysis (ie the 1991 Act stays as is), then there would still be a major issue with enforcement. The 1999 so-called “Joint Understanding” was not, and never could be, a formal agreement as (a) it was actually allowing ongoing severe breaches of the legislation specifically put in place to deal with fisheries practices; and was a fudge provided by the then Government of Gibraltar to avoid dealing with a difficult political situation and basically giving into external threats; and (b) since the Spanish government does not recognise the GoG, it could not make any formal agreement with it. This postponement of, rather than tackling, the fisheries issue at the time has probably exacerbated the situation by allowing illegal activities to continue for so long and to be seen to be the norm. Any suggestion of returning to the so-called 1999 “Joint Understanding” would render parts of the 1991 Act (passed it should be noted nem con) null and void and would make the law look ridiculous both in Gibraltar and outside. It should also be noted that the present GoG was given a firm mandate to deal with this issue at the last election—it being a clear manifesto commitment. T7. Given that the 1991 Act (unless weakened by repeal—which is unlikely given the GoG manifesto commitment and current policy position) there remains a major issue over enforcement. Under the 1999 “Joint Understanding” a “blind eye” was turned on Spanish fishing incursions, and the present situation was brought about by a change in this. Nonetheless, despite a still very gentle touch by the Gibraltar Marine Police, the problems escalated very quickly. This has included, in particular, the Spanish fishing boats undertaking the incursions being accompanied by armed Guardia Civil boats, with the encouragement and backing of both the regional and federal governments in Spain. Discussions with representatives of Her Majesty’s Forces in Gibraltar have indicated that the Royal Navy has, as its formal position, no remit for fisheries protection in BGTW, their only role being protection of territorial integrity. This also provides a fudge of sorts since it is quite clear that Spanish boats fishing and Guardia Civil boats in their company, clearly in a protection role, are not using the BGTW for navigation purposes. They are therefore breaching the territorial integrity of BGTW but, for both political and practical purposes, are regarded as fisheries and therefore not the remit of the Royal Navy. This line appears to have been reinforced somewhat by the written evidence provided by the Governor of Gibraltar to the EAC in this enquiry that, as fisheries come under environmental legislation, they are not within his purview in dealing with defence, security and foreign affairs (see para R1). There is also now an Ev 128 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
increased emphasis on problems relating to incursions by “state vessels”, again apparently trying to avoid dealing with fishing boats which HMG does not seem to regard as state vessels. As such, this would appear to be an attempt to further distance HMG from the need to defend the interests of Gibraltar and its citizens. Overall, there is apparently a reluctance to upset the Spanish for fear of escalation in the dispute—something that has happened anyway. T8. There is also reluctance on the part of the Gibraltar Marine Police to intercede, for two reasons it would appear. These are: first, as with the Royal Navy, the fears over causing an escalation in the dispute; and second, and more importantly, the very real and justifiable concern over sending unarmed and vulnerable officers in small craft against, not just fishing boats, but armed paramilitary Guardia Civil in larger boats. This makes for an unacceptable risk and puts an onus on the Gibraltar Police. It also puts a considerable and unacceptable burden on the Commissioner of Police, whose duty it is alone to take decisions on operational matters of which this is one. Under the Constitution, the Commissioner reports neither to the Governor (as used to be the case) nor the GoG. The Police Authority can provide guidance and advice and deal with non-operational matters, such as recruitment, but have no role in operational decisions. It is understood that there will be some operational changes in that a police post will be operated from the east side thus improving observation and cutting down response times and also the acquisition of a new dedicated fisheries protection vessel. T9. Discussions with the Captain of the Port provided information to the effect that he could reassign a boat from the Port to fisheries inspection duties once it had been reflagged as such but this too could be used only for monitoring and inspection purposes using trained inspectors, of which there are none currently. The boat would be unarmed and, if approached by armed Guardia Civil boats, would not engage and would break off any engagement with fishing boats. It is likely that the GoG will create a monitoring and inspection team; this would be welcome but will not enhance the enforcement capacity and capability—indeed it might make matters worse by increasing the number of defaulters identified. There are staffing implications here and the need for training programmes. The role of the newly created Coastguard and its powers are unclear, and will need to be investigated in this context.
RELATIONS WITH SPAIN T10. The concerns of HMG, in particular the FCO, seem to revolve around two issues. First, an apparent desire to protect, in some way, the citizens of Gibraltar inter alia from the imposition of stronger border controls causing even more disruption to their lives with the possibility, as HMG sees it, of the border being closed completely once more. There is a perception that Gibraltar needs Spain more than vice versa. In terms of the local economy (indeed, given that the problems in both regional and national economies in Spain, this may go wider), this would appear to be a false premise, but there may be unknown wider political issues directly applicable to Gibraltar and Spain. At the local level, other threats that seem to be under consideration as potential retaliation are the Guardia Civil using bigger boats than the Gibraltar boats as they increase in size, but nonetheless a larger dedicated boat is due shortly. Spanish Navy boats are being posted to Algeciras to deal with any operations by the Royal Navy, ie tit for tat following escalation. It is noted that a Spanish navy boat did enter BGTW in November 2012 (and another more recently) and a formal protest was issued to the Spanish government via its Ambassador in London. A further potential threat was noted as anchoring a large (Spanish Navy) boat across the flight path to the airport, thus hindering landings of aircraft and more recently once again closing Spanish airspace to aircraft. In discussions with HMG officials, any suggestions that the Royal Navy be utilised in fisheries protection were greeted with complete horror and leading to the suggestion that this would lead to starting a war.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS—THE UK PARLIAMENT FOREIGN AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE T11. In the course of preparing the main report, considerable efforts were made to investigate any relevant documentation or other sources of information or opinion relevant to the issue. One of these sources was a report of the UK Parliament Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dealing with “The British Government’s response to the current problems facing Gibraltar.” This dealt specifically inter alia with the dispute over fisheries pertaining at the time. It is extraordinary to read in that report how many of the issues remain unchanged from 13 years ago—and that their recommendations are still pertinent.
Lack of robustness by HMG T12. In light of the very real perceptions of Gibraltarians generally that not enough is being done by the British Government, perhaps the most pertinent recommendation arising from that report is “We conclude that there have been occasions in the past when the British defence of Gibraltarian interests has not been as robust as it should have been. Of all our overseas territories, Gibraltar is in the unique position of having to conform to almost all EU regulations and directives. This means that the British Government have a special duty of care towards Gibraltar in the European Union, and places extra responsibilities upon United Kingdom Ministers to uphold the interests of Gibraltar. We urge Her Majesty’s Government both to recognise and to act in full accordance with these responsibilities.” T13. It is apparent that this lack of robustness from HMG is still a common perception and attitude among the populace in Gibraltar. The Committee noted in its report that they were left in no doubt “that the people of Gibraltar will not capitulate under pressure. All such pressure does is to harden attitudes against Spain.” Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 129
The report further notes “Lowering the temperature of the debate is not synonymous with lack of firmness, though it can be mistaken as such in Gibraltar where there is a feeling that successive British Governments have not supported Gibraltar as actively as they might have done.” Some 13 years on from that drafting, the situation appears to be much the same, with the priority apparently being mollifying Spain ahead of defending the interests of the citizens of Gibraltar. Various reasons are put forward to explain this. HMG suggests that they are concerned about retaliatory action by Spain especially at the border or other transport arrangements to do with shipping or aircraft. Those less generous have suggested that it is more to do with arrangements in the EU, particularly voting in Council, or that there are a considerable number of UK citizens domiciled in Spain who might be disadvantaged by some sort of action against them. Further insight into this was provided by the Minister responsible for UKOTs at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in December 2012 (see below). Having been engaged for technical expertise rather than in foreign affairs and diplomacy, it is difficult to comment further other than to see that there seems to be a lack of regular oversight coupled with something of an “ostrich-head-in-the-sand mentality” among UK officials. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report also deals with this and notes, “We are also aware that Gibraltar figures much more highly on the Spanish foreign policy agenda than it does on the British. This is widely acknowledged in Gibraltar itself, and is perceived as causing difficulties. For example, Mr Christopher J Pitaluga told us that “the real difficulty posed by the Gibraltar problem is that it is of insufficient magnitude to warrant anything other than drift, muddle, fudge and obfuscation on the part of British civil servants whose concern lies with wider issues.” Instead of this alleged appeasement, Gibraltarian witnesses called for tough action. “
T14. There seems to be a perception at present in HMG that Gibraltar needs Spain more than vice versa. However, given the number of Spanish citizens who work in Gibraltar, the importance of Gibraltar to the local economy in the region, and the general financial malaise in Spain, this would seem to be a misreading of the situation.
Governance issues
T15. The report further noted “We are equally sure that neither this nor any other British Government will allow the sovereignty of Gibraltar to pass to Spain unless the people of Gibraltar want that outcome.” During the previous UK administration, this was by no means certain, with Ministers looking for a dual governance solution quite clearly against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. It is possible that there is an overhang of those times in the current relationship between HMG and the GoG, although the 2011 FCO White Paper makes it clear that this is not an option. It is also noteworthy, therefore, that in 2012 there have been several fairly (deliberately so?) low key statements from the UK Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to that end, but these statements very carefully avoid mention or consideration of matters relating to territorial waters. The most recent incursion by a Spanish navy boat followed on from some forceful statements from HMG, which then proceeded to do nothing—at least overtly. There seems to be a little of “huff and puff” but little in the way of substance to follow this. There does come a time when actions have to follow words. The exact mechanism of deciding when that should be is somewhat obscure.
T16. It is possible that representatives of HMG were awaiting the production of the report relating to sustainable use of marine living resources, sometimes shortened to the report on fishing, but the consultants have long ago advised them that it is going to be far from a magic bullet. It does, however, provide a much better (although still incomplete) scientific basis for management decisions from which an analysis of local political imperatives and legislative outcomes can be derived. The consultants can only provide recommendations—it is up to those in authority to decide to act on them, or not, and in what way. However it must also be stated that the research on fisheries is effectively an optional extra—the NPA 1991 was clearly put in place as an environmental protection measure, which proscribed various fishing practices. There should be no need to defend that with analysis of fisheries showing (as best as possible with existing incomplete data) illegal, unsustainable and damaging practices.
T17. Among its conclusions the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said “We recommend that the new process [NB now defunct] of dialogue should put issues of sovereignty on hold, and concentrate on exploring areas of co-operation.” It is impossible to know the extent to which the UK Government has attempted to follow this suggestion, if at all. There is some evidence that those in authority in Gibraltar have done so but with very limited success. There have been attempts by inter alia the Maritime Authority, the Royal Gibraltar Police and the Port Authority, and of course the Chief Minister with the fisheries MoU to engage with local interests, all of which have failed because of interference at regional or national level within Spain. There is clearly willingness on the part of Gibraltar to seek to cooperate locally and some evidence of reciprocity locally but all fail at a national level. Thus the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s Report went on to say, “Negativity, whether in Gibraltar, Madrid or London, serves no-one. Constructive engagement, with give and take on both sides, and a practical approach to cross-border co-operation is a solution which the Committee believes can be embraced by people of goodwill in Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. Support for such a solution should be the British Government’s principal response to the current problems facing Gibraltar,” While a positive response has been noted from Gibraltar the same cannot be said for either Spain or UK. Ev 130 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Consideration of fisheries T18. In this context, the specific issue of fisheries was dealt with in the Report. It notes “Mr Caruana told us of the contacts he had developed with the local authorities at the level of town, provincial deputation and region. What he has done to secure an agreement with local Spanish fishing interests demonstrates how progress can be made. Gibraltarian witnesses argued that leaving Madrid out of the equation might help this process. For example, the Gibraltar Council of the European Movement wrote that the “present campaign of harassment” will “only achieve the souring of relationships between Gibraltar and the neighbouring towns.” The Gibraltar Labour Party believed that “interregional co-operation without Madrid/London interference could be the way ahead.” The devolved governmental structure in Spain makes possible a substantial level of development of policy on economic development and co-operation at regional level in Andalucia, but ultimately the foreign policy is determined in Madrid. The agreement referred to in this paragraph is the so-called “Joint Understanding” which was clearly derived under duress and promoted breaching the laws of Gibraltar. The progress referred to was made entirely in favour of Spanish fishermen while the only gain from Gibraltar’s point of view was a cessation in the level of harassment. Sadly, this was the cause of some congratulation from the then UK Foreign Minister, Joyce Quin. The FCO issued a press release to the effect that the agreement was “very welcome” and that it had the “strong support of the British Government and of the Governor.” Note use of the word “agreement” rather than “understanding” even though there was dispute over the exact wording in English vs. Spanish versions. As well as the written “Joint Understanding” there was a prior verbal “agreement” between the then Foreign Secretary with the Spanish Foreign Minister without representation from Gibraltar.
Enforcement issues T19. A very significant issue revolved around enforcement. The Committee stated, “There is one important constitutional point to be made in the context of the fishing dispute. The Commissioner of the RGP has operational responsibility for the RGP and “exercises normal policing discretion when taking decisions on operational matters, on the same lines as Chief Constables in the United Kingdom.” Whatever agreement there may be between the British and Spanish Governments, or between Mr Caruana and the fishermen, it is for the Commissioner to decide how to enforce the law. It is wrong to place a Chief Officer in a position where he is asked to enforce the law in a way which is politically expedient. Ms Quin told the House that the Government hoped that the agreement would be “backed up by legislation in the Gibraltar Assembly.” We agree. We understand Mr Caruana’s concern that amending the law might appear to be capitulation to Spanish pressure, but we do not believe that this is the case.” Perhaps the most worrying observation (although not framed as a conclusion or recommendation was “We hope that the Government of Gibraltar will seek to amend the Nature Protection Ordinance so that the informal understanding about the extent to which it is not to be enforced is given proper legal effect.” Clearly (and fortunately) this did not happen and the mandate provided to the present Government of Gibraltar works in the opposite direction. T20. Very much related to the above, the FASC noted,”We were surprised to learn that the Royal Navy based in Gibraltar is not tasked to support the RGP on fisheries protection or drugs interdiction, though the Royal Navy had trained the RGP in methods of intercepting and boarding vessels. The Royal Navy did, however, have the job of maintaining the integrity of Gibraltarian territorial waters. Spanish official vessels (for example, of the Guardia Civil) could be intercepted and asked to leave, though they had the right of innocent passage under international law. When requested in the House to arrange for the dispatch of a fisheries protection vessel to Gibraltar at the height of the fishing dispute, Ms Quin did not give any specific response. We can understand that to have acceded to this request might have been deemed to have been inflammatory at the time. However, the FCO confirmed to us that HM Forces in Gibraltar are responsible for “providing aid as appropriate to the civil authorities”, and earlier in the dispute the Government had said that the deployment of a fisheries protection vessel “to aid in calming the situation” was one of the options they were considering. Mr Caruana made it clear that he would expect the Royal Navy to be used if the situation required, and we understand that the Governor would not hesitate to ask the Government to deploy the Royal Navy in aid of the RGP if a strong case was made to him by the Commissioner. We recommend that the Royal Navy should be tasked to support the Royal Gibraltar Police in their duties of fisheries protection and the interdiction of smuggling. The unacceptable and unfair arrangements with respect to the Commissioner of the RGP pertain. There is a considerable burden on the Commissioner to implement what is effectively a political process and with insufficient resources. It is very rare for the Royal Navy to intercede in any fisheries (or indeed other) incursions, contrary to the recommendation of the Committee and in contrast to what appears to be a practical solution adopted elsewhere in UK waters, for that is what they are.
European Union matters T21. To return to the European Union “The Committee has made it plain that it believes that the British Government must robustly defend Gibraltar’s rights in the European Union, both through action at the European Commission and through bilateral diplomacy with other EU Member States. This has not been done with sufficient vigour in the past. It must also continue to make clear and high-level representations to Spain, at ministerial and ambassadorial level, whenever improper pressure is put on Gibraltar, making it plain that the British Government is prepared to take reciprocal action against Spanish interests if Spain takes unreasonable action against Gibraltar.” It further noted, “Spanish membership of the EU has given Spain an important arena Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 131
in which it is able both to make accusations against Gibraltar, and to manoeuvre against the interests of the territory”. Spain has not been slow to take advantage of this. And the “special duty of care” mentioned in the Committee report with respect to EU membership does not appear to have been followed. T22. Leaving aside the most glaring error by HMG of allowing the European Commission to agree to the Spanish government annexing BGTW as part of its SAC after it had been agreed to be a UK SAC, the same appears to be happening with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The government of Spain has already produced a management plan incorporating BGTW. What steps is the UK taking to ensure that the EC does not repeat this error?
UK GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPERS T22. “The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature” There are two White Papers that have been issued by the current coalition government of consequence here. The first “The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature” was issued by DEFRA in 2011. Initially, the consultation paper leading to this suggested that DEFRA’s responsibilities extended only to England following devolution but, following that consultation, inserted a section on DEFRA’s international responsibilities which had been missing previously. Included among these was their interest in UK Overseas Territories and this was dealt with in one single paragraph, 5.11: “We will also continue to give priority to the UK Overseas Territories (OTs) Biodiversity Strategy, through a co-ordinated approach across government that is led by the National Security Council. The Government will continue its engagement with the OTs in their efforts to conserve their biodiversity through programmes such as the Flagship Species Fund and one-off initiatives such as the £200,000 contribution towards a project to eradicate rodents on Henderson Island in the Pitcairn Group. Moreover, the Darwin Initiative is also making a significant difference to wildlife in our OTs. An additional £1.5 million has already been invested in Darwin projects in the three years from 2010, and this sum will increase further as a result of the new Darwin funding referred to above.” As far as Gibraltar was concerned the latter part of that paragraph is fairly immaterial as funding from the then Darwin Fund41 was extremely unlikely. Matters relating to the EU, also covered in the international section of the White Paper, did not also encompass Gibraltar. T23. However, the paragraph did raise one interesting issue and that was the reference to the National Security Council leading on matters related to Overseas Territories. What is this coordinated approach and how will it be achieved? Questions to the Minister to that effect produced obfuscatory answers. Reference to the National Security Strategy (A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty produced in 2010) provides little in the way of answers. Strangely, although much could be read into the text that implicitly may deal with the Overseas Territories, there is very little that explicitly deals with them. There are only two specific mentions and they are in the breakdown of priorities, the first is in Tier two: “An attack on the UK or its Overseas Territories by another state or proxy using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons”; and the second in Tier three: “An attack on a UK overseas territory as the result of a sovereignty dispute or a wider regional conflict.” Given some predictions of war by UK officials if the fishing dispute escalates, it is possible that the latter could relate to Gibraltar but, other than that, it is still very unclear what responsibilities the NSC has in respect of leading on UKOTs. So the question still requires clarification. There is, however, one useful sentence and one useful section in the National Security Strategy with respect to wider issues. In a section called “National Security and British values” it is noted that “The UK has a proud tradition of protecting its citizens, promoting civil liberties and upholding the rule of law.” This is clearly something with which the Government of Gibraltar would agree, certainly in respect of fishing infractions. The section relates to strategy production. The Strategy notes, “A national security strategy, like any strategy, must be a combination of ends (what we are seeking to achieve), ways (the ways by which we seek to achieve those ends) and means (the resources we can devote to achieving the ends). A strategy must reflect the context in which it is developed, the particular strengths and skills that we can bring to bear (our areas of comparative advantage) be clear, but also flexible, to take account of uncertainty and change. It must also take account of the activities of others: the positive contributions of allies and partners and of the private sector; and the negative effect of adversaries seeking to thwart our objectives. Therefore a strategy must also be based on creative insight into how best to achieve our own objectives and prevent adversaries from achieving theirs. It must balance the ends, ways and means. The ways and means by which we seek to achieve our objectives must be appropriate and sufficient and the objectives must also be realistic in light of the means available”. It is interesting, particularly in the light of HMG’s “UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy” which is deficient in most respects with regard to these principles and upon which much apparently rests in terms of implementing government policy. T24. “The Overseas Territories Security, Success and Sustainability” The second and most recent output on generic policy with respect to the UK Overseas’ Territories as a whole is the White Paper “The Overseas Territories Security, Success and Sustainability” issued in June 2012. Unfortunately it fails to recognize properly the Gibraltar situation especially with regard to EU membership, unlike the situation with other UKOTs. The 2012 White Paper sets out quite clearly what Britain’s responsibilities are in this situation: 41 Changes to the Darwin Initiative were announced following the publication of the FCO White Paper on UK Overseas Territories but the consequences for Gibraltar are as yet unclear Ev 132 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
P 14: “Defence and Security: the UK is committed to defend the Territories.” “International Support: the UK is responsible for the external relations of the Territories and uses its diplomatic resources and influence to promote their interests.” P 22: “We will continue to maintain an independent ability to defend the Territories—including their territorial waters and airspace—from any external security threats they may face.” “We will also ensure that the Territories are able to trade, to exploit their natural resources… free from undue external interference.” “The Royal Navy is tasked with... upholding the sovereignty of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.” P 48: “economic activity, including tourism and fisheries is managed in a way that is consistent with the long term sustainable use of the natural environment, including over-exploitation.” P 88: “Conclusion … We are defending robustly Territories which face external threats.” It would be entirely possible to put “except Gibraltar” in brackets after each of these commitments given the situation in practice rather than in theory.
RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN HMG Further information from the UK Parliament Foreign Affairs Select Committee in December 2012 T25. Gibraltar is not the responsibility of the Overseas Territories Directorate in the FCO but, as part of a member state of the EU, falls under the Western Europe Directorate. There appears, until very recently, to have been little cooperation between the two sections. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has decided thus far not to hold an enquiry on the UKOTs White Paper as the EAC is currently holding this one. However, on 11th December 2012, it held an evidence session on the White Paper with Mark Simmonds MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State; Peter Hayes, the newly appointed Director for Overseas Territories, and Tim Colley, Deputy Director for Overseas Territories, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Note that neither the Minister responsible for Europe nor the Western European section was represented. This was despite, it is believed, the Committee advising that significant questioning would relate to Gibraltar and the Falklands, neither of which are the attending Minister’s responsibility. T26. An examination of the record of that meeting shows that matters relating to this undertaking on Gibraltar were considered following a couple of questions by Committee members. The answers were given with the obvious caveat that the Minister answering was not the one responsible but would provide such information as he could. It is clear that those present representing the FCO had been given a briefing, but that is not quite the same as having those with direct responsibility present. Some interesting responses were elicited by the Committee. In response to a question about the dispute over territorial waters, the Minister made observations on the following points: — on the fisheries dispute, he wrongly referred to the 1999 document as being an agreement rather than an understanding; — the territorial limit was referred to wrongly as being 3km and it being an “exclusion zone”, but noted under UNCLOS it could go to 12km; — although the fisheries dispute was a serious issue, incursions by the Guardia Civil were more serious; — it was noted that “Gibraltar “forces” meet them and encourage them to leave” [note interesting choice of the word “forces”] and that dealing with the GC was “challenging” as they have right of navigation provided it is by the shortest route possible and that is difficult to show, so have to monitor them [this seems utterly disingenuous when GC boats are clearly circling Spanish boats to protect them and not undertaking any sort of passage]. — as to why the UK government does not do more to protect our waters, there was a fairly generic response to the effect that, in almost every other context of international relations, the UK and Spain have very positive relationships—eg EU, UN, parts of Africa on conflict resolution and counter- terrorism. — further, the UK Government wishes to be firm and determined but is not convinced that ratcheting up the rhetoric or moving to “a more aggressive gunboat diplomacy” would be a positive and responsible response. — it was accepted that some in the Gibraltar Government would like more action; however HMG monitors the situation constantly and keeps it under review but reiterated that at the moment does not feel it would be beneficial to ratchet up the rhetoric or the action. T27. John Stanley MP asked about the Special Area of Conservation and the ECJ result, which had been the subject of a written answer by the Foreign Secretary the day before and was told that the case had been lost on “technical grounds”. The Minister would not go into those but offered to provide written feedback to the Committee. John Stanley MP further asked whether this loss was in any way due to incompetence by UK official(s) but was referred back to the written note to be provided. The Minister said that, despite the legal outcome, impact on the ground would be negligible—the British government does not recognise the Spanish position on the SAC. (What about the EU position?; how will this be dealt with by the Commission?) Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 133
John Stanley MP then asked about Spanish restrictions on UK planes and Royal Navy boats despite both governments being NATO members. The Minister agreed that these were regrettable but this was blamed on the Spanish having withdrawn from the former tripartite discussions. The Minister was unable to say much about the detail but the UK was trying to get communications going again in structured way; again he could not go into details but there are continuing very high-level contacts with Spain to address both fisheries/ territorial waters and NATO issues. T28. The Chairman said that the Committee wished to express continuing concerns but felt that the government were probably right in their current degree of (in)action but also there will come a time when we can no longer continue and see UK citizens harassed in this way. (This rather begs the questions—how will it be decided when enough is enough? Who will take that decision and on what basis? What process is in place and is the NSC involved?)
Liaison within HMG T29. Given the above, it seems likely that it is Gibraltar’s misfortune to fall between the slats. It is a UKOT but not dealt with by the relevant FCO Directorate for UKOTs and, as it is part of the EU, coming under Western Europe within the FCO, which has a whole range of other priorities, especially related to the EU. The situation within the EU and the consequences for Gibraltar appear to be poorly understood by officials, not just within the FCO but within DEFRA and, most importantly, its statutory advisors JNCC, on which DEFRA appear unfortunately over-reliant. The latter, at a meeting in December 2011, appeared to be unaware that, as far as the European Commission is concerned, BGTW are UK waters as far as implementation of directives are concerned and require Gibraltar input alongside that from UK. It was also disturbing to learn—especially after persistent protestations from DEFRA, in the context of the UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy, that nothing can be imposed on UKOTs—that JNCC altered documentation to the European Commission on the Gibraltar SAC without reference to the Gibraltar Government.
The Ministry of Defence T30. In the context of coordination, it is also worthwhile mentioning the Ministry of Defence. There seems to be a good relationship between Gibraltar and the MoD Advisor on environment, who is apparently a regular visitor to Gibraltar. Discussions were also held by the marine consultant with the then Head of the Armed Forces in Gibraltar, ostensibly about enforcement and sovereignty issues but strayed on to issues of biodiversity conservation. There was (then about to be revised) a guidance note for the armed forces on their use and management of protected areas under UK and EU legislation dealing with both habitats and species. The Head of the Armed Forces stated that he was unaware of any such guidance while the advisor stated that, if he was not aware, he should have been. One of the outcomes is that the habitat of two Habitats Directive Annex IV species suffered significant damage and a number of animals were lost as a result of MoD operations. Any such operations should have been cleared with the relevant authority—in this case the Gibraltar Department of the Environment—before proceeding but they MoD failed to do so. A formal letter was subsequently sent from the Minister to the MoD. Other examples were provided, in relation for example to erosion management, where cooperation and coordination have not been good. There is also the use by the Armed Forces of the Southern Waters SAC for training purposes and ensuring avoidance of sensitive areas, as well as the use for ordnance disposal, although the latter may have ceased.
GIBRALTAR’S STATUS WITHIN THE MEDITERRANEAN UN System T31. It is apparent that the UK Government does not see itself as having a Mediterranean entity, even though it has responsibility for Gibraltar within the EU. There is also some confusion in the EU and in Mediterranean initiatives as to the status of Gibraltar—indeed, to some, it does not seem to exist. In some documents it is regarded as a Mediterranean entity/country; in some it is noted but with a statement that it is subject of a dispute with Spain and then no longer considered in the context of the document; or it is ignored completely. These processes also link into UN procedures. There are, of course, issues relating to the status of Gibraltar with respect to self-determination. However, Gibraltar is clearly recognised as an entity within the UN system, and that issue is not dealt with here. On most occasions, the UN in its publications speaks of 21 riparian states within the Mediterranean; on very few occasions there is mention of 22 riparian countries and territories, which one assumes is referring to Gibraltar but is not explicit. The Strategic Action Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity (SAP BIO) in the Mediterranean Region drafted by the United Nations Environment Programme Regional Activity Centre For Specially Protected Areas does not acknowledge Gibraltar and, for example, fails to mention inter alia Gibraltar’s importance for Patella ferruginea in its annex dealing with areas important for certain species. Gibraltar is also missing from the Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean LME (Large Marine Ecosystem) drafted by UNEP/MAP and one of the analytical tools used in its production the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Mediterranean Sea. More relevant to the EU, but once again diagnostic is the Communication from the Commission of 5 September 2006 entitled: “Establishing an environment strategy for the Mediterranean” [COM(2006) 475 final. All of these publications rely on the country in question being a party to the Barcelona Convention—which UK/Gibraltar is not. Cooperation around the relatively new ICZM (Integrated Coastal Zone Management) Protocol falls into the Ev 134 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
same category. In the very latest UN publication concerning the Mediterranean UNEP/MAP: State of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment, UNEP/MAP—Barcelona Convention, Athens, 2012, there is again no mention of Gibraltar, as once again it relies entirely on the Barcelona Convention for its framework. T32. A good example of the first category where Gibraltar is disadvantaged is the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS, an agreement under a UN treaty, the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species—CMS). Here, UK/Gibraltar is listed as a Mediterranean country and has the status of a non-party, ie it could be a full party if it wished. By contrast, Gibraltar is covered by EUROBATS, an equivalent agreement under CMS, as an uncontroversial component part of the UK ratification, although the reports from Gibraltar are rather short and somewhat hidden away in the UK report. Arguably, ACCOBAMS is far more important in a biodiversity context to Gibraltar than EUROBATS. Apparently, the UK Government did consider joining ACCOBAMS in 2002 and 2004. It attended a couple of its meetings as observers and has provided funding to it on a voluntary basis but, as of 2010, it was still considering becoming a party to the Agreement. Is the fear of upsetting Spain behind the reason so far not to become a Party to this agreement?
European Union T33. An example of a second category is the range of activities/initiatives on the Alboran Sea (these are part-EU, part-IUCN, part governments of Spain, Algeria and Morocco). The strategy for the Alboran Sea was initiated by IUCN in 2007. When dealing with “the Legal and International situation”, this fails even to mention Gibraltar. A document “The potential of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Mediterranean Sea Case study report: The Alboran Sea”, prepared for the European Commission, mentions Gibraltar almost as an aside at the outset, and then largely ignores it for operational purposes in the rest of the document. For a third category, there are numerous examples where Gibraltar is missed off the list of Mediterranean riparian states. These examples include the Barcelona Convention, UNEP Regional Seas and many EU documents, despite the UK/ Gibraltar being part of the EU. It is telling that a search on Eurostat (where statistics for the EU are collated) for any documents with Gibraltar included provides a nil return. EU documents usually describe 7 member states of the EU in the Mediterranean—Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia and Malta. Gibraltar is not listed among the remaining 14 riparian states either. Gibraltar is missed off the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan that “has been extended to involve all 21 countries that border the Mediterranean Sea”.
Other regional initiatives T34. There is a fourth category where Gibraltar has been deliberately excluded from involvement in some form of regional initiative. A good example of that is the Strait Biosphere Reserve, falling under UNESCO. T35. Thus different parts of the UN under their MEA arrangements deal with Gibraltar in completely different ways. The responsibility for managing arrangements with such treaties lays with the UK Government, not the Gibraltar Government. The example of ACCOBAMS is particularly puzzling, given the strategic importance of both Strait and Bay of Gibraltar to cetaceans and that in this case Gibraltar/UK is actually recognised as a potential partner in the Agreement. For some of these agreements, eg the Barcelona Convention, the EU is a contracting party but it is unclear what role—if any—the UK Government plays, or can play, in the arrangement.
The role of IUCN T36. At a slightly lower level internationally is the organisation IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). Although officially an observer at the UN, it is part-government and part-non- government. As such, it often tries to run with the hare but also hunt with the hounds. IUCN also tends to ignore Gibraltar’s existence. In its review of implementation of the Biodiversity Convention by UKOTs, in 2010 it stated that Gibraltar was not a party to the CBD, which is incorrect, and thus failed to consider it. IUCN is responsible for managing implementation of the Alboran Sea strategy, which also misses out Gibraltar. It should be noted that IUCN operates a Mediterranean office in Malaga with considerable financial support from within Spain. Confirmation has now been received from a former senior employee of IUCN in the Malaga office that any mention of Gibraltar in documents is vetoed, with the threat of withdrawal of funds. Several attempts were made to engage with the IUCN officer responsible for marine issues within that office but without success. The UK has been an active member of IUCN, both at government and non-government levels, but of late the UK Government has decided that IUCN is no longer a priority. However, it does need to address the relationship with IUCN with respect to Gibraltar as IUCN is tasked by the European Commission with much of the liaison and policy implementation within the Mediterranean. T37. It is apparent that Gibraltar is marginalised in a Mediterranean context by the absence of representation in the many relevant pan-Mediterranean processes, including for example the high level ones such as the Euro- Mediterranean Partnership as well as those specific to environmental matters. It is not clear whether this is deliberate on the part of HMG—as any involvement would have to be through the UK Government as responsible for foreign affairs for Gibraltar—or an oversight or through diplomatic difficulties caused by the ongoing dispute with Spain. The full extent of the problem can be seen in a Blue Plan Note (No 22 June 2012) “20 years of sustainable development in the Mediterranean: review and outlook” which outlines the founding Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 135
acts of sustainable development co-operation in the Mediterranean region, the main processes over the past 20 years and the region’s major sustainable development trends.
CONCLUSIONS T38. It seems apparent that there is still a perception within Gibraltar, both in government circles and among the general populace that the UK Government does insufficient to protect the interests of the citizens of Gibraltar in respect of the relationship with the government of Spain. Perceptions within the UK are much more difficult to gauge since little of this reaches the public domain inside the UK, by contrast to the situation in Spain. This apparent relationship is all the more difficult to comprehend given that there should be shared interests and many common legal instruments (especially related to border controls and customs matters but also environmental issues) within the EU; common membership of NATO; and, according to the Minister responsible for Overseas Territories (but not Gibraltar) when responding to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons in December 2012, close cooperation between UK and Spain in the UN and on conflict resolution and counter-terrorism. The perception is that this is very much biased in favour of Spain with everything being done not to upset the Spanish government at the expense of Gibraltar’s interests. T39. Within the EU (and also internationally in general), Gibraltar finds itself at a significant disadvantage, since any formal discussions or negotiations are undertaken by the UK Government, as foreign affairs and defence are reserved powers. This is further exacerbated by much of the EU policy related to environmental issues in the Mediterranean being implemented through the Barcelona Convention, to which Gibraltar is not a Party. It cannot be so without the UK Government ratifying on its behalf. To further complicate matters, some initiatives such as the Alboran Sea initiative encompass BGTW but fail to relate to Gibraltar at all. This is typical of the approach of IUCN, which unfortunately is often tasked with implementing initiatives in the Mediterranean, but does not seem to recognise the existence of Gibraltar. T40. The fishing dispute is also complicated by the fact that Gibraltar is not subject to the EU Common Fisheries Policy, as technically it has no commercial fishing interests. For fisheries in the Mediterranean, there is a separate regime under the CFP closely allied to the work of the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM). Again, Gibraltar is not a Party to this organisation and would require the UK Government to accede on its behalf. This is not to suggest that Gibraltar should either become part of the CFP or that it should manage a commercial fishing fleet in BGTW. There are other good reasons to be part of the GFCM, for example for recreational fishing. T41. A more fundamental reason, which applies even more so in the context of the Barcelona Convention, is that Gibraltar is almost completely marginalised on environmental issues within the Mediterranean because it is not associated with mainstream environmental processes, including those operated within the EU. It is difficult to gauge whether this is due to previous governments in Gibraltar wishing to remain outside these processes or possibly a deliberate decision on the part of HMG not to risk possibly further exacerbating the situation with the Government of Spain, or possibly an oversight on the part of a succession of those in the UK Government with responsibility for Gibraltar. The latter is quite possible, given that there appears to be no joined up strategy for dealing with Gibraltar as it cuts across two sections within the FCO (Overseas Territories Directorate and Western Europe Directorate); has strong MoD involvement (especially given its still strong strategic importance as a military resource and as a landholder); is considered as a UKOT by DEFRA but seemingly not really taking into account its links to the EU (unique among UKOTs); and JNCC, which treats it as part of its international programme and seemingly fails to deal with it as part of the EU, with BGTW being UK territorial waters in an EU context. Much is made in UK Government circles of the UK Government’s so-called “UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy” but this fails to address the situation of Gibraltar as part of the EU (as well as its many other failings noted previously). Furthermore, the European Union and the Commission have not helped, in particular failing to deal with the dispute over territorial waters openly and transparently. The test for them will surely be how the management plans for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) are dealt with and to what extent the UK Government takes action to defend the interests of Gibraltar in this respect. One particular element raised in the operationalisation of the MSFD is a strong component of cooperation with neighbouring countries both within the EU and with non-EU countries. The relationship with Spain is sure to be tested in this respect. Given the need for strengthening links with North African countries after the Arab Spring and recent problems in the region, it is a great pity that Gibraltar has been excluded from both the Strait Biosphere Reserve and the Alboran Sea Initiative, although there are some good links between Gibraltar and Morocco especially after an INTERREG-funded project. (INTERREG is an initiative that aims to stimulate cooperation between regions in the European Union.) T42. On the basis of the above it is recommended that: (A) HMG reviews its internal processes with respect to Gibraltar and derives a specific strategy (assuming none exists already but, if it does, it needs revision) with, in the first instance, a cross- departmental task force, but including representatives of the Government of Gibraltar, to establish the framework and objectives. Initially, this need to deal with environmental issues particularly around territorial matters but could be expanded to other areas as needed. This should include some mechanism for deciding when action and what action needs to be taken by the UK Government in respect of Spanish maritime incursions and unreasonable (and probably unlawful) delays at the border. Ev 136 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
(B) If not already in place, to make strong representations within the EU regarding Spain’s annexing of BGTW within its management plan for the MSFD. (C) Even before any strategy is completed, gently to integrate Gibraltar into wider Mediterranean processes including particularly the Barcelona Convention to which the UK should become a Contracting Party at the earliest opportunity, also ACCOBAMS (an agreement to reduce threats to cetaceans in Mediterranean and Black Sea waters and improve our knowledge of these animals) with immediate effect and the GFCM. (D) HMG should take action with respect to IUCN at the highest level.
MR LIDINGTON’S LETTER T43. UKOTCF is aware that David Lidington MP, the FCO Minister responsible for Gibraltar matters, was unhappy at some of the evidence provided by the Forum to the EAC as part of this enquiry and which led to a number of Parliamentary Questions. Mr Lidington has subsequently written to the Chair of the Committee. T44. Many of the issues about which there is some dispute are covered in the additional supplementary evidence above, and so UKOTCF does not wish to dwell too much on the content of the letter but there are a few matters with which we wish to deal directly. T45. It is well understood that the Government of Gibraltar is responsible for environmental matters under its Constitution and that HMG is responsible for foreign affairs, defence and security. However, we doubt that many will follow the line now being produced by HMG that, as fisheries come under the environmental legislation of Gibraltar, HMG has no role to play in enforcement when it is perfectly plain that: (a) the fishing dispute is being used as a proxy for the sovereignty/territorial dispute with Spain; (b) the incursions by Spanish boats are in breach of BGTW; (c) the recent apparent emphasis on separating State vessels (with fishing boats not being treated in this category) in respect of infractions is something of a red herring as they are often accompanied by Guardia Civil boats very clearly not using BGTW for navigation purposes; (d) the Royal Gibraltar Police are ill equipped to deal with paramilitary police armed with automatic weapons in larger rigid boats; (e) the Government of Gibraltar has asked for assistance in dealing with these incursions from the Royal Navy who we are reliably informed are under instruction from the FCO not to get directly involved beyond the standard radio message asking Spanish vessels to leave BGTW; (f) the use of the Royal Navy in dealing with incursions by Spanish boats was a very clear recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee when it held an enquiry into Gibraltar in 1999. T46. UKOTCF did not suggest—indeed it never has suggested—that the present Coalition Government should wish to abolish the Nature Protection Act 1991. Dr Tydeman, in his Report to the Government of Gibraltar, also has not suggested this. UKOTCF did point out that Mrs Joyce Quin, the then Minister responsible in the FCO, had suggested (apparently as the previous government’s policy) to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee during the aforementioned 1999 enquiry that the Nature Protection Act 1991 should be repealed so as to make the so-called “agreement/understanding” the legal position, ie that fishing with nets would no longer be illegal. UKOTCF expressed a view to the Committee that they hoped that this was not the position of the present government—which Mr Lidington has now done in a somewhat roundabout fashion in his letter. T47. UKOTCF cannot comment on the suggestion that HMG has supported HMGoG’s efforts to reach a solution to the dispute with Spanish fishermen since we have not been party to any such discussions. However, Dr Tydeman when compiling information on his Report, found little evidence of that and certainly perceptions in Gibraltar are that such encouragement was sorely lacking. Dr Tydeman did hold several meetings with local Spanish fishing interests on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) drawn up by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and local fishermen but these proved fruitless as the fishermen reneged on the MoU. There is no doubt that local fishermen, especially from La Linea, are having difficulties—but that is not of Gibraltar’s making, nor should it be of their solution. It is clear from statements arising from within both Andalusia and the Government of Spain that, despite the problems for fishermen, the dispute is being used as a proxy for the wider issue. The Government of Gibraltar is not in a position to deal with that since, as the Minister himself pointed out, it is HMG that is responsible for foreign affairs. Local solutions are suggested for a number of issues and seem to find a practical outcome until such time as they have to be formalised and they are then blocked at a national level by Spain. Suggesting that a local solution is possible now would only seem to be practical if there is a reversion to the 1999 “understanding” or similar which allows for Spanish fishing in BGTW in breach of the laws of Gibraltar. No formal agreement is possible between Gibraltar and Spain, as Spain does not recognise the right of Gibraltar to make such. This leaves the matter firmly with HMG. T48. The Minister once again has confirmed that the Royal Navy is there to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity in BGTW and not for fisheries protection, and once again makes the distinction between fishing vessels as private vessels and other “state” vessels. This line of argument seems rather akin to the old question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Spanish boats are Spanish boats and the fishing Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 137
boats are registered as Spanish, leaving aside the issue of the fishing boats being “accompanied” by boats from the Guardia Civil. Elsewhere in British waters the Royal Navy deals with both territorial integrity and illegal fishing. The Minister also continues with the line that all incursions are closely monitored and then issue appropriate (to whom?) warnings. Given the scale of the incursions, this seems rather a pitiful response— monitoring merely provides information on how many boats, where and when—and the warnings are almost completely ignored. T49. The reference by Mr Lidington to “suggestions” by UKOTCF was deliberately unspecific since it referred in fact to the words of his colleague, Mr Simmonds, when speaking to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in December 2012. T50. There is a clear perception, both within Gibraltar and amongst the general public in the UK, that Spain adopts bullying tactics against Gibraltar. As this relates to much wider matters than the fishing dispute (even if one accepts the rather frail argument that fisheries enforcement falls under environment legislation), it clearly falls within the remit of HMG and it is impossible for the HMGoG to deal with. The argument that action will lead to escalation has now become merely a theoretical argument, as there is already a state of escalation. The UK Government may be clear that “unlawful incursions by vessels of the Spanish State are an unacceptable violation of British sovereignty and contrary to international law, specifically the provisions of UNCLOS.” The maintenance of diplomatic pressure, as described by Mr Lidington, would appear to have no positive consequence at all—the Spanish government merely ignores it and carries on as before. The UK Government’s idea of diplomacy seems to be to back off from tackling the issues and taking any practical steps. While it is possible to accept the argument that the UK Government does not wish to put at risk good diplomatic relations with the Government of Spain, there seems to be a distinct lack of reciprocity. T51. If bullies are allowed to carry on without any practical attempt to tackle that behaviour, then bullies will continue to do so. Unfortunately, the consequences fall on Gibraltar while the solutions lie mostly within the UK Government. We are certain that the people of Gibraltar would be much happier to see the sort of robust response to the issues raised by UKOTCF focused on the Government of Spain, rather than try to finesse reasons for not taking action and raising unfounded criticisms against a small UK NGO fulfilling its remit. UKOTCF would, of course, be very happy to discuss the issues concerning fisheries and Gibraltar with Mr Lidington.
U. Final remarks U1. In evidence to the Committee, Ministers complained that the Committee was focussing on the negative and ignoring the achievements. The Committee Chair rightly pointed out that, to improve matters, one needs to look at what needs improving. U2. There are some excellent examples of positive achievements of conservation in UKOTs and Crown Dependencies. Some outstanding examples are: (a) The recovery of the Bermuda petrel or cahow from near extinction (due to earlier human actions); (b) The now likely recovery of the Cayman blue iguana from a similar human-induced reduction to a few individuals; (c) The rescue of several threatened endemic plant species from near extinction on St Helena and the outstanding success of the Millennium Gumwood Forest; (d) The restoration of breeding seabirds to the main island of Ascension; (e) The protection of certain key sites as World Heritage Sites and Wetlands of International Importance; (f) The development and introduction of environmental education materials based on the unique ecology and environment of individual territories, rather than using standard material from Europe or North America or other islands within the region but of markedly different ecology. (g) Good interpretative printed and website material and signage in local nature reserves, supporting local incomes through sustainable tourism—as well as reinforcing (f) above (h) The exchange of expertise between territories, so that projects that would not be achievable without this became possible. (i) Introduction of sustainable fisheries at South Georgia. U3. However, set against this have to be, for example: (j) The fact that so many species have been lost by human actions in the past (even the recent past), including many endemic plant, invertebrate and bird species on St Helena, continuing even until the loss of the endemic genus of the St Helena olive in 2003, with other species on the edge; (k) Continuing risk to others due, for example, to failure to meet commitments in planning terms, even by UK Government when in direct control of a territory (see paras K12-K47, S4-S12); (l) The lack of strategic planning and appropriate guidance from HMG even in territories with tiny physical areas; (m) The failure to provide adequate (or, in some cases, any) fishery protection vessels in several territories, so that much of UK territorial waters are unmanaged. Ev 138 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
U4. Even if we restrict ourselves to the successful examples at paragraph U2, several points emerge: (1) The successful projects took many years to achieve, in some cases decades; HMG’s grants for conservation work have rarely covered more than three years, and now only two. Furthermore, the grant applications now require outputs within that period, and so cannot readily contribute to the longer timescale needed for achieving and measuring the success of many projects. (2) Overall, HMG contributed relatively little to the examples, contributions of various sizes having been made to (d) to (i). However, recent changes to HMG policy mean that contributions to projects exemplified in (e), (f), (g) and (h) would now be unlikely. U5. Similarly striking lessons can be learnt from the partial successes. HMG, in consultation with the UKOTs and NGOs, initiated the Environment Charter process in 2001, as an output from the 1999 White Paper. The Charters were—and are—valued by governmental and NGO conservationists in the UKOTs. HMG supported UKOTCF and others to facilitate UKOT stake-holders to develop strategies for implementation (essentially a “mainstreaming” process) in several territories and, at HMG’s request, UKOTCF collated information on progress in implementation. However, a few years later, HMG lost interest in the exercise, leaving it to UKOTs and NGOs, without even its continued encouragement. Within the last couple of years, HMG has now felt the need to reinstate a similar process under a different name, ignoring the earlier material. This wastes public money, sets back conservation, and demoralises local officials as well as the civil society organizations and volunteers that HMG says it wishes to work with. U6. This lack of staying power and continuity by HMG is evident, as well, in ways which would have potentially saved the UK taxpayer some future expenditure. HMG, about a decade ago, insisted on the TCI Government introducing a Conservation Fund, by an increase in the tax on accommodation and meals, mainly of tourists. This was achieved, after wide consultation and public approval. In 2012, the direct UK Government of TCI cancelled this fund with no consultation (see paras K42-K44). A similar Environmental Fund in the Cayman Islands still exists, although it is not being used in the manner originally announced (see eg oral evidence Q124 on 9 July 2013). It is to be hoped that the faults in this are cured before HM Treasury finds a way to cancel this too. U7. There are some excellent concepts in the 2012 White Paper, and we would love to believe the Prime Minister’s words when he says of the Overseas Territories: “We see an important opportunity to set world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environments we have inherited.” The opportunity is there, but it will be realised only with actions that match the words. U8. There is not yet, however, convincing evidence of actions to match these words. Even after the publication of the White Paper, HMG (in direct control of TCI) has continued to act against the advice on sustainable development that it had encouraged UKOT Governments to follow for well over a decade. Examples are given above and in earlier evidence (paras K12-K47, S3-S12). HMG seems to have lived in a world of “do as I say, not as I do.” Not surprisingly, some UKOT governments seem to be copying HMG’s flawed approach. U9. We welcome the continued interest in the natural environment of the territories shown by the DEFRA Minister, Mr Benyon, but this has not yet been reflected in the depth of engagement with the territories by his officials. When the FCO reduced its staff resources dealing with environmental issues in the UKOTs in 2005, it indicated that DEFRA would take over that work. At one level this made good sense. The richness of the territories in endemic species and diverse ecosystems meant that the UK’s commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) were particularly important in terms of its overseas territories; and DEFRA was the lead department on these MEAs. U10. However, this move to apparently more logical “joined-up government” had risks, which we foresaw at the time. The two most obvious risks were, first, that many of the problems in good environmental governance in the territories relate to planning processes, and easy and timely access to information about development projects and changes in the use of land and marine resources, over which DEFRA has little direct experience and no responsibility. The governance conundrums here are really for FCO and DFID with their far more detailed and nuanced engagement with the territories. U11. Second, without strengthening its policy capabilities and its knowledge on the ground of issues and personalities in the territories, there is no way for DEFRA to have the confidence to say to FCO, DFID, MOD (in respect of the Falklands, BIOT, Gibraltar, Ascension, the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus), DCMS and elected governments in the territories: “You need to be aware that what you/your “partners in prosperity” are doing will make a mockery of the UK’s commitment to slow the rate of loss of global biodiversity.” U12. A toothless DEFRA is a poor substitute for an FCO and a DFID which treat environmental sustainability as a serious criterion of good policy (rather than as a definition that automatically attaches to “whatever we do”). However, there has been no sign of strengthening of DEFRA’s capability to lead over environmental issues in the territories. Whitehall’s policy architecture is not helpful: “Follow the money”— does the Treasury accept that it matters a jot whether there is loss of biodiversity or environmental degradation in any of the overseas territories—despite the Prime Minister’s words? U13. There was some boost in DEFRA attention to the UKOTs after the Committee’s 2008 Inquiry, but this was only to a low level, and soon declined again (see paras E20-E29). However, we are pleased that the long Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 139
vacancy has now been filled in the one DEFRA post for work on the overseas territories (together with demanding tasks on wider conservation matters). We await with interest to see what the new appointee to the long-vacant part-post looking after this area will achieve, but she will clearly be working in a difficult environment, given the approach of her senior colleagues. U14. DFID, despite its statutory duty that “The reasonable assistance needs of the Territories are a first call on the UK’s international development budget” (see 2012 White Paper, p 13), seems to be “downsizing” its engagement with the environment in the UKOTs. We hope that, as with DEFRA, the delayed filling of the vacant DFID post addressing environmental matters will improve the situation. However, that will require support from senior levels of management, which still seems to be lacking. It was discouraging that, despite the massive environmental impact of the St Helena Air Access project on St Helena, the Committee’s 9 July session did not hear evidence from any DFID minister; and the one official who gave evidence was shortly due to retire, thus having no continuing responsibilities for the subject covered by the Inquiry. We are, furthermore, concerned at DFID’s long-term decrease in support of biodiversity conservation, shifting funds towards direct poverty alleviation (apparently not seeing the linkages between the two), as reported by Dilys Roe in “Has biodiversity fallen off the development agenda? A case study of the UK Department for International Development” (2013, Oryx 47: 113–121). U15. Some of the problems across Whitehall seem to arise from the FCO (which leads overall on the overseas territories) reducing its direct engagement with environmental issues without having managed to persuade other departments to increase their own capabilities in this area. There is also a distinct loss if desk officers in FCO, who have far more opportunities than others in Whitehall to visit the territories, feel that environmental issues are for someone else. For many UK officials, whether Governors, their staff, or desk officers in London, supporting the social and natural heritage of the overseas territories is a major element in their job satisfaction. We need a conception of “joined-up government” which is not “That’s your job (and down to your budget and contingent liabilities)”—words with which officials terrorize their ministers, The FCO’s role will remain crucial. It is in daily contact with Governors; and its ministers and officials have the legal authority to use Orders in Council and other means to instruct Governors on what they are to do or not to do. There are encouraging signs from the FCO under Mr Simmonds and the new Director of Overseas Territories. However, there is a long way to go to overcome the effects of the latter’s two predecessors, even to re-establish the state of a decade ago, before making improvements beyond that. We wish them well. We also encourage them to put in the considerable effort needed to make the Whitehall policy and resource architecture work better in relation to the overseas territories. We hope that your committee’s report will result in more constructive responses from Government than was the case with your and the FAC’s earlier reports on the overseas territories. 19 August 2013
Supplementary written evidence submitted by Mark Simmonds MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Thank you for the opportunity on 9 July to contribute to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into Sustainability in the Overseas Territories. The OK’s Overseas Territories are among the world’s greatest environmental asset, so we welcome this opportunity to review the work undertaken to safeguard their future. We undertook to come back to you in response to some specific points raised by members of the Committee. In doing so, we would also like to take the opportunity to provide further detail on the wide-ranging support which the UK Government is providing to the Overseas Territories on environmental issues. During the evidence session on 9 July there was considerable discussion on the constitutional arrangements of the Territories. There are important and significant differences in the specific constitutional provisions in the individual Territories, which can have an impact on the relationship between the UK and the Territory Government. We would be pleased to provide further information to Committee members on this issue, including a meeting with officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It remains important to note that Territory Governments are constitutionally responsible for the protection and conservation of their natural environments. The UK Government’s role is to work in partnership with Territory Governments to provide them with the technical advice and support they need to enable them to fulfil this responsibility successfully. This support is provided through mechanisms such as Darwin Plus and Environmental Mainstreaming and through direct provision of technical advice and expertise, including via the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). The aim of Darwin Plus, launched in 2012, is to support the long-term sustainable environmental management of the Territories. The fund dedicates around £2 million per year to supporting environment and climate projects and has been widely welcomed, including by the Territories themselves and UK-based environmental organisations. The 14 projects supported by the first round of funding cover a wide-range of activities, including: invasive lionfish control in the Caribbean; seabird monitoring in the southern ocean; and a census of rare plants in St Ev 140 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Helena. These projects range in value from £8,000 to £285,000. We enclose a list of successful projects in the first round. The second round has recently been launched and is open until 23 September. Successful bids should be announced in December. Our Environmental Mainstreaming inititative is helping the Territories put environmental consideration at the heart of policy decision making. Projects have been completed in the Falklands, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla with funding being made available from the FCO and Defra. The initiative focuses on the value of diverse ecosystems in supporting economies and the need to take account of these values in economic and physical planning, drawing together a range of stakeholders to identify priorities. Completed projects have generated complementary support programmes involving economic assessments, training programmes, capacity building and additional fund raising designed to allow the policy makers to draw on a substantial environmental evidence base. We are in the process of extending the initiative to Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and intend to roll it out to all willing Territories by 2015. There was a brief discussion at the evidence session about the Joint Ministerial Council (JMC), an annual event which brings together Territory leaders and UK Government Ministers to discuss key issues and identify priority actions. The last JMC took place in December 2012 and enclosed is a copy of the Communiqué agreed between the UK Government and Territory leaders following a session on “Cherishing the Environment and Creating Green Growth”. The progress made by the UK Government in a number of key areas agreed in the communiqué is also summarised. We undertook to provide the Committee with further information on the Aarhus Convention. The UK ratified the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters on 23 February 2005. The Aarhus Convention is a regional instrument open to States who are members of or who have consultative status with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). States from outside the UNECE region may also accede with the approval of the Meeting of the Parties. UK practice is that Conventions are only extended to Overseas Territories at their request and if they can demonstrate that they can meet their obligations under the Convention. To date, no Territory has requested such an extension of this Convention. [I] hope you will find this additional information valuable and we look forward to continuing to work with the Committee as the inquiry progresses.
Annex A SUCCESSFUL DARWIN PLUS BIDS (FIRST ROUND) Bermuda invasive Lionfish control initiative, Bermuda Zoological Society, £169,898 An autonomous seabird monitoring network for the southern ocean, University of Oxford, £215,848 Biodiversity action planning in the Falkland Islands, Falkland Conservation, £105,200 Upgrade and revision of reef survey resource, Charles Sheppard, £8,000 Sustainable management of the marine environment and resources of Tristan da Cunha, RSPB, £285,673 Seed conservation in the Caribbean UKOTs, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, £95,755 Using seabirds to inform Caribbean marine planning, University of Liverpool, £226,367 Rare plant census of St Helena, St Helena Nature Conservation Group, £8,650 Antarctic and sub-Antarctic marine protected areas: using penguin tracking data to identify candidate areas, British Antarctic Survey, £142,176 Coral nursery project in Little Cayman: enhancing resilience and natural capacity of coral reefs in the UKOTs, Central Caribbean Marine Institute, £41,631 Ile Vache marine restoration project, Chagos Conservation Trust, £32,256 Conserving plant diversity and establishing ecosystem based approaches to the management of forest ecosystems in the E3V1s, National Parks Trust of the Virgin Islands, £83,915 Promoting the creation and appropriate management of protected areas in Anguilla and the Cayman Islands, Anguilla National Trust, £193,568 Building capacity to develop and provide long term sustainability for St Helena’s paper and card recycling unit, St Helena Active Participation in Enterprise (SHAPE), £99,200 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 141
Annex B JOINT MINISTERIAL COUNCIL COMMUNIQUÉ (ENVIRONMENT SECTION) We recognise that the Territories are home to many species and environments found nowhere else in the world and that sustainable economic growth and livelihoods within the Territories depend on the responsible stewardship of these natural resources. Territory Governments recognise their responsibilities for the sustainable management of the natural environment and the need to put environmental considerations at the heart of policy and decision making. The UK recognises the supportive role that it can play with Territory Governments to help make this shared agenda a reality, in cooperation with NG0s, the private sector and other stakeholders. We have agreed to work together on the following priority actions: — to develop sustainable fisheries—including developing sustainable management plans and facilitating development of the sector (with the UK providing–as necessary–support for scoping studies on fish stocks, model legislation and fisheries monitoring and patrols); — to create sustainable long-term incentives and encourage private sector investment in renewable energy; — to take a more strategic approach to the management, protection and conservation of the natural environment, including embedding that understanding into Government policies and decision- making; — to ensure that where commercial use of natural resources takes place, it is carried out in the most sustainable and environmentally responsible way (including through the use of environmental impact assessments, evidence-based management plans, and protection of important areas); — to share knowledge and best practice in the areas of food security and agricultural and aquaculture production; — to continue to implement Environment Charters, and to work towards the full implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements where these have been extended to the Territories; — for the UK to strengthen the way it represents Territory interests in relevant international fora; and — to identify and share best practice.
Annex C PROGRESS MADE BY THE UK GOVERNMENT 1. Strategic Approach to the Environment At the JMC both UK and Territory Governments agreed to adopt a more strategic approach to the management, protection and conservation of the natural environment. To facilitate this, the UK Government has been working with a number of Territories, including Anguilla, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, to support Territory Governments mainstream environmental policy into the decision-making processes. We are working to extend this initiative to other Territories and develop a shared agenda for sustainable environmental management.
2. Financial Assistance We announced in April 2013 the funding of 18 new projects in the Territories totalling £2.6 million. This included 14 projects under the new Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund (known as Darwin Plus) which is co-funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development (DfiD) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). These projects and other Defra funding will support many of the actions identified in the JMC communiqué. Darwin Plus is only one source of funding for activities in the Overseas Territories. Defra has, for example, also initiated a series of research projects to address threats to biodiversity in the South Atlantic and Caribbean Overseas Territories. These projects were designed to bring UK and Territory expertise together to address issues specifically identified by the Territory Governments.
3. Identifying and Sharing Best Practice Many of the activities funded by the UK Government seek to identify and share best practice amongst the Overseas Territories. We are conscious that to do this it is necessary to bring representatives of the Overseas Territories together. This is all the more important when addressing issues that impact on more than one Territory, such as the review of the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy held at Kew Gardens earlier this year, where participation of Territory representatives was facilitated by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), the public body that advises the UK Government on international nature conservation. JNCC also undertakes activities in the Territories themselves, such as the organisation of workshops for the Caribbean Territories, to address the cross-territory threats to biodiversity from the invasive lionfish and to exchange expertise in this area. Work to address threats from lionfish has received funding from JNCC, FCO and through the Darwin Plus funding mechanism. Ev 142 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
Exchange of best practice is also achieved through secondments and placements. At present, a JNCC staff member (a St Helena national) is on a two year secondment to St Helena as director of the new Environmental Management Department, with funding for the secondment provided by DFID. In her absence, a marine expert from Bermuda has been seconded to JNCC for nine months. Defra also funds a JNCC officer in the Falkland Islands, who works with the Falkland Islands Government on issues related to the conservation of endangered albatrosses and petrels.
4. Access to Expertise We are conscious that the Overseas Territories often need access to expertise within Defra and its executive agencies. Defra has established a joint mailbox (UKOTenquiriesadefra.qsi.qov.uk) as a first point of contact for all environment related enquires from the Overseas Territories. The mailbox is monitored on a daily basis, and queries are directed to the officials who are best placed to assist. Defra also funds the Overseas Territories Pest identification service, operated by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera). This service was set up to identify invasive invertebrate plant pests in the Territories in order to improve bio-security. At least 77 of the invertebrate species examined to date have never before been reported from the Territories A total of sixteen species new to science have been observed and are being studied further. There is a clear demand for an identification service for invasive invertebrate plant pests to improve bio- security in the Territories (132 samples were received during 2012/13) and the service has produced a wealth of new and useful data In 2012 alone, at least 15 economically important, invasive, plant pests, were recorded from three of the Territories. The FC0’s Jubilee Programme supports public services in the Overseas Territories and includes the exchange of expertise between public servants in the Territories and the UK through a programme of secondments providing Territory officials with opportunities to train and work with colleagues in the UK, and UK experts to work in the Territories. As well as providing support from the UK Government, we are also encouraging Territory Governments to share expertise amongst themselves. Recent examples include Gibraltar’s offer to host a meeting for the Territories Geographic Information Systems and a cross-Caribbean effort to coordinate a response to combat the invasive lionfish.
5. Sustainable Fisheries The UK Government is working with a number, of Territories including St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension, Pitcairn and the Turks and Caicos Islands to establish baseline information on fisheries resources and to scope opportunities for developing sustainable fishing industries. JNCC is currently developing a marine strategy for the Overseas Territories and is organising a series of technical workshops, bringing together marine experts from Defra and the Territories, to, address priorities in marine conservation and marine biodiversity. These workshops are anticipated to start later this year. We have a good working relationship with UK-based NGOs such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), but we also want to engage with a number of Territory-based NGOs though the Environmental Mainstreaming initiative.
6. Renewable Energy Many of the Overseas Territories have the potential to exploit renewable energy and reduce their dependency on fossil fuels. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is ready to provide advice and technical expertise in matters relating to energy and climate change and has established a single point of contact for any enquiries. The Falkland Islands are already making significant progress on reducing their dependency on fossil fuels with the capital, Stanley, now deriving 40% of its energy needs from a wind farm.
7. International Commitments UK Officials continue to support the Territories in implementing a range of multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Defra lawyers have drawn up guidance for Territories considering extension of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and several of the daughter agreements to the Convention on Migratory Species, such as the Memorandum of Understanding on Migratory Birds of Prey (Raptors MoU) and the African- Eurasian Waterbirds Agreement (AEWA). We are also working actively with Territories to which CITES has been extended to ensure that their legislation meets the four basic requirements of the Convention. Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 143
8. Representing Territory Interests Internationally We work hard to ensure that Overseas Territories are involved in activities under Multilateral Environmental Agreements that are of interest to them and both Defra and DECC ensure that the Territories are consulted prior to and following major international meetings. In addition to this consultation process, Defra included a marine expert from one of the Overseas Territories in the UK delegation to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Hyderabad, India, in October 2012. Territory interests were also represented at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the CITES, held in Bangkok, Thailand, in March 2013,for example in respect of work regarding the queen conch, which is of significant economic interest to some of the Territories. 26 July 2013
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) The RSPB is extremely grateful to the Environmental Audit Committee for bringing some much-needed attention to this oft-overlooked area of environmental policy. We are submitting this supplementary evidence in response to the oral evidence session conducted with the UK Government on 9 July 2013.
UK Responsibility for Compliance 1. We were pleased to learn that Defra has written to “those Territories to which CITES has been extended and that have legislation which is classified as not meeting the basic requirements of CITES”, “offering any assistance they might need in order to achieve [compliance] and giving them a longstop date... for when we want to see that in place”. The Minister should be congratulated on this proactive approach towards CITES compliance, which we consider to be exactly the form of action required for all the international environmental agreements to which the UK and the OTs are ascribed. 2. Despite this excellent precedent, unfortunately CITES appears to be the only international environmental agreement where HMG has both conducted a proper strategic assessment of OT compliance and worked to ensure any gaps are filled (most likely because CITES is the only agreement which also contains strong penalties for infractions for which the UK would be liable). Indeed, the RSPB was surprised to read HMG’s response to a series of parliamentary questions answered on 4th September 2013 that “It is the responsibility of the St Helena Government/Cayman Government/British Virgin Islands Government to ensure that [they] meet the requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity”. This position would appear to directly contradict both HMG’s legal responsibility and the Government’s own 2012 White Paper, in which it said that it was an HMG priority for action to “ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant environmental agreements” (p.46). It is to be hoped that the UK’s legal responsibility for compliance with all international environmental agreements, not just CITES, can therefore be adequately addressed by Defra. 3. Recommendation: Defra should conduct a strategic assessment of compliance with all relevant international environmental agreements, along the lines already implemented for CITES, and then provide proactive technical and policy assistance to OT Governments to remedy any issues identified.
UK Strategy 4. The RSPB was disappointed that Defra made no mention of the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, for which it has lead departmental responsibility, when asked where Defra’s objectives for the OTs could be found. This was particularly surprising given that the JNCC had co-ordinated a review meeting of the Strategy just 6 months ago, but perhaps demonstrates the low political priority that this document is afforded within Defra, and the need for it to be developed into a more concrete strategy with a workplan and objectives. In January 2012, Defra did set out in its departmental paper on the OTs that it would “oversee...where appropriate the strategy’s further elaboration into an implementation plan”. OT Government officials expressed strong support for the creation of an implementation plan at the 2013 review meeting, and it is hoped that this could provide the strategic HMG biodiversity workplan which the OTs so badly need. For instance, such a plan would have contributed to prevent the plant extinction crisis which has apparently just been reached on Pitcairn, where two unique plant species have declined to the very brink of extinction (<5 specimens each) with no off-island populations secured. Indeed, one of the two species, the Pitcairn red berry tree, may now be functionally extinct as it occurs in male and female plants, and the remaining individuals may all be of the same sex. 5. Recommendation: Defra should establish an Implementation Plan with clear objectives for its UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy so as to ensure strategic on-the-ground action. 6. At present, Defra’s strategy seems to be almost entirely reactive, placing the onus on small OT Governments to make formal applications for assistance. Such a strategy is untenable for small Governments such as Tristan da Cunha or Pitcairn, where overstretched Environment Departments numbering just a few people spend their time fire-fighting pressing issues, and have no opportunity to step back and undertake a strategic assessment of where they need assistance, especially as it is often over such a wide range of areas Ev 144 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
(from waste management to biosecurity, from biodiversity conservation to fisheries management). There is also anecdotal evidence that OT Governments have been placed under pressure by the FCO to not kick up a fuss or complain to other UK Government Departments that they need more help than they are receiving. Defra therefore must not abdicate responsibility by adopting a reactive strategy, but should instead follow its own excellent CITES example and adopt a proactive partnership approach to working with OT Governments.
UK Government Capacity 7. The HMG response to the EAC’s effective questioning about departmental capacity was very disappointing (Qs. 128–135). The RSPB alone has the same number of full-time dedicated OT environment staff (3) as the entire UK Government (1 in FCO and 2 in JNCC). Defra meanwhile still has no dedicated staff member, and no Defra ministers or civil servants have visited an OT in an official capacity since 2009. Indeed, the Defra official questioned appeared to display an unfortunate lack of understanding of the extent of environmental need in the OTs by intimating that any full-time OT environment official in his Department would spend time “twiddling their thumbs”. The full-time FCO environment lead is far from unoccupied, as the provision of pro- active and effective long-term, technical support to OT Governments is a major endeavour. Moreover within the remit of biodiversity conservation alone, the RSPB has had to make two separate emergency OT interventions to prevent imminent global extinctions since the EAC inquiry begun. It is uncertain whether Defra was aware of the need in either case, and biodiversity conservation is the highest profile environmental policy area for which Defra has OT responsibility. Strategic Defra involvement in other policy areas such as OT water or waste management meanwhile sadly appears almost non-existent. 8. Recommendation: Defra should follow the FCO’s welcome lead and establish full-time dedicated OT environment staff capacity. 9. With regard to the discussion on Governors’ capacity and expertise on environmental issues, the RSPB notes that whilst some Governors have received briefings from expert environmental organisations prior to commencing their roles, this has to date been conducted in a highly ad hoc and inconsistent manner. A systematic approach to environmental training, involving NGOs as well as NDPBs such as RBG Kew, is required.
JNCC 10. The official role of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is to provide evidence, information and advice to the UK Government on nature conservation. The JNCC has had full-time OTs capacity for 5 years, and the RSPB recognises that this team has facilitated valuable environmental mainstreaming processes and other conservation projects in several Territories, established excellent working relations with OT Governments, and provided them with useful support. We are therefore concerned to hear that core funding for this work have recently been substantially reduced, as this can only have a negative impact on the type and level of support that can be provided. 11. However, the RSPB believes that the JNCC has not, to date, effectively fulfilled its role as a technical adviser to the UK Government with regard to OT biodiversity conservation. The JNCC’s current working methodology in relation to OTs is to be responsive solely to the various and changing priorities of OT Governments. Effective partnership-working with OT Governments is vital, but the JNCC seems to have overlooked its responsibility to provide the UK Government with sufficient evidence to enable it to discharge its international responsibilities. Indeed, after five years of biodiversity work, the JNCC still does not know the number of species unique to each of the Territories, nor the total which are at imminent risk of extinction. 12. Furthermore, a recent parliamentary question reveals that the JNCC does not even know the number of terrestrial or marine protected areas in the Territories, a seemingly fundamental piece of conservation knowledge. Without such basic information, JNCC is unable to provide the UK Government with the evidence and advice it requires to enable an overarching strategy. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a strategic work programme in place to address this evidence deficit, as Defra’s Evidence Plan for Biodiversity and Ecosystems Evidence provides only one sentence of detail on the OTs: “Improve the evidence base in UK Overseas Territories to assist in meeting international commitments, in particular the control and management of invasive species (ongoing—medium priority)”. Such vagaries urgently need to be translated into detailed scientific action in a much more concerted manner. 13. Recommendation: Defra should establish an OTs-specific evidence plan and explicitly direct the JNCC to implement a more strategic programme of OT biodiversity evidence-gathering, to include the systematic identification of the most urgently threatened species and habitats in the Territories, and a joint-assessment with OT Governments as to the adequacy of current terrestrial and marine protected area networks.. 14. The Committee also discussed policy-making by the JNCC during the evidence session. Due to a chronic lack of capacity within Defra, the JNCC has ended up in a de facto policy-making and small grant-disbursing role with regard to the OTs. For example, stakeholders at the March 2013 review of the OTs Biodiversity Strategy agreed that the JNCC had actually written this document. JNCC also makes spending decisions through its own OT funding lines, and is the most active promoter of the incongruous position that the UK Government should not have any of its own environmental priorities with regard to the OTs (cf. JNCC presentation to CIEEM conference, January 2013). The JNCC’s exclusion of research institutions and civil Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 145
society from its “OT Research & Training Steering Group” also appears in direct contradiction to HMG’s White Paper commitment to “strengthen co-operation with the non-governmental and scientific communities”.
Transparency 15. The Committee’s focus on this fundamental issue was very welcome. It was therefore disappointing to learn that the FCO could give no examples of practical support it had offered to advance freedom of information. The RSPB would suggest a different approach for the various Territories. Firstly, transparency standards in the uninhabited Territories remain poor. This is an area where immediate UK Government action is both possible and strongly desirable, and freedom of information legislation should be passed in these Territories forthwith. The RSPB recognises that capacity constraints are an issue for the smaller OTs, but notes that the smallest inhabited OT, Pitcairn, has successfully introduced freedom of information legislation. This sets an important precedent for those Territories with less capacity to introduce a proportionate transparency framework, and this is something which the FCO should proactively facilitate. Finally, for those Territories where DfID funds major infrastructure projects, the DfID “Aid Transparency Guarantee” should be extended so as to include coverage of the environmental impacts of aid spending. 16. Recommendation: Freedom of Information legislation should be passed for the uninhabited Territories as soon as practicable, whilst the DfID “Aid Transparency Guarantee” should be extended to incorporate the environmental impacts of that department’s aid spending.
St Helena Airport 17. The St Helena airport is currently being built on a unique habitat: a mini-Namib desert located in the middle of the South Atlantic. The biodiversity of this site remains very poorly known, even to the degree that we do not know exactly which species are there, and which may have recently gone extinct. The RSPB has supported improved access to St Helena, but is gravely concerned that the environmental management of the airport project has, to date, been inadequate. Of particular concern has been the severe delay to the Landscape & Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP), which was supposed to begin a year before construction took place so as to allow adequate time to secure sensitive populations and enable adequate mitigation. The DfID official questioned characterised this plan as being “mainly about the visual impacts of the airport”, which belittles the enormous role that this aspect of the project has to play in restoring the biodiversity of this remarkable site. The official stressed that whilst it was “unfortunate that those delays took place, we do have the environmental impact assessment”. Without active mitigation work however to remedy any impacts which an assessment identified, the value of an environmental impact assessment alone is questionable. Finally, the DfID official expressed their full confidence in the opaque structures established to manage the Air Access project. The key concern that the St Helena Government finds itself in an impossible situation where it is both project manager and project regulator was sadly overlooked. In particular, it is interesting to note that it is widely alleged on island that it is the St Helena Government itself, not DfID, which will be financially liable for the cost of any delays or budget overruns. The prospect that environmental management will therefore genuinely be prioritised by SHG when it is under so much pressure from DfID to deliver the project to time and to budget is limited. 18. Recommendations: DfID must establish clear and transparent mechanisms to enable independently verifiable oversight of LEMP implementation and the environmental management of the project, preferably through the establishment of a steering group with a clear Terms of Reference and made up of a majority of independent experts who are not employees of SHG or the companies involved in airport construction or environmental management. 9 September 2013
Further written evidence submitted by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Sustainability in the Overseas Territories Inquiry 1. I am writing to respond to the further written evidence submitted by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) to the Environmental Audit Committee. This contains a number of factual errors and serious accusations against the former Governor to the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), Ric Todd. This letter addresses the most serious of our concerns and does not cover every issue that we would dispute in the UKOTCF’s supplementary evidence.
S3–4: Priority of the Environment 2. In S3, the UKOTCF states that former Governor, Ric Todd’s description of his role with regards to the environment in TCI is “somewhat misleading”. The description provided by Ric Todd on the Governor’s role in his letter of 17 April 2013 is correct. The TCI Government has constitutional responsibility for the environment in TCI. The UK’s objective during the period of Interim Administration, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 9 December 2010, was to make sufficient changes and reforms to permit the restoration of self government. The Interim Administration faced a huge number of urgent, competing demands across the Ev 146 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence
board when it inherited the chaotic situation left by the previous TCI Government. Its immediate priorities were to restore public finances and procedures; update laws and institutions; build the economy; run effective and transparent Government; and to ensure no future repeat of the mistakes of the past. The focus of the Interim Administration was rightly on preventing the TCI Government going bankrupt and getting TCI on the path for elections to take place. The Interim Administration took very seriously its environmental responsibilities and ensured that developments took full account of environmental concerns.
S5: Conservation Fund 3. In S5, the UKOTCF states that the then Governor “unilaterally cancelled the Conservation Fund.... without consultation with the Governor’s environmental officials or the public” and in an act which was “not widely announced”. The Conservation Fund was not a fund but a hypothecation of taxes. This hypothecation of taxes was removed as part of the rationalisation of public finances and incorporated into the Consolidated Fund to permit proper and transparent management of taxpayer’s money. The rationalisation of public finances was a major topic of debate and consultation over a long period of time on TCI. The rationalisation was an essential part of bringing public finances into order and starting to pay down the government’s unsustainable level of debt.
S8: Amendment to Regulations on Marine Mammals 4. The UKOTCF claims in S8 that the then Governor amended the previously existing fisheries law to allow the keeping of marine mammals in captivity (thereby enabling the establishment of dolphinaria) as: a “personal initiative”....”without consultation” (in particular of the TCI Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, DEMA); and “in breach of the Environment Charter”. 5. The TCI Supreme Court dismissed on 17 September 2013 a claim brought by the Turks and Caicos Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (TSPCA), the Turks and Caicos Reef Fund, PRIDE Ltd and the Providenciales Chamber of Commerce, for judicial review of the decision to amend the regulations on marine mammals. Judge Ramsay Hale dismissed the allegation that this decision was taken without proper consultation, as well as the claim that the decision should have been left to an elected Government. She ruled that “the ordinance does not give special protection to any marine mammal species, nor was it made for any such purpose”. 6. I attach a copy of the court ruling and news release which provide further information on this issue.
S10–12: Deep Dredging 7. UKOTCF makes the serious allegation at S11 that then Governor Todd “personally asked how to get around the legislation to allow dredging at Leeward” and “raised the possibility of removing some areas from the protected area or changing the protected area law”. UKOTCF had failed to provide any substantiation for this allegation. The application to carry out dredging in the Leeward Channel was considered and refused by the elected TCI Government under the normal planning process. 8. UKOTCF state in S12 that changes to the National Parks Ordinance and a review of protected areas originate from “decisions taken in disregard of competent technical advice during the period of direct rule by HMG”. Both issues were considered by the TCI Government through the normal process. Links to the post Cabinet press releases, where these issues were discussed, can be found below. https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/summary-of-cabinet-meeting-actions-on-21-august-2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/turks-and-caicos-islands-cabinet-update-and-actions—3 Peter Hayes Director, Overseas Territories 9 October 2013
Further written evidence submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office The Foreign and Commonwealth Office would like to take this opportunity to provide supplementary information to the Committee on UK treaty practice and the extension of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to the UK Overseas Territories (OTs). We recognise that this is a complex area which is open to differing views and interpretations. I hope this letter will provide you with a steer on the UK Governments position on this matter. In relation to MEAs, the UK is ultimately responsible for its Overseas Territories where it comes to the performance of treaty obligations extended to them. This is exemplified by the care exercised to ensure that treaty rights and obligations can be fully implemented in the OTs both in terms of political commitment, and underpinned where necessary by adequate implementing legislation. The Ministry of Justice, the FCO’s Overseas Territories Department and other Government Departments (where appropriate) consult with the Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 147
governments of the OTs before the UK consents to be bound by new treaties. If it is not appropriate or possible to include an OT within the territorial scope of the UK’s ratification at the time of ratification, the UK works with the OTs to ensure that they are fully compliant with the treaty’s obligations before subsequently extending the treaty to the OT. It is important to distinguish between responsibility for the performance of treaty obligations and responsibility for determining how those obligations are met. It is for each OT to decide for itself, in accordance with its own legal and constitutional arrangements, the appropriate system or measures to put in place to meet the obligations under treaties that have been extended to it. The UK Government can and will assist OTs in determining whether the measures proposed are sufficient to meet the obligations but will not impose a particular system or measures on OTs. It is the UK’s consistent practice (and has been for several decades) when consenting to be bound by treaties by ratification, accession or other means, to clearly indicate at that time, whether ratification of the treaty applies only to the metropolitan territory (the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”), or whether it further includes a specified Overseas Territory or Territories. Reference in a ratification instrument to “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” in this context does not include the Crown Dependencies (Bailiwicks of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) and/or the Overseas Territories. Article 29 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) to which the UK is a Party, states as follows; “Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory”. The UK’s practice in this regard has established a “different intention” to the general provision set out in the VCLT. This is described in paragraph 7 of the “Memorandum on Application” which is available on the .gov website. With specific reference to the current status of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, adopted at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 (“Aarhus Convention”), the answer provided by Mr Simmonds to the PQ tabled by Dr Offord (2 July 2013: Column 591W), is entirely correct. The UK’s ratification of the Aarhus Convention did not make any reference to the Overseas Territories or the Crown Dependencies. Consistent with the UK’s treaty practice therefore, the Aarhus Convention currently applies to the metropolitan territory, ie the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but not the OTs. The information supplied by the United Nations as depositary which is referenced in the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum’s (UKOTCF) further written evidence, is not inconsistent with this fact; had the UK included any OT in its ratification instrument, this would be reflected in the Notes appended to the UN’s own status list for the Convention. It is our view that the electronic map referenced in the UKOTCF’s further written evidence does not clearly indicate that the UK’s OTs are excluded from the UK’s ratification of the Aarhus Convention. This is an issue that we will raise with the UN publisher responsible. 3 December 2013
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 01/2014 029063 19585