4 UK Overseas Territories
39. The UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) are globally
significant in terms of their biodiversity. They contain some
240 globally threatened species, 74 of which are critically endangered.
Responsibility for local environmental policy is devolved to local
UKOT governments where they exist. However, in evidence to us
the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) argued
that it is "entirely unrealistic to expect government and
NGO bodies in these small communities to find locally all the
human and financial resources required to monitor and protect
their fragile natural environment".[58]
Consequently, it said, "local environmental legislation and
its enforcement are often weak, including in critical areas such
as spatial planning".[59]
UKOTCF believed that under these circumstances the UK Government
has a moral responsibility to support UKOT governments in protecting
their biodiversity. It pointed out that the UK Government is accountable
for UKOT biodiversity under international conventions. The UKOTCF
also saw a link between the Government's failure to ensure good
standards of good governance in the UKOTs and negative impacts
on biodiversity protection.
40. Iain Orr of BioDiplomacy was critical of the
continued failure to join-up government in dealing with the UKOTs.
He argued that ministers and officials from Defra, Department
for International Development, FCO, Department for Culture Media
and Sport, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Justice "need
to have a shared understanding of what role each of them has in
supporting the 2010 [biodiversity] target".[60]
UKOTCF agreed that the government's approach to environmental
protection "remains fragmentary and inadequate".[61]
41. In the past we have severely criticised the Government
for failing adequately to protect the biodiversity of the UKOTs.
In our Report on the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
published in January 2007, we expressed concern about the continued
threat of extinction of around 240 species in the UKOTs and argued
that it was "distasteful", given their lack of resources,
that the FCO and DFID had argued that it was up to the UKOTs to
fund protection of these species. We concluded that if the "Government
is to achieve the […] 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 UKOT".[62]
We urged the Government to increase funding for conservation and
ecosystem management in the UKOT and to give Defra joint responsibility
with the FCO and DfID for delivering this.
42. We returned to this issue in our Report on Development
and the Environment: the Role of the FCO. We found that the
funding situation for environmental protection in the UKOT appeared
to be based on what the FCO and DFID could spare, rather than
a strategic assessment of need, and we reiterated our previous
call for increased funding. We recommended that Defra should be
involved at the highest level in a review of the Environment Charters,
which describe the various roles and responsibilities of the Government
and the governments of the UKOT (where they exist). We recognised
that changes in departmental responsibilities would need to be
reflected in Defra's Comprehensive Spending Review settlement.
We concluded that failing to address the issue of biodiversity
loss in the UKOT:
[The Government] will run the risk of continued environmental
decline and [further] species extinctions in the UKOT, ultimately
causing the UK to fail in meeting its domestic and international
environmental commitments. Failure to meet such commitments undermines
the UK's ability to influence the international community to take
the strong action required for reversing environmental degradation
in their own countries, and globally.[63]
43. The Foreign Affairs Committee published a report
on the UKOTs. It concluded that:
[…] given the vulnerability of Overseas Territories'
species and ecosystems, [the] lack of action by the Government
is highly negligent. The environmental funding currently being
provided by the UK to the Overseas Territories appears grossly
inadequate[64]
44. Recommendations that we have made in the past
appear largely to have been ignored. There has not been an adequate
assessment of funding needs and how funding might be delivered.[65]
In the review of the Environment Charters,[66]
the UKOTCF claimed that the government "felt unable to provide
information to this exercise, which [it] attributed to lack of
resources [… and therefore] consideration of fulfilment of
commitments by [government] remained very incomplete".[67]
A reassessment of the various roles and responsibilities of departments
was not carried out as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review,
and Defra has not been made jointly responsible for the UKOT.
45. The Minister pointed out that funding was provided
by DFiD and FCO, and argued that it was for those departments
to address any funding shortfall, although she told us that Defra
had tried to support the UKOTs through the Darwin Initiative.[68]
She told us that she had not met recently with FCO and DFiD Ministers
on the Inter-Departmental Group on Biodiversity, which was set
up to help deal with the environmental challenges identified in
the UKOT, but that a meeting would be arranged. An official told
us that the group had met some four times over the past four years,
and accepted that the intention was initially for it to meet every
six to nine months.[69]
Joan Ruddock MP said that the Committee "may have a point
to make about wider co-ordination [and that] I think we should
be asking ourselves the questions that you have posed: Do we think
this is sufficiently well coordinated across government? Do we
think that the overseas territories are getting the maximum result
from whatever funding government is able to give them? What more
do we need to know?"[70]
46. The Government
has a clear moral and legal duty to help protect the biodiversity
of the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, where it
is the eleventh hour for many species. We are extremely concerned
that recommendations that we have made in the past that would
have helped to protect the environment of the Overseas Territories
have been ignored. The Government must:
- adopt a truly
joined-up approach to environmental protection the UKOTs and Crown
Dependencies, by bringing together all relevant departments including
the FCO, MoJ, DfID, Defra, DCMS and MoD, and the governments of
the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies;
- make better use of the Inter-Departmental
Group on biodiversity to provide more oversight and support for
the development and implementation of effective environmental
protection policy in the UKOTs, and expand the Group to include
other relevant departments;
- have Defra assume joint responsibility
for the UKOTs, and reflect this in future spending settlements;
and
- address the dire lack of funds
and information for environmental protection in the UKOTs. An
ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each
UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required
and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity
loss.
47. With
leadership, and a relatively small sum of money, the incredible
biodiversity found in our overseas territories can be safeguarded
into the future. One of the most important contributions that
the Government could make to slowing the catastrophic global biodiversity
loss currently occurring would be to accept its responsibilities
and to provide more support for the UK Overseas Territories in
this area.
58 Ev 107 Back
59
ibid Back
60
Ev 184 Back
61
Ev 107 Back
62
Environmental Audit Committee, First Report of Session 2006-07,
The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, HC 77 Back
63
ibid Back
64
Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08,
Overseas Territories, HC 147-I Back
65
Ev 108 Back
66
The Environment Charters describe the responsibilities of the
UK Government and the Government of each Territory for the conservation
of the environment in the UKOTs Back
67
Ev 108 Back
68
Q 176 Back
69
Q 172 [Mr Brasher] Back
70
Q 177 Back
| 
