Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds
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 provide financial, technical and advisory support
to emerging NGO partners in more than 20 countries in Europe,
Asia and Africa. In addition, we are committed to increasing our
already substantial programme of biodiversity conservation work
in the UK Overseas Territories. Much of the RSPB's work in the
UK Overseas Territories contributes to the priorities identified
in the White Paper, Partnerships for Progress and Prosperity
(March 1999), and assists the territories in meeting their commitments
under the Environment Charter and international conventions including
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
This submission is in two parts, firstly observations
on general areas of the FCO's interaction with environmental issues,
specifically biodiversity conservation (particularly related to
inquiry questions, 1, 3, 5 and 7). Secondly we make more detailed
comments on the UK Overseas Territories (question 13). We strongly
support the conclusions on Overseas Territories of the Committee's
recent report on The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
THE ROLE,
STRUCTURE AND
PROGRAMMES OF
FCO IN RELATION
TO BIODIVERSITY
AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Biodiversity conservation led by the UK and the
role of the FCO
1. We believe that the many good examples
of biodiversity conservation in the UK by both government and
non-government agencies, the strength and capacity of the UK conservation
sector and the long history of UK citizens in contributing to
global conservation should be a huge source of pride to the UK.
The potential contribution of British institutions and individuals
to the cause of global biodiversity conservation across the world
is enormous. The success of projects funded by the Darwin Initiative
(managed by DEFRA) is clear evidence of this, as are the many
initiatives funded and undertaken by voluntary organisations such
as the RSPB, Kew Gardens, WWF and Fauna and Flora International.
Where initiatives have been supported by the FCO, for example
seabird restoration in Ascension, they have been equally successful.
2. Furthermore, the RSPB believes that such
programmes can have benefits beyond biodiversity conservation
itself. Environmental sustainability is a key component of good
governance and a prerequisite for sustainable development, peace
and security.
3. Environmental problems are rated alongside
the threats of terrorism and insecurity as major global challenges.
Environmental factors are also increasingly implicated in analyses
of development, peace and conflict situations. There is mounting
concern over the extent to which environmental stress is threatening
livelihoods, health and the fulfilment of basic needs, and harming
the sustainability and resilience of fragile ecosystems. Environmental
degradation intensifies conflict and competition over natural
resources, aggravating social tensions, and in certain volatile
situations can provoke or escalate violence and conflict.
4. Conversely, we believe that biodiversity
conservation can be a force for unity, promoting collaboration
between otherwise hostile countries and offering a chance for
the UK to promote a positive image in countries where overall
our relations with governments are problematic. Environmental
challenges ignore political boundaries, bridge religious and ideological
divides, encourage local and non-governmental participation, and
extend community building beyond polarising economic linkages.
The RSPB is supporting successful conservation work by emerging
NGOs in a number of countries where civil society has traditionally
been discouraged or stifled.
FCO responsibilities
5. In this context we are sorry that the
FCO seems generally to place a low priority on biodiversity conservation.
While there are some positive initiatives, there are also many
causes for concern.
(i) Generally, the FCO Sustainable Development
Strategy gives low priority to biodiversity conservation, even
though this is acknowledged everywhere as one of the critical
issues facing the Earth. Although specific aspects such as illegal
logging are flagged up, there is no mention of the huge loss of
species that is currently occurring, and there is an assumption
perhaps that conservation work will be done by others.
(ii) Perhaps in consequence the Global Opportunities
Fund (GOF) makes very limited provision for funding biodiversity
conservation projects, certainly compared with the now abolished
Environmental Projects Fund (EPF), which was a modest but enormously
useful programme which benefited biodiversity and other conservation
projects in many countries around the world. It is profoundly
worrying that, although "biodiversity" was one of nine
priorities under the old Human rights, democracy and good governance
programme within the GOF, it is not a priority under the current
Sustainable development programme.
(iii) The merging of the former Environmental
Policy Department into what is now the Sustainable Development
and Business Group gives the environment in general and biodiversity
in particular a much lower profile in the FCO's work.
(iv) The very welcome development of the
network of environmental attaches in embassies around the world
was somewhat negated by the apparently low priority afforded to
what was often one of their many tasks and the abolition rapidly
thereafter of the EPF which removed one of the key tools for their
work. We are unclear whether the environmental attache network
is still in operation.
6. We consider that this represents a missed
opportunity to showcase a major contribution that the UK can make
to one of the most important international issues facing the world—the
widespread loss of biodiversity. The decision to close the British
Embassy in Madagascar—one of the most important countries
in the world for biodiversity and at a time when the government
there is extremely receptive to assistance from UK agencies—symbolises
the perception that biodiversity does not feature highly in the
FCO's strategic concerns.
Recommendation
7. Environmental degradation, alongside
poverty and disease, needs to be recognised as a significant underlying
threat to international peace and security. National and international
efforts need to explicitly recognise this and urgently put it
at the heart of UK government policy.
8. We propose that the FCO should consider
urgently:
(i) the introduction of biodiversity conservation,
focusing on the safeguarding of threatened species and habitats,
as an explicit theme within the Global Opportunities Fund;
(ii) the recognition of the potential role
of biodiversity conservation in promoting other themes of importance
to the UK( for example under the Engaging with the Islamic world
GOF programme, where there are many opportunities for conservation
initiatives to involve diverse sections of society;
(iii) an enhanced role for attaches in overseas
missions to promote UK conservation expertise overseas and to
engage with both UK and in-country stakeholders;
(iv) better provision of information to FCO
staff on the importance of the environment for development and
security objectives, and vice versa;
(v) providing support to assist capacity-building
in civil society within the environment sector;
(vi) encouraging all governments to ratify
and strengthen existing multilateral environmental agreements
by helping developing countries to implement them through the
provision of financial and technical support; and
(vii) a continued commitment by the UK Government
to ensure that all development programmes funded by the Government
or subject to export credit guarantees undergo appropriate environmental
assessment before they are considered for approval.
HAS THE
FCO MET ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES TOWARDS
THE ENVIRONMENT
IN UK OVERSEAS
TERRITORIES?
9. The UK Overseas Territories are rich
in biodiversity. For example, they are home to at least 47 bird
species of global conservation concern (more than the whole of
Europe) and play host to more than a third of the world's breeding
albatrosses. Based on the numbers of globally threatened and near-threatened
bird species, the UK mainland ranks 192nd in importance out of
234 countries. When the Overseas Territories are included, however,
the UK rises into the top 20.
10. The conservation of biodiversity is
a priority for many of the Territories' inhabitants, as they are
dependent on it for their livelihoods. For example, revenue raised
from fisheries and tourism is vital to many communities, and mangroves
and coral reefs provide protection from severe weather events.
As on all small islands around the world, however, these fragile
ecosystems are increasingly under threat. The impact of introduced
invasive species has been devastating, causing extinctions and
significant population reductions in every territory. Habitat
destruction is increasing vulnerability to hurricanes. Long-line
fishing is having a catastrophic effect on seabirds while they
feed out at sea.
11. The UK Overseas Territories have minimal
capacity to manage their biodiversity effectively, because they
are small, remote islands with small populations and little income.
It is not possible for the UK Overseas Territories to access international
sources of funding such as the Global Environment Facility because
they are considered to be the responsibility of the UK Government.
FCO's responsibilities
12. Although the UK Overseas Territories
are locally self-governed, the UK Government, through FCO and
other government departments, retains responsibility for external
affairs, including the implementation of international conventions
such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention,
the Cartagena Convention, the World Heritage Convention, CITES
and the Convention on Migratory Species. The UK Government has
signed up to the 2010 target to halt the loss of biodiversity,
which makes the territories a high priority for conservation action.
13. Although the FCO Sustainable Development
Strategy has targets for the Overseas Territories, it is difficult
to see how the FCO can meet its environmental responsibilities
within this plan as it has insufficient internal environmental
expertise or resources. Currently the FCO contributes only approximately
£0.5 million per year to the Overseas Territories Environment
Programme, a fund run jointly with the Department for International
Development to support biodiversity conservation in the UK Overseas
Territories. This is paltry when compared to the £460 million
spent on biodiversity conservation in the UK, and is not commensurate
with the numbers of globally threatened species found on the territories.
It means that the areas of UK territory that are most important
in global biodiversity terms are also most poorly resourced.
14. Given the Government's responsibility
for the UK Overseas Territories and the contribution that biodiversity
makes to livelihoods there, it is shameful that the territories
are not given more support. Additional sums are urgently needed
to build basic biodiversity conservation capacity in each territory,
to develop measures to meet international obligations and to undertake
priority restoration works. The RSPB hopes to embark on work in
2007 to cost more exactly the priority conservation programmes
in the UK Overseas Territories. Meanwhile, we estimate that a
minimum of £10 million per year for the territories would
begin to meet the priority conservation needs.
15. If increased funding is not identified,
endemic species will become extinct in these territories and the
UK Government will fail to meet the 2010 target to address biodiversity
loss. Opportunities to make positive gains for biodiversity and
make amends for historical losses, such as through island restoration
through control of invasive species will never be realised. It
is increasingly at risk of being seen as hypocritical in urging
others to take conservation action while not taking it within
its own jurisdiction.
Recommendation
16. We believe that the FCO should demonstrate
that it takes its international obligations seriously, first by
guaranteeing the long-term continuation of a strengthened Overseas
Territories Environment Programme, and secondly by ensuring that
adequate resources are available through this programme. This
must be achieved either by obtaining increased funding or (if
this is not possible) by focusing some of the existing Global
Opportunity Fund resources on the territories, for which the UK
Government has undisputed responsibility.
January 2006
|
