Appendix—Government response
Introduction
The Government is grateful to the Environmental Audit
Committee for producing its report on Sustainability in the UK's
Overseas Territories (OTs).
Many of the recommendations put forward by the Committee
touch on the constitutional relationship between the UK and its
OTs. The Government believes this was set out clearly in the 2012
White Paper[1] and in its
written evidence to the Committee. Each Territory has its own
Constitution and its own Government and has its own local laws.
The Government has a fundamental objective and responsibility
for the security and good governance of the Territories flowing
from international law, our shared history, and political commitment
to the wellbeing of all British nationals. Powers are devolved
to elected Territory Governments to the maximum extent possible.
The democratically elected Governments of the inhabited Territories
are constitutionally responsible for the protection and conservation
of their natural environments. Many of the people of the Territories
have a strong commitment to protecting their natural environments;
for many their livelihoods depend on preserving the unique flora
and fauna found in the Territories.
It would be inappropriate for the Government to take
greater ownership of environmental issues and such an approach
would be in stark contrast to the objective set out in the 2012
White Paper of working in partnership with the Territories to
help them meet their environmental obligations. There is also
no appetite within the Territories for the UK Government to take
a greater role in managing environmental issues on their behalf.
For the uninhabited Territories our objective is
to ensure the highest possible environmental standards are achieved.
We use independent standards of accreditation, where available
or appropriate, to achieve such standards; for example the Marine
Stewardship Council certification of the commercial fisheries
in South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands.
The Government remains committed to assisting the
Territories in implementing legislation that adequately protects
the natural environment. The Government welcomes the recent progress
made in the Cayman Islands, Ascension, Montserrat and St Helena
in strengthening their environmental protection frameworks.
Whilst we encourage Territory Governments to join
in the UK's instrument of ratification of core Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs) we have no intention of imposing on the Territories
obligations that they are ill-equipped to fulfil. We do not believe
that this would be in the interests of the Territories, the UK
or the wider environment. However, the Government recognises the
role it can play in providing technical advice and building capacity
in relation to the extension of MEAs if requested to do so by
Territory Governments. A recent example of this is the work that
Defra completed to ensure that the relevant conditions were met
for the UK to extend its ratification of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to Anguilla in February 2014.
The Government recognises the importance of providing
funding and technical advice and expertise to the Territories
on environmental issues through mechanisms such as Darwin Plus,
the Environmental Mainstreaming initiative and through the provision
of technical workshops. The Government remains committed to working
with the EU to ensure that Territories can access programmes such
as LIFE and BEST and welcomes the focus in the new EU Overseas
Association Decision on sustainable development.
The Government believes that the Joint Ministerial
Council is an effective mechanism for reviewing and implementing
the strategy and commitments set out in the June 2012 White Paper,
providing a forum for the exchange of views on political and constitutional
issues between the Governments of the Overseas Territories and
the UK.
The Government recognises the need to better communicate
the numerous activities being undertaken by a number of UK Government
departments. These activities, often pursued in collaboration
with the Territory Governments and with the wider stakeholder
community, support the Territories in meeting their environmental
obligations and needs. In response to the Committee's report,
and following on from a workshop held at The Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew in March 2013, the Government will publish a document setting
out an overview of current activities to support the Territories
as a follow up to the UK OT Biodiversity Strategy. We will update
this document on an annual basis, and will conduct annual stakeholder
meetings to ensure that our activities are better understood.
The Government will work with Territory Governments
and other interested parties, such as non-Governmental Organisations
and the scientific community, to ensure that the rich environmental
assets of the OTs are fully understood and protected for the future.
We believe the actions set out in this response will ensure this
continues to be the case.
Recommendations and responses
1. Defra must empower its staff to visit the UKOTs
to meet elected representatives and civil servants and to examine
environmental issues in person in order effectively to discharge
their responsibilities. (Recommendation 8, Paragraph 9)
Ministers and officials from Defra are willing and
able to visit OTs where appropriate opportunities arise and where
it can be demonstrated to be a cost effective use of tax payer's
money. Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Defra) and staff responsible for OT issues have,
in the past, visited some of the Territories for specific meetings
or conferences where Defra input was required.
Officials from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
(JNCC), the public body that advises the Government on international
nature conservation, regularly travel to Territories. In the past
JNCC have seconded a member of staff to the St Helena Government
and also arranged for a member of staff from the Bermuda Department
of the Environment to join JNCC on a 12 month secondment. These
opportunities have enabled UK based officials to build stronger
working relationships with their OT counterparts.
As part of the Government's measures to tackle public
spending, Defra has been subject to significant budget cuts and
travel and subsistence is an area where staff have been encouraged
to make savings where possible. This includes only attending meetings
and conferences where it is essential to do so.
Whilst we appreciate the need for officials fully
to understand the environmental and resource issues in the OTs,
we are equally mindful of the cost to the taxpayer of overseas
trips and will always balance needs to ensure that any visit is
fully justified and provides good value for money.
Defra officials make use of alternative communication
technologies to maintain regular contact with the OTs. We also
meet OT representatives when they are in the UK, for example in
the margins of other meetings and workshops, in addition to specific
meetings with OT representatives. At Ministerial level, Defra
Ministers meet with elected representatives from the OTs at the
annual Joint Ministerial Council (JMC), including in bilateral
meetings organised to coincide with JMC.
2. The FCO must prioritise greater involvement
by representatives from the UKOTs in setting the agenda at future
[Joint Ministerial Councils]. (Recommendation 9, Paragraph
10)
The UK Government rejects the assertion that insufficient
priority is given to involving Territory representatives in setting
the agenda for the Joint Ministerial Council (JMC). The JMC is
organised collaboratively and Territory leaders and their representatives
are fully involved.
The JMC is the highest forum bringing together UK
Ministers and Territory leaders and representatives. The JMC agreed,
at its first meeting in December 2012, to: lead work to review
and implement the strategy and commitments in the June 2012 White
Paper; provide a forum for the exchange of views on political
and constitutional issues between the governments of the Overseas
Territories and the UK; promote the security and good governance
of the Territories and their sustainable economic and social development;
and agree priorities, develop plans and review implementation.
The JMC also agreed to meet once a year at a mutually convenient
time. The UK Government has provided administrative support for
the organisation of the annual meeting. But the agenda of the
meeting has reflected consultation with and input from all parties.
In 2012 and 2013 the Minister for the Overseas Territories
wrote to Territory leaders inviting their input to setting the
agenda for the JMC. A light touch 'Sherpa' system has been set
up to prepare for the annual summit meeting involving representatives
from each of the parties. UK and Territory Sherpas work closely
in the months leading up to the JMC to devise an agenda that meets
the interests of all Territories as far as possible.
The JMC participants are very diverse and have different
priorities. The JMC plenary has limited time and the agenda has
therefore represented a compromise between many competing priorities.
During JMC week a wide range of other meetings have been organised
including bilateral meetings and meetings for groups of Territories
with shared interests. The UK Government remains keen to engage
the Territories collectively and individually in discussion on
environmental protection.
At the 2012 JMC, Mr Simmonds, former Defra Minister
Mr Benyon and a senior official from the Department for Energy
and Climate Change (DECC) discussed environmental issues with
Territory leaders in a plenary session. In JMC week in 2013 we
organised a meeting outside the plenary for the Territories with
a wide range of experts from UK Government Departments and agencies
including Defra, DECC, the Department for Communities and Local
Government (DCLG), the JNCC, the National Maritime Information
Centre (NMIC), the Food & Environment Research Agency (FERA)
and the Department for International Development (DFID). This
approach reflected requests from some Territories to have an opportunity
to gain a better understanding of the technical advice and expertise
on offer from the UK Government on environment issues. The 2013
JMC also had a specific focus on renewable energy in plenary,
with the British Photovoltaic Association joining DECC Minister
Gregory Barker and FCO Minister Mark Simmonds on a panel discussion
with Territory leaders. At the 2013 JMC we also facilitated a
meeting between Territory leaders and members of the Environmental
Audit Committee. The Government is keen to foster relationships
between the UK Parliament and Territory Governments.
We continue to seek feedback from Territory Governments
and representatives on how to continue to strengthen the JMC and
improve the organisation of the annual summit meeting.
3. The UK must fulfil its core environmental obligations
to the UN under the CBD in order to maintain its international
reputation as an environmentally responsible nation state. The
FCO must agree a timetable to extend ratification of the CBD with
all inhabited UKOTs where this has not yet taken place. That may
entail preparations in the UKOTs, which must be clearly timetabled.
The FCO must immediately extend ratification of the CBD to all
uninhabited UKOTs. (Recommendation 10, Paragraph 19)
Inhabited Territories
In order to ensure any extension of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) to UKOTs would be meaningful, Defra
developed a matrix to assist OTs understand the obligations that
would apply to them once CBD has been so extended. Since then,
Defra officials have been working with those Territories that
expressed an interest in having the UK ratification extended and
will continue to do so. Similar matrices have subsequently been
developed for other MEAs, including the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture, the International Plant Protection Convention
and the African-Eurasian Waterbirds Agreement.
Whilst we encourage Territory Governments to join
in the UK's instrument of ratification of core MEAs, we have no
intention of imposing on the Territories obligations that they
are ill-equipped to fulfil. We do not believe that this would
be in the interests of the Territories, the UK or the wider environment.
However, the Government recognises the role it can play in providing
technical advice and building capacity in relation to the extension
of MEAs if requested to do so by Territory Governments. We are
currently assisting one Territory on extension of the CBD and
are pleased that we were able to extend the UK's ratification
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) Anguilla in February 2014. If any of the other inhabited
Territories express an interest in extending the UK ratification
of the CBD or any other MEA to which the UK is a Party we will
work with them to put a timetable in place to achieve this.
Whilst we encourage Territories to extend the UK
instruments of ratification of MEAs and recognise the benefits
they can bring, this should only be done when Territories are
certain that they have the capacity and—where necessary—the
provisions in place to meet the obligations under those agreements.
The Government recognises that most of the Territories are small
islands or island groups that face resource and capacity constraints
which affect their ability to consider or implement treaties.
Uninhabited Territories
British Antarctic Territory
The Antarctic Treaty System sets out a comprehensive
framework for managing activities in Antarctica. In particular,
the Environmental Protocol to the Treaty designates Antarctica
as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science, and which
provides the Antarctic environment with stringent protections
from the impact of human activities that may have more than a
minor or transitory effect on the environment. The Convention
on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
provides for the conservation and sustainable use of Antarctic
marine resources, including mechanisms for designating marine
protected areas in the Southern Ocean.
The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM)
maintains a standard agenda item on biological prospecting, and
has adopted several relevant resolutions on the obligations of
parties to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protocol in
authorising activities involving genetic resources. All human
activity undertaken in Antarctica is monitored and reported to
the annual meeting of Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty.
The UK takes its environmental responsibilities extremely
seriously and the British Antarctic Territory (BAT) is governed
in-line with all the environmental provisions of the Antarctic
Treaty System. Most recently the Antarctic Act 2013 ratified a
new annex on liability for environmental emergencies to the Environmental
Protocol, raising the standard of planning and response action
in the event of an accident in the region. We are confident that
the UK's administration of the Territory fully supports the standards
contained in the Convention on Biological Diversity. However,
as the Antarctic Treaty protects parties' differing views on the
status of Antarctic sovereignty, it would not be either possible
or appropriate for the UK to extend the CBD to the BAT formally.
British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)
The Government is commissioning a new feasibility
study on resettlement of the Territory which will consider all
the Islands including Diego Garcia. It will look at a range of
options, associated costs and risks. Once the outcome of the study
has been received, Ministers will determine the future resettlement
policy for the Territory. No decision on the extension of international
conventions to BIOT will be made until after the future resettlement
policy has been determined.
Nevertheless BIOT does already protect much of the
environment of the territory: the world's largest 'no-take' Marine
Protected Area encircles the Territory; strict nature reserves
protect the indigenous species on many of the northern atolls
while we actively carry out eradication of invasive species like
rats and coconut trees; and a Ramsar site covers the wetlands
of Diego Garcia which also houses a large military base. Current
Darwin funded science expeditions are also monitoring and in some
species baselining what we have in BIOT. We maintain a continuous
dialogue with stakeholders such as Pew Environment Trusts, Chagos
Conservation Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
London Zoo and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew on how we can continue
to improve our current measures.
The Territory's largest island, Diego Garcia, is
home to a large UK-US military base. The UK and US forces work
constructively to minimise the environmental impacts of military
presence and to conserve the island, for example through careful
planning of construction work, and removal of waste materials.
The recent Written Ministerial Statement made by FCO Minister
Mark Simmonds shows how the Government has acted decisively very
recently to address a potential risk to the coral of this island
from nutrient discharges by US ships permanently stationed in
the lagoon.
South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands
The extension of the CBD is under consideration by
the Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands
(GSGSSI). In recent years the Government's limited resources have
focused on the implementation of practical projects such as the
eradication of non-native species (rats, mice and reindeer), development
of a large Marine Protected Area and extending their knowledge
of marine biodiversity. With these projects either completed or
nearing completion, the next priority will be development of a
suite of terrestrial protected areas and, with the support of
Darwin Plus, of a weed management strategy for the Territory.
The completion of these projects should then put the territory
in a very strong position to have the CBD extended.
4. The UK Fifth National Report to the CBD, which
must be submitted by 31 May 2014, must include comprehensive entries
on biodiversity protection in those UKOTs to which the CBD has
been extended—British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar
and St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. (Recommendation
11, Paragraph 21)
The 5th National Report follows the basic structure
specified in the CBD guidance[2].
Defra took the decision in 2013 to include an additional Appendix
4 to cover detailed reports from the four Territories and two
Crown Dependencies (CDs) to which the CBD has been extended.
Appendix 4 runs to 100 pages. A very brief summary conclusion
for each of the twelve reporting questions is included in the
Executive Summary. A public consultation on the draft report,
including Appendix 4, was launched on 20 December 2013 and concluded
on 5 February 2014.
In recognition of the shortage of staff capacity
in a number of the OTs and CDs, JNCC provided a first draft for
each, based on recent generic sources. OT and CD officials closely
involved in the development and implementation of the relevant
biodiversity strategies, policies and other instruments, contributed
text and evidence to improve on or replace JNCC's first draft.
All of the Territories supplied updated information which was
incorporated into the consultation draft. One set of information
remains incomplete as the officers responsible have been stranded
for several weeks on a remote island due to poor weather. We are
hopeful that updated information will be provided in time for
incorporation in the final draft, which is due to be submitted
to the CBD Secretariat by 31 March 2014.
5. The FCO must immediately contact the UNECE
to ascertain whether the UNECE believes that the UK has extended
ratification of the Aarhus Convention to all the UKOTs. We recommend
that the FCO reviews its standard procedure for excluding the
UKOTs from the stipulations of international treaties under Article
29 of the Vienna Convention and consider introducing a more transparent
procedure. (Recommendation 12, Paragraph 25 )
The FCO contacted the Head of the UN Treaty Section
to confirm the UK's current position with regard to the Territorial
scope of its ratification of the Convention. Although the UNECE
acts as Secretariat for the Convention, the UN Secretary-General
is the depositary for this Convention and the UN Treaty Office
regularly deals with the international treaty acts deposited with
it.
On receiving the UK's ratification on 23 February
2005, the UN Treaty Office published a circular notification under
reference C.N.124.2005-T2 dated 24 February 2005 which correctly
acknowledged the UK's ratification of the Convention[3].
The Head of the UN Treaty Section has confirmed that the UK's
ratification instrument did not contain any specific reference
to Territorial application and that no further notification has
been received by the UN Treaty Section since then.
The UK's practice in notifying the Territorial scope
of its treaty ratifications is both transparent and long-standing.
It has been consistent UK treaty practice for several decades
that when ratification is intended to apply only to the metropolitan
Territory, that ratification is performed in the name of the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Where
ratification is intended to include non-metropolitan Territories
or the Crown Dependencies however, the UK's ratification instrument
specifies each territory by name. In the exercise of its functions
and in the absence of specific provisions in the treaty, the UN
Treaty Section will rely on the position and practice of the State
concerned regarding Territorial application. On this point, the
Handbook on Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties (at p.82) prepared
by the Treaty Section of the UN Office of Legal Affairs states
the following: "United Kingdom. When expressing consent to
be bound, the United Kingdom may declare in writing to the depositary
to which, if any, of its territories the treaty will extend. If
the instrument expressing consent to be bound refers only to the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it applies
only to the metropolitan Territory.[4]
As the Aarhus Convention itself contains no Territorial
provision, it therefore falls to each ratifying state to confirm
the Territorial scope of ratification according to its own national
and constitutional practice. Accordingly the UK's ratification
instrument to the Aarhus Convention made no reference to the UK's
non-metropolitan Territories, and was accepted as such by the
UN depositary. Alternatively, other Parties to the Convention
such as Denmark, France and the Netherlands made statements on
ratifying the Convention which excluded certain Territories from
their ratifications; actions which were based on their own particular
practices. The FCO does not accept that the practice of some other
States created a general obligation to declare that the Convention
does not extend to the UK's non-metropolitan Territories in this
case. The FCO believes that the UK acted consistently within its
own national treaty practice which is recognised and accepted
by international treaty depositaries and other State parties.
It would not be helpful to change UK practice in this respect,
since to do so would risk creating uncertainty and confusion on
a wider international plane.
Guidance on the UK's practice in this area is published
in a document on the GOV.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/uk-treaties.
6. In light of the FCO Minister's commitment to
enhanced transparency and the inadequacy of the planning regimes
in many UKOTs, the FCO must agree with UKOTs Governments a timetable
to extend ratification of the Aarhus Convention. (Recommendation
13, Paragraph 25).
We are committed to assisting the Territories to
strengthen provisions for transparency in planning processes but
it is for Territory Governments to decide if this is best achieved
by having the UK's ratification of the Aarhus Convention extended
to them.
The UK Government is already working with a number
of Territories to help them understand the value of their environmental
assets better and recognises that the Territories are highly dependent
upon the assets provided by their natural environment—their
terrestrial and marine ecosystems—for their economic wellbeing.
For example, DFID has supported public participation throughout
the EIA and planning processes in St Helena, both for the airport
itself and, more recently, the Rupert's Bay Wharf development,
in accordance with UK Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practice
which has already incorporated the public participation elements
of the Aarhus convention into planning regimes.
The Government will continue to advocate strongly
for environmental planning legislation where this is needed but
the Government respects the fact that passing environmental legislation
is a matter constitutionally devolved to Territory Governments.
7. Defra must restate its commitment to Environment
Charters and use them to deliver its CBD commitments in the UKOTs.
Darwin Plus funding should be linked to compliance with the terms
of Environment Charters. (Recommendation 14, Paragraph 27)
The Environment Charters were agreed between FCO
and Territory Governments in 2001.The Government recognises that
the Environmental Charters provide a useful framework for co-operation
between the UK and Territory Government on environment issues,
including regarding the CBD, and we remain committed to their
implementation. UK and Territory Governments reconfirmed this
commitment in the 2012 JMC Communiqué[5].
Supporting the implementation of the Environment
Charters is already a component of the Darwin Plus scoring mechanism,
as is supporting the implementation of MEAs such as the CBD, CITES
and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (CMS). The delivery of actions under the Environment
Charters will continue to be a component of the Darwin Plus application
process for future rounds.
8. In addition to agreeing a timetable with all
UKOTs Governments to ratify the CBD, Defra must draw together
UKOTs Governments, NGOs such as the RSPB, civil society and research
institutions to agree a comprehensive research programme to catalogue
the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Recommendation
15, Paragraph 31)
Given the need to balance the collection of data
with action to conserve and manage sustainably, data collection
needs to be prioritised and targeted. There is already significant
activity in two areas: targeted survey, monitoring and research
to identify status and trends in biodiversity; and data sharing
so that the information can be used widely in conservation planning
and assessment.
Defra, FCO and DFID, are jointly providing around
£2m per year for OT initiatives under the 'Darwin Plus' fund.
The Fund supports a range of environmental projects, including
baseline data and ecosystem assessments. Examples include terrestrial
biodiversity and marine mapping in St Helena, the Falklands and
the British Virgin Islands.
In order to understand the level of baseline seafloor
mapping required to underpin future targeted surveys of marine
biodiversity better, Defra recently commissioned a study by the
National Oceanography Centre that assessed the depth ranges and
seafloor morphology within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of
each OT (providing an indication of likely habitats) and the extent
of scientific seafloor bathymetric mapping data available. In
total, 0.9 million km2 of multi-beam bathymetry data
were identified in OTs, equating to about one-fifth of the total
area. The UK Hydrographic Office is currently co-ordinating efforts
to address this data shortfall in the OTs.
Defra's research agencies, the Centre for Environment,
Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) and FERA, provide
scientific advice and support for identification, enforcement
and management for fisheries and biosecurity in OTs. Defra has
also allocated additional funds from its Research & Development
budgets over the last three years to address research issues identified
specifically by Territory Governments (i.e. on invasive species
in the South Atlantic and coastal management in the Caribbean).
The FCO has recently provided funding to an RSPB-led
project which aims to produce an 'Extinction Risk Assessment'
for the OTs. This work will compile data from across the OTs,
and assess it for geographic and taxonomic coverage to identify
where survey work could be directed in future. The RSPB are working
closely with Territory Governments and other NGOs in its compilation.
The FCO has also provided funding for a project managed
by JNCC to help the South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute
(SAERI) to develop an information management system, including
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capacity, for the South Atlantic
Territories. SAERI are already in touch with the Global Biodiversity
Information Facility (GBIF) to discuss how they can share their
species data more widely.
JNCC has a programme of work supporting the implementation
of the OT Biodiversity Strategy. This includes the establishment
and management of a OT research and training group to build capacity
in the OTs and Crown Dependencies and address their research needs
in the long-term. The group has membership from Defra and DfID
as well as representatives from Territory Governments. JNCC also
provides some funding for training and small-scale survey for
projects identified by the group.
The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has an active OTs
Programme that works closely with Territory Governments, NGOs
and UK research agencies. Kew undertakes baseline botanical survey,
plant conservation and collection of material for conservation
and research in the OTs. Botanical research and curation of OT
collections in the UK at Kew and the Millennium Seed Bank is primarily
funded through the UK Government or from private trusts. Kew's
OTs Programme catalogues and shares data through the OTs Species
and Specimens Database.
The Natural History Museum continues to undertake
and support survey work in the UKOTs as part of its work on cataloguing
biodiversity globally. The Natural Environment Research Council
supports the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) to undertake scientific
research on and around the Antarctic continent.
In addition to survey and research in the OTs, the
UK Government and UK research institutes are engaged in a range
of global initiatives that allow the sharing of biodiversity data
generally, so that they are widely available for use in global
or regional assessments and in planning or further research (e.g.
GBIF, GENBANK, the Catalogue of Life and the Global Earth Observation
System).
These activities are managed through a range of programme
and project steering groups, such as the UKOT Research and Training
Steering Group to ensure collaboration between Territory Governments,
NGOs and other stakeholders. We acknowledge that there is no single
group responsible for overseeing biodiversity survey, monitoring,
research and data management, and we will consider whether such
a group would add value, over and above the existing coordination
mechanisms for the UK OT Biodiversity Strategy and deliver value
for money from public sector investments.
9. Defra must work with UKOTs Governments on developing
planning regimes which value and protect natural capital and which
promote sustainable tourism industries and economies. Accordingly,
the FCO must direct its Governors strongly to advocate the introduction
of effective development controls. In particular, the Governors
in Anguilla and Montserrat must prioritise the passage of stalled
environmental legislation which, if enacted, would at least provide
baseline standards on development control. (Recommendation
16, Paragraph 38)
Elected Territory Governments have constitutional
responsibility for planning issues. The Government encourages
Territory Governments to develop planning regimes, incorporating
EIA where appropriate, which operate in a similar way to those
established in the UK and which incorporate a balanced approach
to sustainable development. A recent example of this is the Cayman
Islands National Conservation Law, which was passed by the Legislative
Assembly in December 2013. The law will, for the first time, give
legal protection to Cayman's unique and diverse land-based and
marine-based natural resources. The Cayman Islands Government
has also put into place the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility,
which has made it mandatory for an independent environmental impact
assessment to take place for any project with a lifetime value
of approximately £8million or more.
Planning issues are the responsibility of DCLG in
England and the relevant Devolved Administrations in the UK. OTs
have responsibility for implementing their own planning policies.
The Government has provided support and advice to
OTs on planning issues and a good example of where this has happened
was during the development of a new airport on St Helena. The
need for an EIA for this airport project was identified early
on (1999). As St Helena did not have any local EIA legislation
in place, at that time, the EIA was undertaken in accordance with
UK and international good practice.
In the light of experience with the airport project,
and in anticipation of wider generated development, statutory
requirements for EIA were incorporated into new planning legislation.
EIAs are now routinely applied in St Helena's development planning
process.
The UK Government-funded environmental mainstreaming
initiative has engaged senior politicians and civil servants in
an entirely new debate about the value of ecosystems in supporting
economies and ensuring the environment is properly taken into
account in all aspects of infrastructure planning. The mainstreaming
projects completed to date in the Falkland Islands, British Virgin
Islands (BVI) and Anguilla have generated additional technical
and financial support. This includes a JNCC-led project examining
the value of the natural environment in BVI, financial support
to the South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute to develop
a Falkland Islands and wider South Atlantic Information Management
System, and support to the Government of Anguilla through Darwin
Plus to complete a National Ecosystems Assessment. Projects such
as these allow policy makers to draw on a substantial environmental
evidence base. The initiative also assists Territories in understanding
the value of public participation in environmental decision making.
In Montserrat, The Conservation and Environment Management
Act was passed by Cabinet in November 2013 and had its first reading
in the Legislative Assembly in December. We expect the Act to
pass through the Legislative Assembly by April 2014.
In Anguilla, the Caribbean Development Bank has agreed
to fund a consultant to draft necessary amendments to the Environment
Protection legislation. Anguilla's department for the Environment
intends for this work to be completed and ready for consideration
by Ministers by November.
The Government is committed to assisting Territories
to strengthen environmental protection frameworks. To facilitate
this, the FCO Legal Advisors are working with Territory Attorney
Generals to identify how they can help to strengthen environmental
protection frameworks by identifying gaps and where UK assistance
might be of value.
10. Defra has increased spending on protecting
biodiversity in the UKOTs since 2007-08, but a further step change
in Darwin Plus funding is required adequately to address the scale
of the UK's international responsibilities to protect biodiversity.
(Recommendation 17, Paragraph 39)
Protection of biodiversity requires the mobilisation
of resources from a wide range of sources, including Territory
Governments themselves and from the private sector. The UK Government
has significantly increased its spending on biodiversity in the
OTs since 2007-08. The UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy
ear-marked, for the first time, specific funding for Darwin Initiative
projects in the OTs and also designed a new scheme (the Challenge
Fund) to help develop project ideas and establish partnerships
between UK institutions and organisations in the OTs. This led
to quality Darwin projects being approved in the OTs. In addition,
FCO and DFID provided funding through their joint Overseas Territories
Environment Programme (OTEP) fund.
Despite the cuts to Departmental budgets in the current
Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) period the Government prioritised
the establishment of the new cross-Government Darwin Plus fund,
bringing together existing UK Government funding from OTEP and
Darwin into a new one-stop shop for OTs without an overall reduction
in funding.
Although we recognise that protecting and enhancing
biodiversity in the OTs is a huge task we must balance calls for
environmental funding with issues such as flood defences. The
decision to maintain spending levels in the current spending period,
and within a climate of increasing demands from within the UK,
confirms that our commitment to OT biodiversity remains a high
priority for this Government.
Any spending commitments beyond the next CSR period
(2015-16) will be a decision for the Government of the day following
the next election.
In addition to Darwin funding the UK has also funded
various initiatives in the OTs since 2010 including:
· A review of bio-control of invasive species
in Falklands and South Georgia;
· A review of the rate, spread and risks
posed by invasive plant species in the Falklands;
· An assessment of the impacts of predation
on the critically endangered wire-bird on St Helena;
· Addressing threats to marine ecosystems
in the OTs in the Caribbean;
· Rodent eradication projects on Henderson,
Gough and South Georgia;
· Supporting an officer in the Falkland
Islands responsible for implementing the Agreement on the Conservation
of Albatrosses and Petrels on behalf of the OTs;
· Providing model legislation for Territories
to enable them to take appropriate action against illegal, unregulated
and unreported fishing;
· Projects related to conservation of endangered
species in St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension and Anguilla;
· OT plant pest identification service;
· Lionfish response strategy;
· Green economy projects;
· Terrestrial habitat mapping and GIS training;
and
· Funding a biosecurity review in Tristan
da Cunha.
In addition, the Government is providing platforms
(including a series of technical workshops) to enable Territories
to share best practice and expertise, including: a workshop on
Marine Protected Areas, hosted by JNCC; a workshop organised by
Defra and hosted by Kew on implementation of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species; and workshops organised
by Defra with the participation of the European Commission on
the LIFE Plus Regulation. There have also been a number of HMG-funded
workshops in the Caribbean focused on combating the threat posed
by the invasive lionfish.
The British Virgin Islands Conservation and Fisheries
Department is supporting a research project funded by Defra and
carried out by JNCC and Newcastle University titled, "Understanding
and addressing the impacts of threats to marine ecosystems/biodiversity
in the UK Overseas Territories in the Caribbean". Data collection
started in BVI on 6 January 2014 and will last just under three
months. In addition to this, The Governor's Office in the BVI
has part-funded an Environmental Profile Programme undertaken
by Island Resources Foundation that, when complete, will provide
an expanded information base to guide the choices of public and
private sector stakeholders and decision-makers. The programme
takes a retrospective look at environmental change, assesses priority
environmental issues, and places these within a forward-looking
context that supports sustainable growth.
In Government is also working with the EU to establish
better access to other funding mechanisms and will continue to
hold discussions with the International Union for Conservation
of Nature to see if the criteria for accessing the 'Save our Species
Fund' can be revised to include the OTs.
11. The FCO must advance the proposition in negotiations
in the European Council that LIFE+ funding should be extended
to schemes that protect biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Recommendation
18, Paragraph 40)
The UK has been a strong and leading advocate for
OTs to be able to access LIFE funding for biodiversity, climate
change action and other environmental projects. Despite some widespread
resistance, Defra worked effectively, including building alliances
with NGOs, other key Member States and MEPs to ensure the explicit
inclusion of the EU's Overseas Countries and Territories in the
main text of the new EU LIFE Regulation[6]
(previously known as LIFE Plus).
Although the opening of LIFE funding to the OTs is
subject to some strict conditions which are likely to restrict
the breadth of projects in practice, we are continuing to work
with the Commission to seek clarification on how these conditions
will be applied in practice. We are working with OTs, partners
and the Commission to identify and develop the most likely ideas
for potential projects. As part of this process Defra is holding
workshops, information days and putting in place other support
arrangements specifically aimed at developing successful LIFE
projects for the OTs, and we are pleased that the Commission has
agreed to participate in this process.
12. The FCO must press the European Commission
to build on the pilot and implement a permanent BEST scheme. (Recommendation
19, Paragraph 41)
The Voluntary Scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services in Territories of the EU's Outermost Regions and Overseas
Countries and Territories (BEST) will be the programme through
which the European Commission's Development Cooperation Instrument
(DCI) will support environment projects in OTs. All Overseas Territories
are eligible for BEST.
The process for allocating the DCI funding through
BEST is being finalised and a Council Decision is expected at
the end of 2014 with implementation beginning in 2015. Whilst
we welcome the EUs decision to allocate DCI funding to the Territories,
we remain concerned that the majority of funding will not be allocated
to delivering 'on the ground projects' and will instead be allocated
by the Commission to setting up 'regional support centres', with
the view of using these centres to leverage more funding to the
regions.
Whilst the amount available to the Territories through
BEST is not yet confirmed, we have received written confirmation
from DG Environment that they envision the amount being in the
region of €4 million, double what was available under the
last round of the BEST pilot scheme. We will continue to press
the Commission to ensure that BEST is fit for purpose and funds
projects which aim to have a long term strategic outcomes in the
Territories.
13. We recommend that DCMS extends the right to
play the National Lottery to UKOTs residents using terminals and
via the internet. When this is achieved, DCMS should direct the
Heritage Lottery Fund to accord applications for projects in the
UKOTs equal priority with applications for projects in the UK.
(Recommendation 20, Paragraph 42)
Distributing bodies, which make their funding decisions
independently of Government, can make grants to support good causes
in the Territories to organisations based in the UK and working
in the Territories, where applications meet the relevant criteria
and distributors have the legal ability to do so. The Heritage
Lottery Fund's policy directions currently focus on the need to
increase access and participation for those who do not currently
benefit from the heritage opportunities available in the United
Kingdom. However, any direction that attempted to give OTs equal
priority to funding as those which benefit UK citizens would not
in itself guarantee funding for OT projects. The number of applications
for funding received by Lottery distributors far outweighs the
amount of funding available and each case is considered on its
own merits against the distributing body's criteria.
There are a number of barriers to extending the ability
to play the National Lottery to the Territories, including the
need to change legislation both in the UK and potentially in the
OTs themselves, some of which outlaw gambling. There are also
significant challenges in installing and running lottery terminals
in such distant and disparate areas.
If Territories are looking to fund environmental,
or other, projects through this approach they may wish to consider—if
their legislation permits—the society lottery model currently
in place in the UK, where local society lotteries have successfully
raised millions for local good causes. This would allow Territories
to raise good cause money specifically for a defined area such
as environmental protection.
14. Defra and the FCO must complete the legal
protections for the marine environment in BIOT by prohibiting
all extractive activities. (Recommendation 21, Paragraph
47)
The BIOT Conservation legislation will be enacted
later this year. This has been delayed due to the ongoing litigation.
However current legislation does provide sufficient legal
protection for extraction activities. Permits are required to
visit or undertake scientific work in the waters of BIOT. Marine
mining and other exploratory activity is regulated by legislation
and not permitted.
The current BIOT legislation prohibits all fishing
in BIOT waters save for personal consumption within 3 days by
the person fishing (subsistence), and not for sale, barter or
other profit. The legislation requires that any sharks caught
be released live into the waters. The current legislation also
prohibits the taking of any sea cucumber, mollusc or marine mammal
and prohibits the taking of coral.
15. Defra and the FCO must respond positively
to the Pitcairn Islanders' request to establish a fully protected
MPA in line with UN Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 to protect 10%
of the world's oceans by 2020. (Recommendation 22, Paragraph
48)
The Government has been an enthusiastic supporter
of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), having already established the
largest no-take MPA in the world in the British Indian Ocean Territory
(BIOT) in 2010, doubling the previous area of global marine protection.
We have also established a sustainable-use MPA covering over 1,000,000
km2 around South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands,
including a 20,000 km2 no-fishing zone.
We are however clear that MPAs cannot just be lines
on a map. To be credible, MPAs must be underpinned by science
and require active and appropriate enforcement. We also need to
consider carefully the costs of such an initiative, particularly
of effective enforcement, as these may be substantial.
Work has begun to assess the economic and other impacts
of establishing a no-take MPA in Pitcairn's waters. Government
officials attended the International MPA Congress in Marseille
in 2013, a worldwide convention for MPA managers and users to
reconcile ocean conservation and sustainable development. The
Government is also funding, through Darwin Plus, a project to
develop a sustainable marine and fisheries management plan for
the Pitcairn Islands.
We are committed to working constructively with the
Pitcairn Island Council and relevant stakeholders, on the MPA
issue, including consideration of other practical solutions and
innovative methods to achieve the same objectives.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/14929/ot-wp-0612.pdf
Back
2
http://www.cbd.int/nr5/ Back
3
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2003/05/20030521%2008-36%20AM/Related%20Documents/CN.124.2005-Eng.pdf.
Alternatively, where the UK ratifies in respect of a non-metropolitan
territory this is reflected in the UN's response, for example:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1991/07/19910711%2007-32%20AM/Related%20Documents/CN.1117.1999-Eng.pdf
Back
4
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Publications.aspx?pathpub=Publication/FC/Page1en.xml
Back
5
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39257/Overseas_Territories_Joint_
Ministerial_Council_Communique.pdf
Back
6
Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 December 2013 on the establishment of a Programme
for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation
(EC) No 614/2007
Back
| 
