APPENDIX 6
Letter and memorandum submitted by UK
Overseas Territories Conservation Forum
This email covers the written evidence which
the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum wishes to submit
to the EAC for its current report on Trade, Development and
Environment: the role of the FCO. Can we assume that the EAC
will also take into account points made in our submission of May
2006 for the similar report on the role of DFID? As the submission
notes, we were surprised that that report made no mention of the
UKOTs. However, the Forum has been delighted to note that the
EAC's recent MA report takes account of the huge contribution
of the UKOTs—far more than the metropolitan UK—to
global biodiversity. Given the recommendations in that report
concerning Defra's engagement with the UKOTs, will the Trade Development
and Environment Sub-Committee soon be doing a similar report on
Defra?
For many years (including the eight since the
1999 White Paper on the UKOTs), the Forum has been closely involved
in a dialogue—productive but also frustrating—with
the FCO, including regular meetings every six months between the
Forum members and the Government side (which the Forum has chaired
jointly with a series of FCO officials). We have also helped to
advise on priorities for the limited but productive funding (initially
just from FCO, now jointly with DFID) available to support the
Environment Charters.
In addition, I am attaching to a separate email
electronic versions of the last two issues of the Forum News and
our last two Annual Reports. There is also a richly illustrated
brochure (supported by FCO funding over several years) which reproduces
large display panels we use whenever there are opportunities to
promote knowledge of and support for the natural heritage of the
UKOTs whenever there are opportunities. Can we send you copies
for every member of the full EAC Committee and for you and your
colleagues?
There is much additional background on our website
(www.ukotcf.org ) and those of our member organisations and associates.
If you need further information on specific environmental issues
in the UKOTs, please let me know.
I apologise that this submission is slightly
after your programmed date, but understand from Iain Orr (who,
in another role, is one of our Council members) that you are able
to give a little leeway.
I should note that, from tomorrow (Friday),
I shall be overseas (in Montserrat) until the end of January.
I hope to continue to access my emails during that period (but
cannot be sure due to some re-arrangements imposed on us by the
current volcanic situation there)—but would be grateful
if any emails about the EAC report could also be copied (as is
mine) to Dr Colin Clubbe at Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, the Forum's
Vice-Chairman (who, unfortunately, will also be overseas elsewhere
from the weekend), and to Frances Marks, the Forum Co-ordinator.
Frances can also arrange to supply printed copies of the publications
noted above if these would be useful.
Memorandum submitted by UK Overseas Territories
Conservation Forum
1. The UK Overseas Territories Conservation
Forum (UKOTCF, hereafter "the Forum") promotes the conservation
of species, habitats and ecosystem services in the UK's Overseas
Territories and their contribution to the welfare of the people
of the UKOTs. Its 33 member organizations and associates include
leading environmental bodies in the UK, in the UKOTs, and in the
Crown Dependencies. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man share
with the UKOTs many special features of the biodiversity and governance
of small non-sovereign island territories. These include relying
on HMG to represent their interests internationally and in multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs) and negotiations.
2. The Forum draws on the expertise of its
members and network of specialists (mainly working in a voluntary
capacity) to provide advice and encouragement to HMG, UKOT governments
and non-governmental organizations, companies and other stakeholders
in the rich—but often undervalued—natural heritage
of the UKOTs.
ENVIRONMENT CHARTERS
BETWEEN THE
METROPOLITAN UK AND
UK OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
3. One question the committee will address
is: "Has the FCO met its responsibilities towards the environment
in UK Overseas Territories?" The UK has specific commitments
to the UKOTs, set out in a series of environmental charters signed
with the UKOTs (Note 1) on 26 September 2001. The charters
have shared principles, followed by separate commitments made
by each territory and by the UK. These follow a common pattern.
The commitments on the UK side are:
"The government of the UK will:
1. Help build capacity to support and implement
integrated environmental management which is consistent with [the
territory's] own plans for sustainable development.
2. Assist [the territory] in reviewing and
updating environmental legislation.
3. Facilitate the extension of the UK's
ratification of Multilateral Environmental Agreements of benefit
to [the territory] and which [the territory] has the capacity
to implement.
4. Keep [the territory] informed regarding
new developments in relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements
and invite [the territory] to participate where appropriate in
the UK's delegation to international environmental negotiations
and conferences.
5. Help [the territory] to ensure it has
the legislation, institutional capacityand mechanisms it needs
to meet international obligations.
6. Promote better cooperation and the sharing
of experience and expertise between [the territory], other Overseas
Territories and small island states and communities which face
similar environmental problems.
7. Use UK, regional and local expertise
to give advice and improve knowledge of technical and scientific
issues. This includes regular consultation with interested non-governmental
organisations and networks.
8. Use the existing Environment Fund for
the Overseas Territories (Note2), and promote access to other
sources of public funding, for projects of lasting benefit to
[the territory's] environment.
9. Help [the territory] identify further
funding partners for environmental projects, such as donors, the
private sector or non-governmental organisations.
10. Recognise the diversity of the challenges
facing Overseas Territories in very different socio-economic and
geographical situations.
11. Abide by the principles set out in the
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (See Annex 2) and
work towards meeting International Development Targets on the
environment (See Annex 3).
4. Baroness Amos, then a Minister of State
in the FCO, signed the charters on behalf of HMG as a whole. However,
the FCO does not have the responsibility or expertise to implement
most of these commitments. It does not lead within government
on MEAs or on international negotiations relating to, global biodiversity,
conservation, fisheries, forests, marine pollution, climate change,
World Heritage Sites, sustainable development etc. The FCO also
has no significant budgetary line to support HMG's responsibilities
towards the UKOTs' environment. The EAC recognised this in its
recent report (January 2007) on the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA), making the following comment:
"31. Considering the UK Overseas Territories'
(UKOTs) lack of capacity, both financial and human, we find it
distasteful that FCO and DFID stated that if UKOTs are "sufficiently
committed" they should support environmental positions "from
their own resources". The continued threat of the extinction
of around 240 species in the UKOTs is shameful. If the Government
is to achieve the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2010
target to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss within
its entire territory, the Government must act decisively to prevent
further loss of biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Paragraph 133)"
INADEQUATE RESOURCES
FOR GLOBALLY
IMPORTANT ISLANDS
WITH FEW
PEOPLE
5. The environmental significance of the
UKOTs is far wider than the conservation status of their species
and habitats as part of the earth's biodiversity. Ecosystem services
like mangroves, seabird colonies fertilising coastal vegetation,
coral reefs nurturing fish stocks, marine algae and phytoplankton
supporting fish, whales and seabirds—these all bear directly
on livelihoods and good governance in such areas as: economies
based on healthy terrestrial and marine environments; protection
against natural disasters; and illegal unregulated and unreported
fisheries. In many territories, IUU fishing is a growing threat—of
both known and unknown extent—to legal fisheries and to
endangered populations of whales, sharks and albatrosses.
6. How can territories with a total population
the same as Gateshead (some 200,000—most in Bermuda and
a few Caribbean territories) be expected to provide from their
own financial and human resources all the policies and programmes
needed to care responsibly for over a thousand islands? These
range from the Falkland Islands (12,173 km2) and South Georgia
(3,755 km2) to tiny Boatswainbird Island in Ascension—islands
that hold some of the most important seabird colonies in the South
Atlantic. Many are remote and uninhabited, but require active
(and resource intensive) management because of the threats from
human-introduced alien invasive species, a legacy of earlier periods
that paid little attention to the vulnerability of island ecosystems.
How could HMG expect the management of the natural World Heritage
sites of Gough and Inaccessible Islands to depend on the resources
and skills of the 275 people on Tristan da Cunha; or Henderson
Island on the 40 Pitcairn Islanders? A far wider question needs
to be addressed to the FCO and HMG: what responsibilities are
accepted for the good environmental governance of the 8 million
km2 of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of the UKOTs (Note
3)? Industrial IUU fishing is a known threat in the EEZs of
many South Atlantic territories and illegal Sri Lankan fishermen
operate within British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) waters. Research
is also urgently needed on the role of coral reefs in the Chagos
Archipelago as spawning grounds that help recruitment to depleted
fish populations off the coast of East Africa.
EXAMPLES OF
PROJECTS IN
THE UKOTS
SUPPORTED BY
FCO (AND DFID)
7. There is, of course, a long list of environmental
projects benefiting the territories. The Forum is grateful to
the FCO, not simply for contributing to their funding (now shared
with DFID) but also for their support in promoting improved environmental
policies in the UKOTs. We wish to highlight here a number of projects
that have not just produced improved environmental management
and measurable results for the UKOTs. They have also contributed
to meeting many UK international commitments, notably under the
CBD, Ramsar, CMS and CITES—on all of which the lead department
is Defra, not FCO. However the FCO has a direct interest in the
way in which these projects have also helped to meet the UK's
commitments to individual territories under the Environment Charters,
notably by helping to build capacity within both government and
civil society. Project implementation would often be impossible
without government and local NGO support. Sometimes there has
also been voluntary support from officials (and Governors) in
a personal capacity. There are many environmental champions in
the territories and in the UK. It was a great pleasure that one
of them—who has been an official in the St Helena Government
and President of the St Helena National Trust, and is currently
a member of the Forum's Council—Dr Rebecca Cairns-Wicks—was
awarded the MBE for services to conservation in St Helena in the
Queen's New Year Honours List.
8. A few example projects are summarised
below.
A—Rat eradication projects. A fundamental
feature of island biogeography is that man has brought with him
commensals—especially rats—that have devastated native
and endemic animals and plants. OTEP funding has been responsible
for pilot projects to eradicate rats from both government and
privately owned small islands in the Falklands; and in 2006 Eagle
Island in the Chagos Archipelago was the first island to be cleared
of rats since BIOT was established. The long-term effects of such
eradications can be truly dramatic, with native terrestrial insects,
amphibians and plants as well as seabirds often able to re-establish
natural ecosystems and provide better coastal protection (the
birds fertilising vegetation that protects the coastline against
erosion). Such projects are costly, especially when the islands
are remote and uninhabited. However, regeneration ecology is a
discipline that enhances biodiversity rather than simply slowing
its loss. There are many islands in the UKOTs ripe for major habitat
restoration work—but that will require serious money to
make a significant impact: not small projects costing tens of
thousands of pounds but serious strategic projects across complete
territories, sometimes costing millions. However, there is no
doubt that even a tenth of the estimated £460 million devoted
to biodiversity in the metropolitan UK would produce far greater
value for money if invested in the territories.
B—Ascension Seabird Restoration Project.
This 2001-03 project tackled another invasive problem—the
feral cats on Ascension. It was technically challenging for the
RSPB and the Ascension Administrator to manage because of the
terrain and because the cooperation of every island resident and
visitor was essential. However, because of its scale the project
has already produced benefits far beyond the complete elimination
of feral cats (the largest island anywhere on which this has been
achieved) and the growth of new seabird colonies. The budget allowed
for the first year's salary for a full-time conservation officer
in the Ascension Island Government (Tara Pelembe, a Saint with
a degree in geography). The project became the subject of her
MSc and her full-time position—now wholly funded by the
elected Ascension Island Council out of local taxes—has
enabled her to work with local volunteers to establish (with funding
from OTEP) Ascension's First National Park on Green Mountain.
She has also supported work on Green Turtle conservation, attracting
several graduate students from the UK.
This textbook example of capacity building has,
however, a catch. The seabird project was not a typical small
project: it cost £0.5 million, the same as the FCO's current
annual contribution to OTEP for ALL the UKOTs. While the RSPB
and other Forum members had developed the environmental and business
case for this project over many years, this had been repeatedly
rejected by HMG on budgetary grounds. Ironically, the money was
found from the FCO's programme budget, when a non-environmental
large UN-related project fell through and there was a risk of
an embarrassing underspend, which would have been clawed back
by the Treasury. The fortuitous implementation of this strategic
large project has a kick in the tail. The Ascension Conservation
Officer has just been recruited to a new post in the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee—to work on UKOTs issues. The Forum
greatly welcomes this further demonstration of the JNCC's commitment
to the territories: and we are delighted to see this example of
Ascension helping with capacity building in the UK!
C—Wetland conservation and sustainable
development in the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Forum has
been directly involved for a decade in a planned series of small
projects in TCI, working closely with the TCI National Trust and
the local community. The aim has been to help the economically
challenged communities centred on Middle Caicos both to protect
the important Ramsar wetland site and its surroundings and to
facilitate local residents to establish small businesses in the
area to make sustainable use of this heritage, thereby maintaining
their communities. The programme has benefited from support from
Defra's Darwin Initiative in the early research phase, as well
as FCO's EFOT and the joint FCO/DFID OTEP at later stages applying
the research results to develop eco-tourism infrastructure such
as trails, centres, interpretation materials and guide training.
The success of this programme has leveraged much local support
from citizens, government and business, and its strong educational
elements are reflected in creating a new awareness in the younger
generation of their environmental legacy. The work also led indirectly
to TCI Government taking a lead, with Forum facilitation and OTEP
support, in developing the first strategy for action to implement
its Environment Charter, as a pilot for other UKOTs.
D—UKOTs Environmental Conferences 1999-2007.
The Breath of Fresh Air Conference at London Zoo in June
1999 was the first environmental conference covering all the territories.
It has been followed by conferences in Gibraltar (2001), Bermuda
(2003) and Jersey (2006). These have proved of great practical
value in taking forward commitments in the Environment Charters.
The reinstatement of FCO funding caused by the cancellation of
EFOT a year earlier and the belated delivery of funding from DFID
that had been promised in the 1999 White Paper, with these coming
together as OTEP, grew directly from discussions at the Bermuda
conference. These conferences have enabled governments and NGOs
from both the UK and the territories to understand each other
better. They have included many workshops on both policy and fieldwork
subjects: environmental legislation, Environmental Impact Assessments,
access to environmental information, management of wetlands, and
species recovery programmes (like Bermuda's wonderful success
in rescuing the Cahow—the Bermuda Petrel—from the
brink of extinction). However, the Forum believes that the FCO
and other departments could make even better use of these opportunities
to build their own knowledge of the people and special features
of all the territories. We would also welcome participation by
MPs in future conferences as a way for political parties to join
the FCO in championing the UKOTs as proudly British. From one
perspective, investing in the biodiversity of the UKOTs can be
seen as a natural and patriotic way to offset the metropolitan
UK's considerable carbon and biodiversity debts to the planet.
GOVERNING THE
UKOTS—NOT
JUST AN
FCO RESPONSIBILITY
9. The core problem concerning environmental
and governance issues in the UKOTs is this: the UK exercises sovereignty
over the territories primarily through the FCO (which appoints
Governors and Administrators to work with the locally-elected
governments), but in many specific areas that matter to the UK
as a whole—and to the UK's international reputation—the
FCO lacks essential skills or resources. This would not matter
much as far as trade, development and the environment are concerned,
if—as should be the case—other parts of HMG accepted
their responsibilities and made staffing and budgetary provision
for work relating to the UKOTs. A key FCO responsibility should,
therefore, be acting as a champion for the UKOTs throughout Whitehall
and in the FCO's network of relations with companies, NGOs and
institutions whose expertise can benefit the UKOTs. In relation
to the Environment Charters, questions the FCO should be asked
include:
— How successful has the FCO been
in securing policy advice on international environmental issues
for the UKOTs from Defra? Has the FCO persuaded Defra ministers
to visit sites in the UKOTs that are far more significant for
global biodiversity than most of those that they visit in the
metropolitan UK?
— Within the FCO, on which trade,
development and environmental issues does Overseas Territories
Department (OTD) take the lead? Which other parts of the FCO lead
on other trade, development and environmental issues?
— Since the Environmental Charters
were signed, what progress has there been on participation by
the UKOTs in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
other MEAs, including the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife
(SPAW) Protocol for Caribbean UKOTs?
— Has the FCO succeeded in securing
new sources of public and private funding in the UK for environmental
work in the UKOTs?
— What environmental issues in
the UKOTs and the SBAs in Cyprus did the FCO discuss with MOD
during 2006? What objectives does the MOD have concerning the
environment and its activities in the Falklands, Ascension, Gibraltar,
BIOT and the SBAs?
— What discussions has the FCO
had in 2006 with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
concerning existing and possible World Heritage sites in the UKOTs?
— Has the FCO secured guidance
from DCMS to ensure that all the UKOTs are aware of sources of
expert advice in the UK and internationally on standards concerning
marine archaeology? (Lessons can be learned from the recent application
by a US company for the unethical salvage of the Dutch East Indiaman,
the Witte Leeuw, a historic wreck in St Helena waters.)
— Has the FCO requested DCMS to
explain to Trustees of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) that UKOTs
(and Crown Dependencies) should be treated on the same basis as
the UK mainland in the allocation of HLF funds?
— Has the FCO discussed with the
National Environment Research Council ways in which UK scientists
can help the UKOTs; and ways in which the position, natural history
and geology of the UKOTs and their surrounding waters can contribute
to better global understanding of environmental processes?
— Was the FCO involved in the
decision by St Helena to disapply the UK's Freedom of Information
Act to the territory (which has implications for the information
available to the public in St Helena and in the UK concerning
the planning and financing of the proposed airport in St Helena)?
What arrangements have been made throughout the UKOTs to promote
awareness of the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental
information?
— What reports did the FCO provide
to other government departments and to the Governors of UKOTs
concerning issues discussed at the conference held in Jersey in
October 2006?
— Given the importance the Foreign
Secretary attaches to the FCO's engagement in Climate Change issues,
should the UK not assist the cooperative global efforts to monitor
the atmosphere by establishing stations in South Atlantic territories
and the Chagos Archipelago in order to provide data from the South
Atlantic (one of the least understood CO2 sinks) and the Indian
Ocean?
THE FCO AND
OTHER GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS AND
UK INSTITUTIONS
10. The Forum has considerable sympathy
for the difficulties the FCO faces in tackling the problem that
many Whitehall ministers and senior officials—as well as
key funding sources in the UK like the National Lottery—persist
in forgetting that the UKOTs are British. Can Treasury officials
please listen to the Chancellor's promotion of pride in Britain's
global contributions? There is abundant evidence from environmental
scientists and NGOs in the metropolitan UK, the Crown Dependencies
and the UKOTs that the environmental assets of the UKOTs are undervalued
and under-resourced by HMG. But far too many ministers and officials
(and other bodies in the UK) treat the territories as foreign.
Generally they are viewed as actual or potential source of problems,
rather than national assets to be regarded with warmth and pride
as distinctive parts of the diverse British family.
11. The lesson of the 1999 White Paper on
the UKOTs—Partnership for Progress and Prosperity—is
that truly joined-up policy is a slow process. There is evidence
of that in the August 2006 report by the EAC on the role of DFID
in Trade, Development and Environment. The second of the four
clauses defining DFID's statutory responsibilities (International
Development Act, 2002) is:
(2) British Overseas Territories
The Secretary of State may also provide any
person or body with development assistance in a case where the
requirement of section 1(1) is not met, if the assistance is provided
in relation to one or more of the territories for the time being
mentioned in Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c.
61) (British overseas territories). (Note 4)
12. Despite this, the report makes no mention
of the UKOTs. This may be because the view was taken (as it so
often is by MPs, the media and the public) that the UKOTs are
"an FCO problem". They are not. They are sovereign British
territories with people who deserve support, as family members
who do not live in Great Britain but have given loyal service
to the Crown for many generations. The UK government and civil
society will never achieve policy coherence on the UKOTs concerning
trade, development and environment if this is treated as primarily
a matter for the FCO. But the FCO needs to do much more to make
sure that all government departments take pride in maintaining
the sparkle of these "Fragments of Paradise". (Note
5)
Notes:
(1) Except Gibraltar and British Antarctic
Territory: Gibraltar did not feel the charter was appropriate
for its relationship with HMG (although it has since produced
unilaterally an Environment Charter with many similarities to
the others); and environmental commitments by HMG concerning BAT
are addressed within the Antarctic Treaty system. The Sovereign
Base Areas in Cyprus (SBAs) are a joint responsibility of the
FCO and the Ministry of Defence. They do not have an environment
charter but the Forum assumes that FCO and MOD apply the same
principles to them as to the UKOTs.
(2) Now the Overseas Territories Environment
Programme—OTEP—jointly funded and managed by FCO and
DFID, with each department currently providing £0.5 million
per year. This is an average of £71 thousand per year for
each territory—though the funding is not meant to allocated
equally between territories; and a number of projects (eg on climate
change and Caribbean UKOTs) support work in several territories.
(3) For the importance of the marine environment
of the UKOTs, see the speech by John Battle, MP (then FCO Minister
of State with responsibility for global environmental issues)
on 21 March 2001. That started with the words: "I am delighted
to be able to speak to this group [the All-Party Group for Wildlife
Protection] for the first time. While you all have a close interest
in marine conservation, many of you may not know why the subject
matters to the FCO—and how that is expressed in policies
and in action." Sadly, all one could currently expect from
an FCO minister is an explanation of why marine conservation no
longer informs FCO environmental policy and programme priorities.
(4) This clause has the effect of removing
poverty as a criterion for providing assistance to the UKOTs (as
does the third defining clause, which enables DFID to provide
disaster relief without regard to a country's poverty). DFID thus
has the right to provide support for the welfare of the UKOTs
and to promote their sustainable development, defined as "any
development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State,
prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting
benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation
to which it is provided." This also means that DFID rather
than FCO has the budget to support these policy objectives.
(5) That was the title of the book by Sara
Oldfield published in 1987 as a result of a review of the conservation
situation in the UKOTs. One of its recommendations was the establishment
of the unifying organisation that became UKOTCF.
January 2007
| 
