Submission from the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee
SUMMARY OF
KEY POINTS
1. The biodiversity of the UK Overseas Territories
is of global importance but is threatened by invasive species,
climate change and the impacts of development
2. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development
in 2002, governments adopted a target to achieve by 2010 a significant
reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity.
The UK has a responsibility to achieve this target within its
entire territory, including its Overseas Territories. The Overseas
Territories are also signatories to a number of multilateral environmental
agreements.
3. If the UK is to meet its international
commitments enhanced support for nature conservation in the Overseas
Territories is a high priority. We make the following recommendations
for achieving this:
(i) the global importance of the Overseas
Territories for biodiversity should be explicitly acknowledged
in UK Government priorities;
(ii) cross-departmental co-ordination and
leadership should be improved, eg through the Inter-Departmental
Ministerial Group on Biodiversity;
(iii) increased funding for biodiversity
conservation in the Overseas Territories is essential;
(iv) a strategic approach should be adopted
to nature conservation within the Overseas Territories, directing
resources where they will have the greatest impact.
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.
As part of its international responsibilities,
JNCC has a locus to advise on nature conservation in the Overseas
Territories. JNCC has adopted a high-level strategic objective
to "promote measures that effectively protect and enhance
biological and geological diversity in the UK Overseas Territories
and Crown Dependencies".
We welcome the opportunity to provide evidence
to this inquiry on matters relevant to our statutory remit. Our
submission is focused on the application of international environmental
treaties, conventions and other agreements to the Overseas Territories.
1. THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE
UK OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
FOR NATURE
CONSERVATION
1.1 Despite the small size of most of the
UK Overseas Territories they are of global importance for their
biodiversity.
1.2 Of globally threatened species identified
in the 2004 IUCN (World Conservation Union) Red List (updated
in 2006), 80 critically endangered species occur in the Overseas
Territories (compared to 10 in metropolitan UK), along with 73
endangered species (12 in metropolitan UK) and 158 vulnerable
species (37 in metropolitan UK). Many of these species are endemic
and so are found nowhere else in the world.
1.3 In addition to populations of globally
threatened species, the Overseas Territories also 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; the south Atlantic Territories hold a substantial
proportion of the world's albatross populations; 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 some 1.3% of the world resource).
1.4 The main threats to the biodiversity
of the Overseas Territories are invasive species, climate change
and the impacts of development.
1.5 The severity of these threats is indicated
by the fact that there have been 39 recorded extinctions in the
Overseas Territories, compared with only a single extinction from
metropolitan UK. As noted in 1.2 above, there are significant
numbers of highly threatened species in the Territories. It is
likely that these figures are under-estimates, as new studies
invariably report the occurrence of additional species or populations,
especially amongst the less well-known taxa, such as invertebrates.
1.6 The Overseas Territories contain geological
and geomorphological features, such as active volcanoes, glaciers
and coral reefs, that are significant in a regional or global
context, but there has been no comprehensive review of their geodiversity.
2. INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
RELEVANT TO
THE OVERSEAS
TERRITORIES
2.1 At the World Summit on Sustainable Development
in 2002, governments adopted a target to achieve by 2010 a significant
reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity.
The UK has a responsibility to achieve this target within its
entire territory, including its Overseas Territories.
2.2 The Overseas Territories are signatories
to a number of multilateral environmental agreements, including
the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory
Species and the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species. Each
of these agreements has associated objectives concerned with the
protection of biodiversity. A list of Overseas Territories and
the agreements to which they are signatories is provided at Annex
1.[84]
3. CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS
FOR NATURE
CONSERVATION WITHIN
THE OVERSEAS
TERRITORIES
3.1 The 1999 White Paper Partnership
for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories
contained a commitment to sustainable development in the Territories
and to conserve, manage and protect their rich natural heritage.
Part of the means to achieve this was by the drafting of Environment
Charters, to be signed by the government of the UK and that of
the relevant Territory, outlining the roles and responsibilities
of each. To date, most of the Territories have signed an Environment
Charter.
3.2 The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(FCO) has lead responsibility within UK Government for the Overseas
Territories, and this is reflected in its Departmental Strategic
Objective "ensuring the security and good governance of the
UK's Overseas Territories". Several other departments, including
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),
the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Ministry
of Defence, have responsibilities for certain aspects of environmental
protection in the Overseas Territories.
3.3 Each of the Territories is a self-governing
entity and any nature conservation actions need to be undertaken
with their full support and ownership of their governments.
3.4 JNCC is the statutory adviser to UK
Government on nature conservation in the Overseas Territories.
There is a range of relevant environmental non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), based both in the UK and in the Territories themselves;
the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum acts as an umbrella
body for these NGOs. Other organisations with an interest in nature
conservation in the Territories include the British Antarctic
Survey, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and some university departments
and specialists.
3.5 The primary funding mechanism for biodiversity
conservation in the Overseas Territories is the Overseas Territories
Environment Programme (OTEP), which is aimed at supporting the
implementation of Environment Charters. It is managed and funded
jointly by the FCO and DFID to the order of some £1 million
annually. In the main, it supports small projects running for
a period of up to three years. Applicants are typically Overseas
Territory governments and NGOs, often in partnership with UK-based
bodies.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 If the UK is to meet its international
commitments, and prevent further losses of biodiversity within
its territory, enhanced support for nature conservation in the
Overseas Territories is a high priority. We make the following
recommendations for achieving this.
4.2 The global importance of the Overseas
Territories for biodiversity should be explicitly acknowledged
in UK Government priorities. For example, environmental measures
should be a core component of FCO's Departmental Strategic Objective
relating to the Overseas Territories (see 3.2 above).
4.3 There needs to be better co-ordination
of environmental initiatives within UK Government and also between
the Overseas Territory governments. One mechanism for achieving
co-ordination within UK Government is the Inter-Departmental Ministerial
Group for Biodiversity (IDMGB), which comprises ministers with
biodiversity responsibilities from Defra, DFID and FCO, and the
chairman of JNCC. If this group is to be fully effective it needs
to meet regularly and provide strong leadership and support for
the Overseas Territory governments, encouraging partnerships and
cross-Territory collaboration to maximise the effective use of
limited resources.
4.4 The financial support provided to the
Overseas Territories needs to be commensurate with the challenges
that they face. Compared to the funding available in metropolitan
UK to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable development
more generally, funding for the Territories is much smaller in
both absolute and relative terms, despite the global importance
of the Territories for biodiversity. This shortfall in funding
urgently needs to be addressed.
4.5 It is important that a strategic approach
is adopted to nature conservation within the Overseas Territories,
directing resources where they will have the greatest impact.
As a contribution towards this, the JNCC is currently drafting
a report for the IDMGB, which will identify costed nature conservation
priorities for the Overseas Territories.
4.6 We support the recommendations arising
from two recent inquiries undertaken by the House of Commons Environmental
Audit Committee (see Annex 2).[85]
15 October 2007
Annex 2
SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM RECENT INQUIRIES
BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE
THE UN MILLENNIUM
ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT.
FIRST REPORT
OF SESSION
2006-07, 12 DECEMBER 2006
| Paragraph 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.
|
Paragraph 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.
|
| |
TRADE, DEVELOPMENT
AND THE
ENVIRONMENT: THE
ROLE OF
THE FCO, FIFTH
REPORT OF
SESSION 2006-07, 15 MAY
2007
| Paragraph 78 | We welcome the fact that FCO and DFID have, in the short term, increased their financial support for better environmental management in the UKOTs, but we are concerned that this has not been undertaken on the basis of an analysis of need. Research by the RSPB suggests that even with this funding increase a considerable funding shortfall will remain in the UKOTs for biodiversity protection.
|
Paragraph 83 | We are disturbed that witnesses have stressed to us that departments other than FCO and DFID do not provide the level of support to the UKOTs that is required. Although DEFRA does provide some direct and indirect support, the level of this does not fill the specialist environmental gaps that are apparent in the UKOTs. We recommend firstly that DEFRA be involved at the highest level in reviewing the Environment Charters. The Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Biodiversity should provide the focus for this review to ensure coordination between departments. It is necessary for this review to assess whether both the Government, and the governments of the UKOTs, have met their respective obligations under the Environment Charters and Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Secondly, DEFRA should be given joint responsibility towards the UKOTs. This should be reflected in an updated UK International Priority, to include environmental protection alongside security and good governance in the UKOTs. This will also have to be reflected in DEFRA's Comprehensive Spending Review settlement. Finally, as part of the Environment Charter review, the case for larger and more routine funding must be explored. Given that the Treasury is currently conducting a spending review, it is imperative that this funding analysis feeds into, and influences, the Treasury's ultimate decision as to spending allocations for FCO, DFID and DEFRA.
|
Paragraph 84 | If the Government fails to address these issues it will run the risk of continued environmental decline and species extinctions in the UKOTs, 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.
|
| |
84
Ev 142. Back
85
Ev 143. Back
| 
