House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit First Report

UK Overseas Territories

126. There are 14 UK Overseas Territories (UKOT) including Bermuda, the Falkland Islands and Pitcairn. These have:

… their own identity and governing structure and are not represented in the UK Parliament; however, they form part of the nation-state of [the] UK. The exact relationship between Overseas Territories and the UK differs for almost all the Territories, but generally the UK is responsible for defence and international relations (including international conventions), as well as other aspects in some Territories, and is expected to provide general advice and support in most aspects of government. The UK also has reserve powers in respect of legislation.[136]

127. The biodiversity value of the UKOT is very great, and they support more than 200 endemic plants and over 20 endemic birds, with new species still being discovered.[137] The UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) notes that in the UKOT "ecosystem loss and global extinctions—which could be prevented—are still occurring".[138] One global extinction has occurred in the OTs since 2000, and some 240 species are at a high risk of global extinction in these territories.[139]

128. Funding for conservation in the UKOTs is, according to UKOTCF, very poor. Due to their status as UK territories, the OT are "not eligible for most international grant sources, but nor are they eligible for most UK funding".[140] Primary UK Government funding for important biodiversity conservation projects comes from the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP), run jointly by the FCO and DFID. The programme offers "advice and small grant funding to the UKOT to enable the implementation of their Environment Charters and environment management more generally".[141] This fulfils a DFID commitment in a 1999 White Paper to "provide additional assistance to the poorer territories in addressing global environmental concerns".[142] The FCO and DFID have provided the programme with £1.5m for a three year period 2004/05—2006-07.[143]

129. A review of the OTEP conducted by Steve Bass at IIED and published February 2006 concluded that it has proven "extraordinarily valuable" in supporting biodiversity conservation in the UKOT. It also concluded that there are "increasingly apparent environmental capacity gaps" in the UKOT. The funding system of the OTEP, although successful, is not suitable for larger-scale environmental problems over a larger time frame, and support is need also to fund additional capacity, such as staff, which "will be key".[144] FCO and DFID responded that "as a matter of policy (and because of resource constraints) OTEP does not support permanent salaried positions". They went on:

It is our view that if governments in the territories are sufficiently committed to their Environment Charters, they should support such positions from their own resources, as indeed some already do. We will, however, continue to provide short-term technical assistance where appropriate (either through projects, or otherwise), and will use our best endeavours to source expertise from other agencies or charities.[145]

130. A recent review conducted by JNCC would appear to contradict this assertion:

Many of the Territories have limited capacity to address environmental issues despite some very talented and dedicated staff in governments and NGOs. This situation largely reflects the low population numbers (from 40 to 88,000 people) within the respective Territories and the attendant limited financial and human resources (and other competing priorities for resources). Even in those Territories where per capita income is high, the low population size greatly limits the funds available for nature conservation. Most biodiversity support from the UK is in time-limited projects which limit the ability of Territories to develop and retain capacity in the longer term. The Territories may also be, or feel, isolated from one another and from the UK.[146]

131. The UKOTCF is concerned that a lack of resources is jeopardising biodiversity in the OT, and criticised DEFRA for failing to address the issue:

The Forum and its members remain concerned at the lack of financial commitment by Defra to UK's shared responsibilities for conservation in the UK Overseas Territories. The Darwin Initiative is a scheme in which UK tries to help other countries, and these are taken to include the UK Overseas Territories for this purpose. However, this is UK acting as a good citizen of the world; it does not address specifically those parts of the world for which UK has shared responsibility. The UK Overseas Territories are the most important parts of the world in biodiversity terms for which UK has responsibility. However, the human populations resident on them are too small (whatever their average income) alone to provide for all the conservation measures. The spend by UK per endemic species, or per vulnerable species, or by whatever unit chosen, is several orders of magnitude smaller for UK Overseas Territories than for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Defra has been unresponsive to this disgraceful situation, which has been noted to it for several years by the Forum and others. Action is needed urgently, as endemic species for which UK is responsible continue to disappear.[147]

132. It argued that failure to address this issue is "a fundamental reason why UK will fail to meet its internationally agreed 2010 targets".[148]

133. Considering the 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.

134. Defra involvement in the OTs "is currently limited to a few Darwin Initiative grants, some support on issues around MEAs, and occasionally supporting greater access by OTs to EU environment funds".[149] The reason for this is due to DEFRA having limited responsibility towards the OTs, as the OT White Paper "conferred no additional resources on DEFRA to support the OTs". The review of the OTEP conducted by IIED proposed that DEFRA:

…be requested to consider a lead involvement in reviewing progress in the Environment Charters (both OT and HMG commitments), perhaps through the JNCC. We further propose that the case for larger or more routine funding from HMG is explored, particularly for capacity development, in which the Environment Agency would be well-placed to play a technical role: a submission to the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Biodiversity should be considered.[150]

135. The response from Government on these recommendations was unsatisfactory:

The matter of longer-term and more substantial HMG funding for biodiversity conservation and environmental management in the territories is one that has been raised by NGOs at the regular six-monthly meetings between the UKOTCF and representatives of HMG departments. We understand that the UKOTCF may be considering an approach to ministers.[151]

136. The issue of funding in the UKOTs was raised during this inquiry. The RSPB claimed that "about £10 million a year is all that would be needed to meet the conservation needs in all territories".[152] It went on that such conservation funding is crucial for the UKOTs as the environment "provides essential services, not least for nature-based industries on which many livelihoods there depend (e.g. tourism and fishing)".[153]

137. Dr Osborn from NERC told the Sub-committee:

..there is a general appreciation in the UK ecological community that those territories are quite important in biodiversity terms. They have got some very unique resources. I see a slight trend in government that that is perhaps an area of biodiversity resource that has not quite received the attention it has deserved. Whether that translates into increased funding for that area is another issue, and I cannot comment on that, but I do detect an increasing recognition that there are important biodiversity resources that fall under the UK's general responsibilities towards those overseas territories.[154]

138. In evidence to the Committee, the Minister stated that there is a complexity in addressing the conservation needs of the UKOTs, is legally complex as internationally the UK Government has responsibility for biodiversity there, but biodiversity is now a devolved issue for the UKOTs to deal with themselves:

I think that there is a difficulty that we need to acknowledge here—and I would actually find it quite interesting to get feedback from your Committee on this—in that we have a recognition that many of these overseas territories do not have the resources to tackle some of the biggest issues that they are facing at an environmental level and yet they are, as I say, to all intents and purposes devolved matters for them to administer within their own borders. I think that there is a tension here.[155]

139. According to the OTEP review conducted by IIED, this appears to be less of a hurdle than the Minister might believe, as the review concluded that the issue "is primarily a budgetary one" due to DEFRA not having being conferred additional resources to support OTs.[156] When asked whether there was the argument for more UK Government resources to be channelled towards the UKOTs, the Minister responded:

I am sure that somebody could make it an argument! I am not seeking to do that. What I am seeking to do is genuinely say that I think we have to recognise that there is an issue here because it is clear that many of the overseas territories would find great difficulty in tackling the sorts of habitat degradation that may be affecting species that are located within their borders on their own and I do think we need to not just look at what we can do at an international level such as through conventions like ECAP and so on but we do need to recognise here that the overseas territories are facing.[157]

140. We welcome the DEFRA Minister's recognition of the problems facing the UKOTs, and their lack of capacity to deal with the environmental challenges that they face. Given this and our international, not to mention moral, obligation to prevent biodiversity loss in the UKOTs, the Government must now move towards increased and more appropriate funding for conservation and ecosystem management there. The amount of resources required to undertake this work is miniscule in comparison to the environmental and social gains that would be expected. Such funding must be more long-term and strategic to enable the environmental capacity in the UKOTs to reach the levels required. DEFRA must be given joint responsibility for delivery of this.

141. In evidence to this inquiry the Royal Society said that "the UK overseas territories could provide useful case studies for the application of the MA framework as an alternative to an assessment of the UK as these are generally the UK's biodiversity hotspots".[158] The undertaking of an MA-type assessment might prove particularly helpful in the UKOTs due to the range of challenges that they often face. Indeed, the review of OTEP found that interviewees in the UKOTs "frequently cited waste management, sanitation and pollution control as pressing local environmental needs (addressing both existing legacies of degraded land and polluted water, and the risks posed by continued development patterns)". The review stated that addressing such problems will be "critical to the OTs' future".[159] The range of environmental, social and economic challenges facing UKOTs will be better addressed by undertaking an MA-type assessment for each UKOT. The UK Government must work jointly with UKOT governments on an MA to ensure that their ecosystem services are not damaged further and preserved into the future. The Inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Biodiversity should seriously consider this as the route by which they can achieve their commitments to the UKOTs.

136 "Background to the UKOTCF", UKOTCF, 2006, www.ukotcf.org Back

137 "Annual Report April 2005 to March 2006", UKOTCF, 2006, www.ukotcf.org Back

138 ibid Back

139 "UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: A review of JNCC's current and future involvement", Joint Nature Conservation Committee, June 2006, www.jncc.gov.uk Back

140 "Annual Report April 2005 to March 2006", UKOTCF, 2006 Back

141 "A review of the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP)", IIED for DFID & FCO, 6 February 2006, www.ukotcf.org Back

142 ibid Back

143 ibid Back

144 ibid Back

145 "Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP): OTEP Secretariat response to the recommendations of the 2005 review of the programme", OTEP Secretariat, 2006, www.ukotcf.org/OTEP Back

146 "UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: A review of JNCC's current and future involvement", Joint Nature Conservation Committee, June 2006, www.jncc.gov.uk Back

147 "Annual Report April 2005 to March 2006", UKOTCF, 2006, www.ukotcf.org Back