Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-22)
MR PAUL
BUCKLEY, MS
SARAH SANDERS
AND MR
VASSILI PAPASTAVROU
30 JANUARY 2007
Q20 Mr Caton: You mentioned those
territories where nobody lives. I guess again the Government's
argument against this is that these are very remote places and
you have to put in a lot of resources that might show a better
return elsewhere. What do you say to that argument?
Ms Sanders: If you look at the
level of resources required on the territories and what we spend
on biodiversity conservation in the UK, I do not think we are
looking at huge amounts of resources. The UK has a responsibility
here. When we talk about Henderson and Gough Islands, these are
World Heritage sites. At the moment on Gough Island the Tristan
albatross is threatened with extinction because it is predated
by mice. At present we are funded by the UK Government to do a
feasibility study to look at the potential for perhaps eradicating
mice from the island but to take forward a project like that we
are looking at least £2 million. Resources like that need
to be available for the UK Overseas Territories if they are going
to meet their biodiversity conservation responsibilities.
Q21 Mr Caton: We have already discussed
the structural reorganisation in the FOC. Has that had a direct
impact on the Overseas Territories in terms of environmental protection?
Ms Sanders: I think it has. Who
do they go to in the Foreign Office for some biodiversity advice?
I am thinking particularly of the recent oil rig stranding off
Tristan Island. This had the potential basically to destroy the
whole economy of Tristan because Tristan is dependent on its cray
fishery. The arrival of this oil rig and the potential introduction
of invasive marine species—I think there have been at least
30 potential marine invasives—could destroy the fishery,
but who were the Tristan Island Council meant to turn to? Who
in the Foreign Office could provide the environmental advice and
expertise that they needed? It is just not very clear.
Q22 Mr Caton: You have said that
you are agnostic on whether environmental responsibility should
lie with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or Defra, but I detect
in some of the evidence you have given that you have looked back
to a time when FCO was functioning very well and, if you could
return to that, that might be the best way forward.
Ms Sanders: The advantage that
the Foreign Office has over Defra is that it has the contacts
on the ground. Defra does not necessarily have those same sorts
of relationships. Perhaps the way forward is to increase the internal
expertise within the Foreign Office.
Mr Buckley: If one moves to a
scenario where it is seen slightly more as a focal part of the
UK environment policy, there is potentially a role for lots of
people. The Foreign Office are clearly the right people to make
the links between the territories and people within the UK, rooted
in the UK, but obviously Defra, through the organisation, does
have a range of expertise which could be usefully employed. The
Joint Nature Conservation Committee would be an obvious agency
to implement some of this work. We also think about people like
DCMS, who have responsibility for the World Heritage sites but
also run the National Lottery. One of the issues we are trying
to seek clarification on is whether the territories actually could
access the National Lottery but they never have been able to do
that. One can imagine a network building up of various people
being able to help. I go back to the point that the previous life
of the Foreign Office was better but there were still very few
resources around to do this work. It might have been better but
it was not quite there.
Ms Sanders: It has been encouraging
recently to see JNCC appoint an officer specifically responsible
for the UK Overseas Territories that comes from the Overseas Territories.
It is a step forward in the right direction. JNCC would also say
that they need more resources if they are going to provide the
sort of advice that the Overseas Territories require.
Mr Papastavrou: I have a comment
on your earlier question. In a lot of ways the FCO is better placed
to deal with multilateral environment agreements than Defra. FCO
people will know what is achievable in China or Vietnam in a way
that Defra will not. If people within FCO have a handle on the
overall network of countries that they deal with, they will know
which are the best ones to approach in a way that Defra simply
will not be able to do.
Chairman: Thank you all very much for
that very useful evidence.
| 
