Submission from the UK Overseas Territories
Conservation Forum (UKOTCF)
The UK Overseas Territories Conservation
Forum, hereafter "the Forum" or "UKOTCF",
promotes the conservation of species, habitats and ecosystem services
in the UK's Overseas Territories (UKOTs) and their contribution
to the welfare of the people of the UKOTs. Its 33 member and associate
member organizations include leading environmental bodies in the
UK, in the UKOTs, and in the Crown Dependencies. The last named,
the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, share with the UKOTs
many special features of the biodiversity and governance of small
non-sovereign island territories. These include relying on HMG
to represent their interests internationally and in multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs) and negotiations.
The Forum draws on the expertise of its members
and network of specialists (mainly working in a voluntary capacity)
to provide advice and encouragement to HMG, UKOT governments and
non-governmental organizations, companies and other stakeholders
in the rich—but often undervalued—natural heritage
of the UKOTs.
The submission first considers the relationship
between governance, sustainable resource management and the long-term
environmental, social and economic security of the UK Overseas
Territories (Section 1). It then elaborates on specific areas
of concern highlighted by the "call for evidence" (Section
2).
SECTION 1: THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
GOVERNANCE, SUSTAINABLE
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
AND ECONOMIC
SECURITY IN
THE UKOTS
1. The UKOTs are mainly small fragile islands
and archipelagos with a wide range of marine and terrestrial habitats
and a high proportion of endemic species (more than ten times
that of the British mainland). This biodiversity has a global
significance and is an important local resource that underpins
small, dispersed economies that are highly sensitive to external
pressures.
2. Despite their vulnerability to the loss of
biodiversity, the UKOTs lag behind metropolitan UK in terms of
environmental protection (EC, 2006; 4.2.1), and as a result, they
tend to suffer disproportionately from poorly regulated tourism,
inappropriate development and unsustainable resource management.
They are also particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate
change and are likely to be the first indicator of its global
effects (Hindmarch, 2007; p 80-81).
3. There is a growing recognition that economic
security and human well being depend upon the sustainable management
of biodiversity, and in turn on good governance (Smith, et al,
2003). This thinking has conditioned policy formulation throughout
the European Union (EU, 2001; EC, 2006) and particularly in the
UK (UKSDS, 2005), producing an increasingly effective panoply
of instruments designed to protect the environment and sustain
its economic potential.
4. With the exception of Gibraltar, where EU
regulations apply, these measures do not fully extend to the UKOTs.
This deprives them of adequate planning framework, making it difficult
for biodiversity concerns to be integrated into the planning process
(sensu Defra, 2007). Even valuable strategic initiatives such
as the environment charters (Pienkowski, 2007) have faltered due
to inadequate policy integration and follow-through (para 9, 15).
5. At a time when UKOTs are becoming increasingly
exposed to perverse economic incentives that encourage large-scale
development, particularly in the wider Caribbean, the absence
of an adequate system of controls means that this development
is often implemented without due strategic oversight. This militates
against transparency (para 11), public involvement (para 16) and
effective planning control (para 10) and contributes to changes
that progressively impoverish and remove habitats and the services
they provide (sensu POST, 2007) to traditional economic activities.
They also draw down pressures for small-scale development that
can evade scrutiny altogether, adding to a destructive urban creep
that degrades the environment and imperils the long-term economic
sustainability of the territories.
6. This lack of effective planning control has
a number of related causes. These include:
(a) The low political status of the territories
is an underlying problem. UKOTs are "small, scattered sparsely
populated and remote from centres of power; they hardly register
politically except at times of conflict or disaster" (Hindmarch,
2007).
(b) A confusing ambivalence over UKOT status
on some issues. For example, whereas firm decisions have been
made on issues relating to sexual offences (Hoffmann et al, 2006)
and capital punishment, where the metropolitan UK government has
effectively imposed its authority, the responsibility for environmental
matters has largely been devolved to local administrations (para
10).
(c) The outmoded systems of governance that
exist in both the UK and UKOTs administrations involving muddled
departmental responsibility and confusion over the role of Governors
(para 15, 16).
7. These circumstances have produced policy
gaps, missing budget lines, and weak and fragmentary communication
links. They have also created insecurities over departmental responsibility
(Hindmarch, 2007; p 82) as well as a recurring climate of uncertainty
in both UK and UKOT administrations (para 10). All of which conspire
to hobble policy delivery (para 9, 10, 11), compromise local initiative
and frustrate the conservation efforts of NGO communities in the
UK and the UKOTs (Hindmarch, 2007). These dysfunctional arrangements:
(a) Infringe the human rights of UKOT communities
by depriving them of the benefits of environmental protection,
and thus the means of securing a sustainable future.
(b) Prevent the establishment of overarching
environmental and economic policies able to protect globally important
habitats that are fragile and vulnerable to overuse, poor management
and the uncertain effects of climate change.
(c) Hamper the development of regional and
thematic cooperation among the UKOTs and with the island territories
of other European states.
(d) Undermine the UK's international reputation
for protecting biodiversity (EC, 2006; 5.2.2).
(e) Cast doubts on any claim the UK might
have to promote "sustainable development and good world government"
(EC, 2006; Para 2), particularly in the area of climate change
(FCO, 2007).
A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
FOR THE
UKOTS FOUNDED
ON EFFECTIVE
GOVERNANCE
8. Governance reforms might have the following
elements:
(a) Coordinate efforts of government departments
at a high level in an effort to promote "joined up solutions"
(UKSDS, 2005; p 9) and "good governance in overseas communities"
(UKSDS, 2005; p 17). Mainstream the idea of sustainable development
in the Civil Service (UKSDS, 2005; p 10). Develop a specialist
unit in the FCO to oversee the implementation of environmental
policy in the UKOTs and enable its staff to keep "up to date
with policy" and "deliver UK priorities" (UKSDS,
2005; p 163). Link these reforms with a parallel streamlining
within UKOT administrative systems.
(b) Review arrangements for sustainable development
in the UKOT along the lines of those available for the UK regions
(UKSDS, 2005; p 60) with the aim of bringing the UKOTs, at least
conceptually, within the ambit of the UK strategic planning framework
(UKSDS, 2005; p 116).
(c) Extend the resources of metropolitan
UK and EU environmental policies and budget lines to the UKOTs
and apply audit measures that ensure compliance to best practice
in relation to such things as climate change (UKSDS, 2005; p 119).
(d) Encourage the development of coherent
regional spatial and economic policies in the UKOTs, together
with the related systems of public involvement, planning control
and enforcement.
(e) Establish mechanisms for inter-regional
cooperation (UKSDS, 2005; p 159) between UKOTs and integrate this
with a wider EU approach on Community Overseas Territories as
a whole (Hindmarch, 2007).
SECTION 2: ELABORATION
OF SPECIFIC
AREAS OF
CONCERN HIGHLIGHTED
BY THE
"CALL FOR
EVIDENCE"
Standards of governance in the UKOTs
9. Environment Charters were agreed between
the UK Government and 13 of the Overseas Territories in 2001.
The UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, (with some earlier
encouragement from the Governments and NGOs in UKOTs, Crown Dependencies
and UK) developed over the last two years, and published, an independent
analysis of progress in implementation of these (Pienkowski, 2007).
The FCO indicated its anticipation of this in its supplementary
evidence to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
this year (AC, 2007). However, the UK Government eventually felt
unable to contribute information to this in respect of the delivery
of its own commitments. The UK Government made no coherent attempt
to monitor the performance of the territories or to review its
own performance under the Charters until shortly after UKOTCF's
report was published this year. Then UK Government circulated
to UKOTs a request that they report on their performance and their
current view of the Environment Charters. It is not known whether
UK Government is undertaking also a review of the delivery of
its own commitments.
10. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
in practice treats the UKOT governments as though they are autonomous
in respect of environmental conservation, without attempting to
hold them to account for developmental decisions that undermine
the territories' biodiversity and long-term economic viability
as well as the international commitments into which UK Government
enters, and is answerable for, on their behalf.
11. Too often, these decisions are taken without
transparency or proper local consultation, with widespread local
suspicions of corruption in the processes of land transfer, planning,
approval and project management.
The role of Governors and other office-holders
appointed by or on the recommendation of the United Kingdom Government
12. In most territories (with the notable
exceptions of Bermuda and Gibraltar), Governors chair the Executive
Council or Cabinet. Even where constitutionally required normally
to accept the advice of the local Chief Minister and his elected
colleagues, they are therefore in a unique position to monitor
draft legislation and question, influence and, where appropriate,
at least delay key policy decisions.
13. It follows that the FCO should ensure
that Governors are fully briefed on conservation issues, require
them to report on questionable developments within their territories,
and encourage them to seek to influence local government policy
and practice. Consistent with this, the FCO should use Governor's
offices as the channel for communication with UKOT governments
on environmental issues.
14. Until very recently, this channel of
consultation was regular practice. There is now a regrettable
tendency for the FCO to communicate mainly through UKOT representatives
in London (where these exist), effectively leaving Governors and
their staffs out of the loop.
The work of the Overseas Territories Consultative
Council (OTCCs)
15. The Environment Charters were for the
most part finally agreed and signed at the 2001 Overseas Territories
Consultative Council. Since then, environmental issues have not
had the attention they deserve at OTCCs. The FCO maintains that
it is for the Chief Ministers to set the agenda, but has not hesitated
to insist on discussion of other issues of higher priority for
the UK Government. We believe that environmental conservation
is of sufficient importance to be a standard agenda item at all
OTCCs.
Transparency and accountability in the Overseas
Territories
16. As indicated above, it is vital that
there be transparent local procedures for reaching decisions that
would have adverse implications for the environment. Although
elected local governments are directly accountable to their electorates,
the FCO should also place a clear responsibility on Governors
to do whatever they can to strengthen procedures and to monitor
and influence significant decisions. This is all the more so because
not all UKOTs have developed a culture in which public debate
is welcomed, and some UKOT (and therefore also UK) citizens are
afraid to discuss matters which would be normal in domestic UK.
The application of international treaties, conventions
and other agreements to the Overseas Territories
17. The UKOTs, rather than the British mainland,
support most of the globally important biodiversity for which
UK is responsible, and there are a number of international conventions
reflecting this.
18. UKOTs are included in UK's ratification
of such conventions, but only when the relevant UKOTs so agree.
For example, all the UKOTs (except British Antarctic Territory
where the Antarctic Treaty applies) are included in the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, and most UKOTs the Bonn Convention on
Migratory Species and the World Heritage Convention and the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species.
19. UKOT sign-up to the Convention on Biological
Diversity is lower than this, but most of those not yet included
are moving towards inclusion in UK's ratification of this and
the other conventions.
20. This lack of inclusion in international
conventions mirrors the situation in other member states across
the European Community, where most of the outermost regions and
overseas countries and territories are "not covered by nature
directives" (EC, 2006; para 4.2.1).
21. Implementing the requirements of the
international conventions is central to the protection of biodiversity
and thus of its economic and social functions. This reflected
in the wording of the Environment Charters, because the fulfilling
of these is closely linked to many of the other aspects noted
throughout this submission.
REFERENCES
AC (2007): House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee.
Report on Trade, Development and Environment: the role of the
FCO. 23 May 2007. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvaud/289/289.pdf
(accessed; 12/10/07).
Defra (2007): Guidance for public authorities
on implementing the biodiversity duty. www.defra.gov.uk Department
for the environment and rural affairs. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdfs/biodiversity/pa-guid-english.pdf
(accessed: 07/10/07).
EC (2006): Halting the loss of biodiversity by
2010 and beyond: sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being.
Communication from the Commission of the European Communities.
COM (2006) 216 final. http://eurosai.nik.gov.pl/en/site/px_COM_2006_216_Biodiversity.pdf
(accessed: 03/10/07).
EU (2001): A sustainable Europe for a better world:
a European Union strategy for sustainable development COM(2001)264
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0264en01.pdf
(accessed: 04/10/07).
EUBS (1998): European Union Biodiversity Strategy.
Com (1998) 42 Final http://aei.pitt.edu/5088/01/001456_1.pdf (accessed:
03/10/07).
FCO (2007): Sustainable development: What Government
is doing. Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Key Contributions
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/government/department/fco.htm
(accessed: 12/10/07).
Hindmarch, C. (2007): Biodiversity on the far-flung
outposts of Europe. Biologist, Vol 54 Number 2, May 2007.
Hindmarch, C, Harris, J, Morris, J, (2006): Growth
and sustainability: integrating ecosystem services into economics.
Biologist, Vol 53 Number 3, June 2006, p 135-142.
HMSO (2007): Response to the Environmental Audit
Committee Report of Session 2006-07: Outflanked: The WTO initiative
Trade and Sustainable Development; 13 March 2007 (HC354).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvaud/354/354.pdf
(accessed: 30/10/07).
Hoffmann, Woolf, Steyn, Hope, Carswell (2006): The
court of appeal of the Pitcairn islands. Judgment of the lords
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, delivered 30 October
2006 http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/Pitcairn.rtf
Pienkowski, M (2007): Measures of performance
by 2007 of UKOTs and UK Government in implementing the 2001 Environment
Charters or their equivalents. UK Overseas Territories Conservation
Forum www.ukotcf.org
POST (2007): Ecosystem Services. POSTNOTE
Number 218, March 2007. The Parliamentary office of Science and
Technology, 7, Milbank, London. SW1P 3JA. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn281.pdf
(accessed: 03/10/07).
Smith, R J, Muir, R D J, Walpole, M J, Balmford,
A and Leader-Williams, N (2003): Governance and the loss of biodiversity.
Nature 426, 67-70 (6 November 2003) doi:10.1038/nature02025.
UKSDS (2005.): Securing the Future: delivering
UK sustainable development strategy. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/strategy/SecFutcomplete.pdf
(accessed: 04/10/2007).
14 October 2007
| 
