24-Written evidence submitted by the Joint
Nature Conservation Committee
SUMMARY OF
KEY POINTS
1. Three of the strategic priorities identified
in the FCO White Paper are relevant to international nature conservation:
(i) we agree that sustainable development
is a strategic priority and are pleased to see that due regard
has been given to achieving environmental sustainability and tackling
global climate change;
(ii) we support the priority given to the
UK's Overseas Territories and in particular the specific
aim to promote biodiversity conservation; and
(iii) we acknowledge the need for the UK
to engage effectively with the European Union, although
we have some concerns about the apparent emphasis on economic
growth and competitiveness.
2. It is important that the objectives are
now turned into action and that resources commensurate to the
tasks are made available. This is a major issue for the Overseas
Territories, where the level of funding for nature conservation
does not match the magnitude of the challenge involved in protecting
and enhancing the Territories' globally significant biodiversity.
3. We recognise that the strategic priorities
identified in the White Paper are for UK Government as a whole,
although the FCO has a key role in the achievement of many of
these. It is essential that different parts of Government share
coherent objectives and actively co-operate in their delivery.
Suitable mechanisms need to be put in place to achieve this—the
Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Biodiversity exemplifies
one possible approach.
4. One of JNCC's primary responsibilities
is to advise Government on international nature conservation and
we look forward to playing our part in supporting the implementation
of the White Paper. In particular, over the next few years we
are intending to enhance our support for nature conservation in
the Overseas Territories and develop advice on the UK's impacts
on global biodiversity.
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)
is the statutory adviser to Government on UK and international
nature conservation, on behalf of the Council for Nature Conservation
and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural
England and Scottish Natural Heritage. Its work contributes to
maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological
features and sustaining natural systems.
The UK is a key player in supporting the conservation
of the world's biodiversity and Earth heritage and, more generally,
in supporting sustainable development; the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office (FCO) clearly has a key role in implementing UK strategy
in this regard internationally. We welcome this opportunity to
provide evidence to this inquiry on matters relevant to our statutory
remit. We have a particular interest in three of the strategic
international priorities for the UK, and our comments are structured
accordingly.
1. Building an effective and globally competitive
EU in a secure neighbourhood
1.1 We agree with the statement in the White
Paper that "the EU will remain central to achieving the UK's
strategic international priorities and many of our domestic objectives"—a
strong and effective EU has the potential to deliver significant
environmental benefits. However, while agreeing that engagement
with the EU should be a strategic priority for the UK Government,
we are concerned at the emphasis within the FCO strategy on economic
growth and competitiveness in isolation rather than as components
of sustainable development.
1.2 Since the inception of the Barroso Commission,
the ethos of sustainable development has taken a "back-seat"
under the pressure to improve economic growth and employment levels,
despite the President's early statement that sustainable development
would be the overarching objective for the European Union. The
UK Presidency, in the second half of 2005, was able to secure
some positive movement towards recognition of the environment
as critical to a competitive EU, but these gains have been rapidly
eroded. Despite significant effort, the Community yet again has
a weak Sustainable Development Strategy that fails to provide
a sufficient counterweight to the Lisbon Strategy. Despite assurances
that the latter sits within the former, substance to this effect
in draft directives and green papers has not been apparent. In
addition, it is our perception that the better regulation agenda
has been undermined by the economic competitiveness tests that
have been added to the Commission's own impact assessment process.
It is now significantly flawed as a process, and cannot deliver
truly sustainable policy proposals that would ensure the long-term
competitiveness of the EU.
1.3 Ignoring the environment when planning
for and encouraging economic growth will limit competitiveness
for the sake of short-term gain and, by exporting environmental
problems, contribute to an erosion of neighbourhood and global
security. Environmental regulations and policy do not have to
be barriers to growth; they can be (and often are) the drivers
of it. On the other hand, in some cases it may be entirely appropriate
for the environment to constrain economic development.
1.4 We support the importance that the FCO
attaches to budgetary reform within the EU. We believe that an
ambitious outcome for the budgetary review would be a major shift
in the balance of resources towards support for more sustainable
policies, including additional funding for developing new environmentally-friendly
technologies and protecting natural resources. The review should
not be undertaken solely as a means to reduce the overall size
of the budget. The same is true of reforming the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP), which comprises the largest element of the budget.
The first priority for reform of the CAP should be to transfer
resources from direct support (Pillar I) to rural development
(Pillar II), which should have greater emphasis on support for
the provision of public goods by the farming community.
1.5 We share the FCO's aim of supporting
the development of better connections between the EU and its citizens.
In this context, we note that "close to nine out of 10 Europeans
agree that policy-makers should consider the environment just
as important as economic and social policies"[5]
Among all EU policy competences, environment policy is the one
which has the potential to impact on all citizens regardless of
their status, age or location. It is therefore the policy area
through which the EU can add the greatest value to the quality
of life of all its citizens and rebuild the connection between
them and the EU.
1.6 We would welcome the development of
more effective common EU policies. The common policies for agriculture
and fisheries have the most direct impact on the natural environment.
In both cases, it can be claimed that they have been effective
in the delivery of the specific sectoral policy objectives set
out in the Treaty. However, taking account of Article 2 of the
Treaty, which requires respect of the environment and a balanced
and harmonious development, there is considerable scope for these
common policies to be more sustainable and hence more effective.
There may also be other areas where more effective common EU policies
(or frameworks) could bring benefits for the environment.
2. Promoting sustainable development and
poverty reduction underpinned by . . . protection of the environment
2.1 We support this priority and its emphasis
on sustainable development, natural resource management and tackling
climate change. We also welcome the FCO's focus on the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and the targets from the World Summit
on Sustainable Development (WSSD).
2.2 The goods and services provided by the
environment are fundamental to achieving the social and economic
elements of many of the MDGs. Indeed, the world's poor may be
more dependent on such ecosystem services than their wealthier
counterparts. The inadequate progress towards many of the MDGs[6]
is disappointing, and substantial additional effort will be required,
including a greater focus on protecting/restoring environmental
goods and services.
2.3 We endorse the strategy's commitment
to tackling the causes of climate change and adapting to the probable
impacts. As the strategy notes, climate change is likely to have
an impact on all the UK's international objectives. We concur
with the conclusion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment[7]
that climate change is likely to supersede all other factors as
the greatest cause of biodiversity loss over the next century.
Accordingly, we agree with the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases and to develop alternative, low-carbon, energy sources.
However, we caution that any shift to other sources of energy,
such as biofuels, should first be subject to a full-life assessment
of the benefits and risks. For example, an otherwise beneficial
shift to carbon neutral biofuels, derived from soya or sugar cane,
that then stimulated the further clearance of tropical forests
for agriculture would be counter-productive (by losing the carbon
storage and other ecosystem services of forests) and would also
undermine the attainment of the WSSD commitment to reduce the
rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. It is important that there
is coherence across all UK and EU policies and priorities at domestic
and international scales so that they are focused on common goals.
Whatever measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet
will inevitably face climate change on an unprecedented scale
over the next 50 years. Adaptation to the impacts of climate change
is therefore critical and needs to be co-ordinated across UK Government
departments and multilateral environmental agreements.
2.4 We are pleased that the commitments
made at the 2002 WSSD with respect to environmental sustainability
are reflected in Defra's current PSA and associated implementation
plans[8].
We attach particular importance to the target to reduce the rate
of biodiversity loss by 2010, as conservation and sustainable
management of natural resources underpins social and economic
development. Whilst the implementation plan for this target has
a Defra lead, it is vital that it is seen as a cross-government
initiative; we believe that the Inter-Departmental Ministerial
Group on Biodiversity (IDMGB) has a critical role to play in co-ordinating
departmental input. FCO plays a significant role in supporting
environmental measures in the UK's Overseas Territories, and we
believe that it should enhance its support for other aspects of
international biodiversity conservation.
2.5 It is important that effort is focused
on priority areas that will lead to tangible achievements, especially
for those who depend most (namely the world's poor) upon the ecosystem
services that biodiversity provides. JNCC has been undertaking
such work on behalf of the IDMGB by analysing the direct and indirect
causes of biodiversity loss, as derived from the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, as a means of developing appropriate policy responses.
Similarly, it is important to understand the impact that the UK
has on global biodiversity through our patterns of consumption
and trade, eg in our demand for soya, palm oil or biofuels. This
is an area of work that JNCC is actively developing.
3. Ensuring the security and good governance
of the UK's Overseas Territories
3.1 We welcome the strategic priority of
supporting the security and good governance of the Overseas Territories
of the UK, and especially the specific aim to promote biodiversity
conservation.
3.2 The Overseas Territories are of global
significance for the conservation of biodiversity and geodiversity
(ie Earth heritage). They support over 300 globally threatened
species (compared with 59 in the "metropolitan" UK)
and a high number of endemic species (those found nowhere else
in the world). Several of the Territories hold regionally or globally
important concentrations or assemblages of species. For example,
Ascension Island supports the second largest green turtle rookery
in the Atlantic; Gough Island (Tristan da Cunha) has been described
as, arguably, the most important seabird island in the world;
and the reefs of the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean
Territory) are described as some of the most pristine and best
protected in the Indian Ocean (and account for 1.3% of the world
resource). The importance to nature conservation of parts of the
Territories is recognised through the designation as World Heritage
Sites of Gough Island & Inaccessible Islands (Tristan) and
Henderson Island (Pitcairn) for their insular natural heritage
interests.
3.3 The successful conservation of biodiversity
in the Overseas Territories is therefore fundamental to the UK
being able to meet its WSSD commitment to reduce the rate of biodiversity
loss by 2010. Yet the biodiversity of the Territories continues
to be severely threatened by invasive non-native species (such
as rats), climate change and more obvious factors, such as development
pressures transforming habitats. There have been 39 recorded extinctions
in the Territories, and many other species remain at high risk
of extinction.
3.4 One of the main difficulties facing
the Overseas Territories in responding to these pressures is their
lack of capacity and resources, both human and financial; their
human populations are very small and yet they have significant
responsibility for the implementation of international obligations.
Priorities include adapting to climate change, preventing the
establishment of invasive non-native species and controlling or
eradicating those which have become established, taking a more
holistic ecosystem approach to sustainable development, and providing
support to the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements.
3.5 The FCO, in partnership with the Department
for International Development, has taken several measures to support
sustainable development in the Overseas Territories, notably through
the development of Environment Charters and implementation of
the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP), with a
current annual investment of roughly £1 million. We believe
that the continuation of OTEP, as a means of supporting the Environment
Charters and of achieving the UK's strategic international priorities,
is vital. We endorse the recommendations of the recent OTEP review,
and the Government response to this, namely that the fund should
focus on key priorities rather than simply being demand-led.
3.6 We make two additional observations:
(i) The support provided to the Overseas
Territories needs to be commensurate with the challenge. Compared
to the funding available in the metropolitan UK to support biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development more generally, that
for the Territories is much smaller in both absolute and relative
terms, despite the importance of the Territories for biodiversity.
While initiatives such as OTEP are very welcome, we believe that
a much greater investment in sustainable development in the Overseas
Territories is needed from the UK.
(ii) We note that the priorities in the White
Paper are those for the UK Government as a whole and not just
for FCO. We endorse this approach and suggest that greater cross-Government
co-ordination is needed to deliver environmental benefits in the
Overseas Territories. The Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group
on Biodiversity provides one mechanism for achieving this.
3.7 We recognise that JNCC has an important
role to play here in support of UK Government; indeed, JNCC's
current and future support to the Overseas Territories and Crown
Dependencies was considered by our Committee in June 2006[9].
Subject to available funding, we plan to increase our input to
the implementation of Environment Charters, relevant to our skills
and statutory functions and subject to the needs and wishes of
the Territories themselves.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
18 October 2006
SCHENGEN AREA
5 Eurobarometer 217: 2005. Back
6
DFID, 2006. Eliminating world poverty. Making governance work
for the poor. Back
7
http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx Back
8
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/international/wssd/deliveryplans2005.htm Back
9
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/comm06D07.pdf Back
| 
