Environmental Audit Committee - Minutes of EvidenceHC 332

Back to Report

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee

on Tuesday 19 March 2013

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Peter Aldous

Martin Caton

Mark Lazarowicz

Caroline Lucas

Dr Matthew Offord

Mr Mark Spencer

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Bryan Naqqi Manco, Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Dr Nikki Chapman, Nature Conservation Division, St Helena, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: First of all, on behalf of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, I give a really warm welcome to both of you. I think our paths slightly crossed at an event recently, and it is great to be able to welcome you to our Environmental Audit Select Committee. Our inquiry is looking to follow on from the previous inquiry that the Committee held some years ago and to see how we can scrutinise our own UK Government policy in respect of environmental policies relating to Overseas Territories. We feel that this is a timely occasion to put the spotlight on what more could be done, so you are welcome to our Committee this afternoon. We have a few questions that Members of the Committee will ask of you. We know that there is a lot of interest in the Committee and the recommendations that we reach, and obviously much of our work will depend on the evidence and the sessions that we are holding.

Could I begin with you, Dr Chapman? I am sure you want to share with the Committee the concerns that you have, but I think that in your initial response it would be nice if you could give us a perspective on what you feel are the major challenges facing the new Environmental Management Directorate, which has been established by the St Helena Government.

Dr Chapman: Yes, thank you very much. As you know, it is quite a new department, set up in 2011 and officially launched in April 2012. I suppose the two main challenges that it faces, which are also challenges across the OTs, would be the long-term financial support and technical expertise. We understand the economic climate we are in however lots of core and project work depends on external funds. We have been quite successful with that, but some of this funding is short-term, which, as fantastic as it is, doesn’t sustain conservation efforts in the longer term. We also need further technical support, to bridge the gap between local knowledge and delivering on international commitments such as MEAs and creation of environmental legislation.

Q2 Chair: We understand that the Department for International Development aims to help you with moving away from needing UK aid and that it has funded the airport. Is there an environmental cost to that airport, do you think?

Dr Chapman: I think with any development there is going to be a trade-off. St Helena is ecologically sensitive. Within the Environmental Management Directorate we have a designated member of staff who deals with the wider airport issues and EIAs, and they would have more of that detailed information.

Q3 Mark Lazarowicz: On the question of the airport as an example, what kind of assessment was there of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the airport, both narrowly defined in terms of the airport itself and the area around it, but also in terms of the impact upon the island? Or was it very much a given that there would be an airport and it was a question of minimising the environmental damage?

Dr Chapman: I do not actually deal with that work area.

Mark Lazarowicz: My point is what assessment was there of the environmental positives and negatives relating to the airport, both in terms of where the airport actually is physically but also in terms of the wider impact on the St Helena environment?

Dr Chapman: All I can say is that an environmental impact assessment was undertaken and is accessible, but I could not address the actual detail. This point would be better for my colleagues.

Q4 Chair: You mentioned capacity as well in terms of your environment department. Do you have enough expert advice? Is there enough access to training? Is that something that you feel that you are properly resourced to carry out, this new directorate that has been set up, the Environmental Management Directorate?

Dr Chapman: Across the whole EMD or across St Helena?

Chair: Across the EMD.

Dr Chapman: Across EMD. Let’s say yes and no. We have benefited very well from external support. We have had technical corporation support, which we are very grateful for. This has included: the EMD director, who is on loan from JNCC, a risk assessment adviser providing training to local staff, and myself and the Nature Conservation Division have been able to access, and a terrestrial adviser.1 The Nature Conservation Division, covering across marine and terrestrial environments, has benefitted from one of these posts so that has been supported. and My background is marine science, so I am directly providing support for my team, but in the future EMD could benefit from if possible

Q5 Chair: One of the things that I was interested in is this airport that is going to be built in an ecologically sensitive area. Do you have sufficient trained people to help carry out any assessments of the ecological area that is scheduled for the airport expansion?

Dr Chapman: We do, within EMD, but any additional support would be greatly appreciated, definitely.2

Q6 Chair: Are you actually looking at what support would be needed to provide environmental assessment and protection of that biodiversity? Are you looking to quantify what staffing resources would be needed?

Dr Chapman: Have we internally? Yes, we have.

Q7 Chair: Perhaps I could turn to you, Mr Manco; thank you for being with us this afternoon. Could you set out what you see as the key challenges, given that you have a new elected Government, and how you see the whole environment aspect fitting in?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Well, I think we have a number of challenges that are almost repeated to us, in that during the last three years we had some setbacks. I think that the environment had to be set as a lower priority due to the financial severity that the country was under. The key challenges, I think, relate mostly to policies that have been developed in the past, such as the environment charter, that were more or less shelved or sort of forgotten about, or perhaps not briefed. We would like that to be revived in our Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, but at the moment it feels as though for the last three years the environment has been set at such a low priority that we have that as a precedent now, whereas before we prided ourselves for a while that Turks and Caicos was a model of implementation of its environment charter. It no longer feels that way.

We definitely have a challenge in the environmental impact assessment policies, in that developments that are backed or are being done by the Government do not require EIA, and some of those are very impactful. Some of them are very necessary and important to the growth of the country, but perhaps could be done better in many ways if they were subject to the same processes as a major private development.

Due to the problems we had, some of the funding cuts to the Turks and Caicos Islands Government have been severe, and we have lost some key staff over the last several years. We have lost a lot of capacity, but more importantly, our enforcement capacity is very low. We have a gigantic remit. About 30% of the Turks and Caicos Islands land area is protected, but we are currently patrolling that with one boat that we occasionally have enough fuel for, and that is a big challenge. We have a problem with over-fishing, with the collection of undersized conch and lobster, and over limits and undersized turtles. These are all things that we have some very passionate conservation officers to address, but we just do not have all the resources that we need to address them. Also, of course, we are a country of 10 inhabited islands, which means that we have to be everywhere. Currently, we only have officers on, I would say, three and a half, because I would not consider my office an enforcement office.

We have faced some other cross-cutting issues as far as the environment goes. One of those is the issue of immigration. For the last three years under direct rule, the immigration law was consulted on and then changed, basically to eliminate the possibility of attaining citizenship in the territory; that was done after a consultation did not recommend it-sort of unilaterally. The effect that has had is that people who are passionate about the environment, particularly members of our department who are from overseas and come to work there, felt a bit hopeless and unwelcome to stay long term. But it has other implications. Between a fourth and a third of the Turks and Caicos population are resident foreigners, and when you have a country that you know is yours in the future and belongs to your children in the future, you treat it well, or one would hope that one would treat it well. But if that is not the case, I think there is less stewardship. There is less of a sense of importance and urgency to not throw your trash on the ground, to not pour bleach into the mangroves to catch lobster, to not collect as many bonefish as one possibly can at a time to feed their family using a net that has been outlawed, and to keep things going a little bit longer than they would otherwise. That has been a major challenge for our department as well. We have lost some key staff over that issue of, "We have no future here. We have better opportunities elsewhere and more security in other countries, so let’s go away". It is something I myself am facing. My parents are Belongers, but under the current law I will never able to attain citizenship.

We have also dealt with the larger UK Government cuts to some of the societies and the organisations that we work with; just as an example, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, ZSL, and so on. When we work with those organisations we have to make up that funding within the territory to carry out our work. That was coming largely from the Overseas Territories Environment Programme, but we found the new Darwin Plus programme to be a bit beyond our capacity, particularly in that the announcement was done around the holiday time. We were unable to put in the submissions that we wanted to because of the timing. We also did not have the capacity within the department to justify spending staff time on the development of complex proposals that may or may not have been successful. I think that brings to light another cross-cutting issue in the culture of the territories. Sometimes it is forgotten that it is not Britain; that we have a unique culture in Turks and Caicos and all of the territories, of course. Just as an example, the Darwin Plus announcement was done right before or right after the holiday season, and more or less everything shuts down in Turks and Caicos in the holiday season. We have a small Government. A lot of our officials take vacation at that time, and we needed consultation and we needed input from other officials, which we were unable to get, so that was delayed.

Finally, the loss of the conservation fund has been a serious challenge to us. The Government collects an 11% hotel, accommodation and tourism facility tax; restaurants, rental cars, all that sort of thing. One of those 11% went into the conservation fund, and that had accrued-I do not know the exact figure, but it was several million dollars, from which projects could be written and drawn. In fact, a project that I worked on four years ago came from the conservation fund and led into a much longer-term and more important project. Unfortunately, that fund was not maintained separately from the general accounts; it was absorbed into the general accounts during direct rule, and used to alleviate some of the country’s debt. There was no further facility set up to collect any more money in that fund. It has basically been abolished. Unfortunately, the tax is still commonly marketed by the tourism facilities as an environmental tax, but it is not attainable. I think the amount that was generated, if it was administered correctly, could probably fund the majority of the recurring expenses of the department and probably several of the NGOs that we have, and still have money to supply projects, but unfortunately it was not done like that. We have lost our in-territory funding, our external funding has been made more complicated, and we have a gigantic network of in-kind support within the territory. I have run my own project basically off fumes of in-kind support and good will for the last two years because our complications in the Government have made it difficult for us to access the payments. We have had a number of challenges and more, but I will leave you with that at the moment.

Q8 Chair: Okay, we will just leave it at that at the moment. You mentioned the conservation fund. Basically, you confirmed that although it is still being collected, its status is that it is not being used for environmental purposes. Given that in your opening comments you said that you would like more attention given to the environment, what do you think it would take for whoever determines policy to really put the environment at the core of what is being done? What has changed? Why is environment not at the top of the agenda? Why is there not pressure for it to be seen to be so important?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: At the last several elections that I have seen, someone has always put the environment as a priority, as a platform. Someone has said it, even if it is just lip service or appears to be-as a passionate environmentalist everything seems to be lip service to me. During direct rule I think that environment was set at a low priority. I would criticise it as too low, but I also understand that we had much more urgent matters. We were probably on the verge of economic collapse. I don’t know, but I think at that time several developments were entertained-proposals entertained-that were not in the vernacular of our history; for example, a 28-storey building. Whether or not we wanted it was consulted publicly. Our maximum is seven storeys right now. Rather than consulting whether or not the public wanted it, the forum set up by the developer was more like, "Do you want a 28-storey building in Grace Bay?", not, "Do you want it or not?" Of course, the response was, "No, we do not want it in Grace Bay". "Well, where do you want it?" "Well, we could have it over there." The public really was not given a choice of whether they wanted it or not, and the discussion was just as hectic because of that.

Another example is the changing of the marine law to allow captive husbandry of marine mammals. This is something that was really amazing to me. Turks and Caicos is a fragmented society. We are a fragmented country geographically. We are fragmented culturally. We have people from 70-odd different nations living there. We have three major languages. Everyone exists in relative peace but perhaps not yet fully integrated. Yet over the last year, two issues have amazed me in how they united the country. One is, of course, the very controversial and not related to this topic implementation of value-added tax, which has been a very passionate discussion. The other is the issue of having a dolphinarium or two in the Turks and Caicos. I have never seen two issues that united people more across the board, across the languages, across the cultures and across the ages. I think that speaks volumes-that there was probably a lack of attention paid to what people really wanted. When the election was called, the new Government and the candidates did not set environment as a priority. I think that was because they were so eager to get in and so eager to find jobs for people and recover the economy that it just was not something apparent to watch for and to celebrate. But it is our mainstay: "Beautiful by nature" is the Turks and Caicos slogan. People do not come to look at garbage and degraded forests. They come to look at natural beauty.

Q9 Mark Lazarowicz: On the percentage of the environmental tax, or whatever it is called, that went to support projects, when that 1% was stopped was it a decision of the direct-rule Government?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: As far as I know, yes. It was done during that time.

Q10 Mark Lazarowicz: Could the new elected Government bring it back if they wished?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I believe so. I am uncertain about that.

Q11 Mark Lazarowicz: It might link to the VAT issue, I suppose.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I am not sure. I know that our elected Government has been a bit hesitant to make decisions yet because there have been some issues with the impending by-election and some other issues of uncertainty about what will happen. Perhaps it is. I do not know enough about the legal framework of that fund, though, to know who can dictate that.

Q12 Mr Spencer: You have identified clearly that the general population is aware of environmental issues. I wondered if you could give us a feel for where they sit in terms of their priorities, how high on their agenda are green issues, or whether they are completely dominated by economic issues.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think at the moment people are still coming out of the survival mode of not having access to jobs. Being a country where the super-rich come for vacation, we never thought that the recession would hurt us, and it did. I think that a lot of people are still coming out of survival mode or are perhaps still in survival mode, trying to find jobs, ways to support themselves and their families, yet the younger people in the country are definitely very passionate. We have an active environmental club. We have several active NGOs. Our national museum has taken on the environment as one of its main issues and, in fact, has got some pretty amazing grants due to its commitment to becoming a green organisation. So it is there, particularly among people who have been exposed to the idea of green development. On the other hand, we have a power monopoly that has been allowed to develop to curtail any effort to be green, to develop alternative sources of power, and that again sets a precedent that people follow, a bit of hopelessness: "We really cannot do anything about it, so why bother?"

Q13 Mr Spencer: Is there a generational split between the younger generation that understands those issues and the older population that do not? Is that too generalistic?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think it crosses generations in different ways. The older people in the country have a much more direct connection to the earth and nature because they were subsistence farmers 30 years ago. The Turks and Caicos was a subsistence-farming country. I mentioned a few minutes ago the anachronism of seeing an 80-year-old woman toddling down the road with a canvas sack of sweet potatoes on her head, a cutlass and a piece of sugar cane in her hand, and on the other hand she is talking on her BlackBerry. Our development has gone exponentially, and our population has gone exponentially.

Q14 Mr Spencer: What I am driving at is whether there is a requirement for greater general public awareness of green issues to drive the political agenda, or whether that awareness already exists but there is another way to drive that particular agenda.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think there is a lot of awareness already. The tourist board does an amazing job of telling people, "Beautiful by nature; we have to keep the country attractive for tourists". There is a lot of environmental education in the schools, but to me there is always room for more. Everything we do depends on our environment. Our economy, our food source, everything depends on the environment, and it is too small a country to play with that. We cannot really go anywhere else if we ruin what we have. Yes, we do have a lot of awareness, but we do need more.

Q15 Mr Spencer: You have that strong lobby. I suppose where I am going is: would it help if UK-based NGOs stepped in and tried to assist in getting those messages across, or would that hinder the process?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: No, certainly any time that a consultant or a UK-based organisation is brought in, as long as they work within the cultural context of the country, as long as they work within the local vernacular and they understand and consult local people, then it will work. I have had the pleasure to work with the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum for the last 15 years, and it has always been a really good relationship. The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, ZSL, the British Museum, National Museum Liverpool-a number of organisations have come and helped us build capacity, work on our biodiversity, implement policy, and it has always been helpful. They have always done it with a territory-driven approach so that they said, "We are here to help you. How can we help you? What do you want to do?" It was not an issue of them coming in and saying, "Here is what we want to do". I should mention more NGOs from the UK that have helped us as well; they are not all in my mind right now-RSPB is certainly one-and we would like more. We would like to have more relationships with others.

Q16 Mark Lazarowicz: You will both have seen the RSPB assessment of the Environmental Protection Framework, which was launched at the event last week. Can I ask you first, Dr Chapman, do you agree with the assessment that the RSPB made of the situation in St Helena and, if not, in what ways do you disagree or think it may be inaccurate?

Dr Chapman: I think the document is a very accessible with a clear and simple nice format, and there is no jargon. I broadly agree with the content. Yes, I think broadly that it is a fair assessment, and I am pleased to see that we have a "strong" for the development category.

Q17 Mark Lazarowicz: I have some more detailed questions about St Helena in a second, but may we go on to Turks and Caicos? The assessment there is not as good in a number of aspects. Do you think that is relatively fair, or do you think it is unfair in any way?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: No, I think it was fair. I believe we got a couple of "weaks" and a "moderate", if I am not mistaken.

Mark Lazarowicz: Yes, three "weaks" and a "moderate".

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Three "weaks" and a "moderate", yes. It also shows us what we know. We know that those areas are weak, and we know that they have to be developed. I do not think it is necessarily a reflection on anyone doing anything wrong, so that is why I do not think it is unfair at all. I think it is quite a fair assessment. It shows us where we could be stronger. One of the great things that I have found working with the Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs and several other NGOs in the territory is that we are quite ready to criticise ourselves internally and respond to constructive criticism from externally and to work with people to see how we can make things better.

Q18 Mark Lazarowicz: If I could continue with you because there are perhaps more questions about Turks and Caicos than about St Helena, but I will come back in a second. Do you want to give us a bit more detail on the areas where you think greater legal protections are needed and how far up they are on the governmental agenda with the new Government?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Right. We definitely need some increased legislation for policy implementation. We have a Biodiversity and Wildlife Protection Bill, which unfortunately was set as a lower priority in the last three years, and that would implement Convention on Biodiversity for us. Our CITES legislation is currently under review, so it would be nice to get that moving, particularly because we have outside entities that are interested in exploiting resources. Luckily, when people look for things in the environment in Turks and Caicos, botany and animals and whatnot, they often get passed on to me-their contact-so I have managed to stop some of the interests that we have had in exploiting orchids or reptiles and so on. But we do need that increased legislation. We also require the updated Protected Areas Act to be passed to make things a little bit more accessible to our enforcement officers. Along with that legislation, we really need support to implement the management of those laws.

Q19 Mark Lazarowicz: With the new administration, is there a sign that legislation and support might be forthcoming reasonably soon?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: The team that is in place now-I think so, yes. Like I said, we only had our election in November, and things have been a bit uncertain since then. Both parties seem to have a lot of sensible people in them, and I hope that regardless of which way our by-election sends us that would be the case. There is a strong push within the Ministry particularly to get these things going. We have a really passionate group of people right now. In the past, our department was mostly resource managers, but now we have more of a conservation paradigm within the department.

Q20 Mark Lazarowicz: I do not think you covered this earlier. If you did and I missed it, I am sorry. Are environmental impact assessments required in Turks and Caicos for appropriately sized developments?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: For major developments, yes, but not developments that are done or driven by the Government or public service. For example, an expansion of our airport may be threatening an underwater cavern system that plays host to an endemic genus and family of crustaceans to that cave. We are right now working with very limited resources, getting volunteer cave divers to go in and try to map to find out if the development on the adjacent parcel is going to affect it and, in fact, why the parcel that the cave is on was acquired and whether or not that will be developed as well. Just as a sideline, that would also affect the only known colony of Jamaican fruit-eating bats that we have in the country, as well as those crustaceans and a couple of shrimp that are endemic to Turks and Caicos and Cuba. We do need a better environmental impact assessment process.

Our other complication with the EIA process is that they are exclusively commissioned, paid for and vetted by the developer, so what is submitted to the Government is exactly what the developer wants. In fact, we have ecologists, myself included, who will not be part of the EIA process for consultation in Turks and Caicos, because we end up looking environmentally terrible because the developer can throw out whatever they like, and there is very little push to have these documents more accessible to Government in their full state.

Q21 Chair: What do you think would be needed to deal with the challenges that you have just set out; the fact that it is not being recognised, in terms of that environmental appraisal? What do you think the actual solution would be?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: At the moment, when we receive EIAs within the department we scrutinise them very heavily, but we also become part of the process of developments that are not on the EIA. We have a member on the planning board so that developments, whether or not they have an EIA, come through our department one way or the other. I think really it needs a little bit more policy work and legislation to make sure that everything gets an EIA, because it might be a very necessary and good project for the country. It might provide jobs: the causeway to north and middle Caicos provided an incredible amount of access to people so that they could get medical care and food without having to get on a once-a-week ferry that may or may not work. That was a huge leap, but it has a major environmental impact, so it would be nice to know that we have an idea of what we are losing and what we are gaining before it even happens, not just for the environment but across the board. I think it is just a wiser way to do it.

Q22 Mark Lazarowicz: Dr Chapman, are there any areas in St Helena where you think greater legal protections are needed, and is that likely to happen?

Dr Chapman: Yes. St Helena did have legislation covering the environment, but it needed reviewing as there are quite a few gaps in it. EMD is currently reviewing the environmental legislation and addressing the gaps. EMD is also in the process of recruiting an environmental legislation draftsperson, which is quite critical to finalise the works. Obviously St Helena is going through a process of change with the airport construction underway; we need to get that legislation into place. Indeed, especially when-specifically on the conservation side-we have species such as crayfish that could become commercial products and if not sustainably managed would disappear quite soon.

Q23 Mark Lazarowicz: Can I just be clear? Obviously, in St Helena there is less local accountability on these issues than in general in Turks and Caicos, in terms of, I think, a planning board or something that is appointed by the Governor. Is it very much up to St Helena itself to decide what legislation to bring forward, or is there a role played by UK Government Departments? Or is it very much up to the St Helena Government what it does, what it brings forward? Generally on environmental legislation, how far is this local initiative and how far is it something that to some extent is encouraged or not encouraged from the UK end of the process?

Dr Chapman: Well, the current environmental legislation review was initiated by EMD but incorporated wider St Helena, NGOs and civil societies. There are currently other conservation plans that are led from EMD that will feed into the environmental legislation, for example the marine management plan and terrestrial conservation areas plan. Quite a lot of current policy works are EMD-led but incorporates wider St Helenian.

Q24 Mark Lazarowicz: I think that issue might be pursued, or I might raise it later on, but my final question is how many people are actually involved in this process in St Helena? How many staff are there? How many people are in the departments concerned? You mentioned your own department of scientists. How many people are there involved in this? What sort of staff resource?

Dr Chapman: We have about 30 staff in EMD. We do not have actually a department of scientists. However we have many staff with local knowledge which is key to inputting in these policies.3

Mark Lazarowicz: Thank you. I will leave it there.

Q25 Martin Caton: What more should the UK Government be doing to support environmental protection in the Overseas Territories? In particular, does the 2012 White Paper Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability meet your expectations and hopes for UK Government strategy?

Dr Chapman: Is that to both?

Martin Caton: To both of you, yes.

Chair: Do you want to go first, Dr Chapman?

Dr Chapman: Well, we had some recommendations on that. We feel the Government should be perhaps inputting more as it has a moral and legal obligation to protect biodiversity. What we have been looking at is a more joined-up approach across Defra, FCO, DCMS, in tackling these issues. I am also aware of an interdepartmental biodiversity group. I am not quite sure what its status is at the moment. I was wondering if that role could be expanded, and we would benefit from further support with environmental protection. We are getting there with the legislation, but we really could be doing with some help on the implementation.

Q26 Martin Caton: Are you saying from your observations in St Helena that the different Government departments that could and should have a role to play in taking things forward are not working as well together as perhaps they should be? I do not want to put words into your mouth, but it sounded like that in criticising the White Paper you felt it had not addressed that particular issue.

Dr Chapman: It would be more helpful if they were more joined-up across the board. I think that is what I am saying, yes.

Martin Caton: Mr Manco?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Having trudged through the White Paper myself and knowing that my director, who has considerably more education than I do, also did, and so did several other of my colleagues, some with even more education, we all came to the same conclusion: it was not a very accessible document to the general public. We felt that it had a lot of good in it but it was not something that most of the people in the country could really pull from and sift through and access unless they had a really big interest in it. I think generally, yes, it met expectations, but it is very hard to make that judgment call when it is in a language and a structure that really makes it a bit difficult to access.

Q27 Martin Caton: You mentioned a little earlier the UK Overseas Territory Conservation Forum. They actually criticised the White Paper fairly strongly and certainly said that it lacked substance and also certainty. Would you endorse that?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I would say it is a bit vague. I understand that the territories are all very different and one would have to be a bit vague, but I do not know that it really committed and had a lot of teeth in it. A lot of good ideas, but I think perhaps it could use a little more power or energy.

Q28 Martin Caton: Thank you. Again, this is for both of you if you would. We have heard that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK has no dedicated staff working on Overseas Territories issues and that Overseas Territories biodiversity is not even in their business plan. What is the message you think comes from that, and what would you like to see Defra doing?

Dr Chapman: I think you have hit the nail on the head, basically. We definitely would like to see at least one dedicated officer with that remit clearly shown, otherwise it could send out the wrong signals. Yes, it would be greatly appreciated if that could be-and if we could have more than one, even better. But one would be great to start with, definitely.

Martin Caton: Would you agree?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I agree, yes. We find that there is some policy being made with very little knowledge on the ground, and I think the other challenge we have is that a lot of the people in the UK Government change every couple of years. There is a very high turnover rate, and it is really difficult to build a constructive rapport with people when they are going in and out. Yes, it would be very helpful if they had some dedicated staff.

Dr Chapman: Perhaps for those staff to be the OTs’ contact points, to know exactly who they are and have that communication.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes.

Q29 Martin Caton: That sounds very sensible. Given that the Overseas Territories have their own elected Governments, are there any actions to promote sustainability that the UK Government could or might take that would not be welcomed? I know this is a big question covering a lot of territories, but can you perceive any things that would be resisted by local people?

Dr Chapman: Sorry, across the Overseas Territories?

Martin Caton: Yes. Obviously, if you have a specific thing from St Helena, that would be very useful. Or is it a matter, as Mr Manco suggested, that the important thing is to take people with you and that you are not imposing solutions? You are looking to help.

Dr Chapman: I think that is key. It is very much as with anything from the outside, it is helpful to have early communication, rather than after the event. Let us work together as we all want the same thing. Early communication: take us with you and listen to the locals, because they have good ideas and try to incorporate them into the works.

Martin Caton: I nodded; a nod is as good as saying something.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. We had some good help in the past from the UK Government, and it was welcome when we had someone in our department in the past who worked alongside people rather than dictating. It was more capacity-building, but it is really helpful when we can get expert advice when it is needed, but perhaps in a more observatorial role and there when we need it.

Dr Chapman: Can I build on that? After you have listened to locals, provide feedback that says "I have listened to you". This is because some feedback coming from locals is that they provide input to consultation processes, but they do not hear anything after that. Even if all the suggestions cannot be taken on board, recognise there has been an input and feedback, just to acknowledge the local input. I think that has been missing across not just within conservation but across the board, otherwise it can come across as bringing in an expert, or a perceived expert, and forcing that on people.

Martin Caton: Thank you very much.

Q30 Peter Aldous: My questions are directed to the two of you on funding and also some capacity issues relating to environmental protection. As we heard earlier, the UK Government has consolidated its environmental protection funding for the Overseas Territories into the Darwin Plus fund. I think, Mr Manco, you did express some concerns earlier about the timing of that and the consultation process. Do you feel the Darwin Plus fund is a positive development? Is the fund big enough to support the work that is needed?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think that a fund is not big enough as long as there is a competitive process to get to it. This is me being a passionate environmentalist. I realise that is probably a little bit over-zealous. We do not always need massive amounts of funding. Sometimes we need little projects and sometimes we can make do on some smaller amounts of money, but with that, perhaps easier accessibility and a little bit less paperwork. We are happy to report, but some of the requirements for the application process are quite difficult for us to justify spending the time on them. I think it is a well-funded programme, but the way it was explained to us last week, basically somebody could come along with a very good, very large project and almost do a clean sweep, whereas we might have a bunch of small projects that they would have to choose between. I was also surprised-my colleagues as well-at some of the other things that were included in Darwin Plus, such as things that touched more on environmental health and social health issues and climate change, which although extremely important are almost completely separate issues, particularly for those of us that only live a few metres above sea level, because we are talking then about much more economic and social problems.

Q31 Peter Aldous: Just picking out one thing you said there, you talked about a big project; there might be a very sophisticated person behind it coming along and doing a clean sweep at the expense of some other smaller projects, the sum of which might be more beneficial. Are there brakes and protections in place to prevent that happening?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I do not know how completely likely the situation that I alluded to is, but it seemed to us-or to me anyway-that the project range was so big you could ask for £1 or-I do not remember what it went up to, but it was quite huge; but then the amount of money, of course, is limited. Maybe not one, but two or three large projects could attract the majority, and particularly for the smaller territories that might be a little bit of a danger.

Peter Aldous: Dr Chapman?

Dr Chapman: The large projects do attract the funding. Personally, I think it is good to consolidate the funds in one pot of money. As has been pointed out, we can always do with more, but we are realistic in the economic climate. There is competitive funding, and projects have been funded but obviously not quite enough and we would really appreciate support in accessing other sources of funding as well. For example, I personally have gone through the funding process with Darwin and European bids, and it does take quite a lot of time to complete, to coordinate, an application. One area of funding that has been recently discussed is the LIFE+ fund, which seemed very attractive. However the process is quite complex. In St Helena it is usually down to one individual within each department. For conservation works, it is reliant on myself, so personally it would be helpful to try to make that process as simple as possible, in application forms and matched funding requirements. Many of the OTs perhaps do not have a lot of funds for environment works so matched funding can be very difficult for them to access. Any support with eligibility to addition funding, application procedures, or any other aspect of that, would be really appreciated.

Q32 Peter Aldous: You have very successfully answered my next two questions, which were what other sources are open to you and do your environmental departments have the staff and technical expertise that you need. I think you said you have explored other options but perhaps there is a need for extra capacity and extra expertise. I hope I am not putting words into your mouth by saying that.

Dr Chapman: No. For me, there is a technique to funding applications and a certain skill. OTs’ environment departments are usually reliant on one person to do it. For myself personally, I have a division of 22-plus staff. A funding application, although essential and necessary, could take a good month away from other core works.

Q33 Peter Aldous: Mr Manco, similar experiences yourself?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes, and because of the traditional issue that we are not an independent country, we do not have access to developing country funds; and we are not quite part of the UK, so we do not have access to some UK funds, and it is a real challenge. As I said, our department now is much smaller than it should be and our capacity is lowered, so justifying the amount of time spent on these applications can be quite difficult, especially when with a skeletal staff you spend most of your time putting out fires, don’t you?

Q34 Peter Aldous: Just leading on from that, I get the impression you perhaps feel you are on your own a little bit. To what extent do other parts of your territories’ Governments actually engage in environmental issues-the other departments? Do you get good buy-in from other departments?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: We have had really good buy-in. The Department of Agriculture has been a wonderful partner from its inception. Environmental Health has always been very good, and the police. We have a big issue right now with illegal charcoal production. We are 90 miles from Haiti. We have a large Haitian population and a lot of trade. It is a bit frightening to think that Turks and Caicos, where our trees are about 10 feet tall, are exporting charcoal to Hispaniola. We have had some other challenges, particularly in the ports authority. Customs is coming around now and could do a little better, in order to get these things on board. But like I said, our Ministry has been great. We have had a bit of difficulty in our treasury and financial unit, but I think that is more a capacity issue. I think they really need some help-I think they are struggling-in order to produce audits and things like that. I would not be quick to blame the staff there. I think there was an issue of reduction of capacity under direct rule, but it has been a real challenge. Other than that the Tourist Board are amazing environmental allies as well, so we have some really good mainstreaming going on.

Q35 Peter Aldous: Dr Chapman, your own experiences?

Dr Chapman: I think that EMD and other departments work very well together. We have, as regards funding, joined up with other departments we see that as a joined-up, more holistic approach to environment is necessary. For example EMD have joined up with civil societies, NGOs and the educational department There is a lot of good will on the island, and I think it is quite essential for environment to connect up with a lot of other departments. I think it works quite well on St Helena to have that joined-up approach.

Peter Aldous: Thanks very much.

Q36 Dr Offord: You both are representing territories that have greater ecological diversity than we are fortunate to have in this country. What do you see as the key threats to that, or what do you feel are the key threats to that biodiversity?

Dr Chapman: St Helena is going to be changing quite rapidly when the airport opens, and we foresee those changes. We have a fixed timeframe, and we are in the good position of foreseeing those changes so we can act now. As I raised at the beginning, although we have a great Environmental Management Directorate and on the ground have a lot of bodies per se, we do not have the technical or the monetary capacity at the moment to deal with the actual needs across a species and habitat-people focused on particular species-within that timeframe. On St Helena we are only just discovering some of our biodiversity. We have some exciting projects that have been funded jointly with an organisation, Buglife. We are extending looking at our invertebrates, so there are possibly a lot more invertebrates to be discovered. Currently we are undertaking a marine project, funded again by Darwin, which is really appreciated. That is marine life. We do not even know what is there, and we have been discovering new species. We are at the base-line. We have to find out what is there and protect it appropriately, within a very short timeframe. We have constraints, plus we are only at the start of the documenting and inventory for some of our species and habitats, and I think those two together are going to need quite a lot of work, effort and in a short timeframe.

Q37 Dr Offord: What kind of timeframe are you considering?

Dr Chapman: To understand what we have, how best to protect it before any potential impact happens, and so on, we have the timeframe of 3 years for the airport, which is due to open in 2016.

Q38 Dr Offord: I am aware that you undertook for that examination to occur before the construction of the airport and that has already happened, but I understand the examination of certain species has not even started. Is that correct?

Dr Chapman: Yes.

Dr Offord: So it is time-critical?

Dr Chapman: It is an exciting time. For example the marine biodiversity project has discovered about 10 new marine species and we have not even looked at the marine environment in detail. The marine environment is going to be important for commercial activities, of course it is, and that is what we want as well, but we need to get the balance right.

Dr Offord: Thank you. Mr Manco?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I think Dr Chapman touched on a good issue. About 13 years ago my first job out of university, my first real job, was managing a biodiversity assessment in Turks and Caicos Islands. I think in that exercise we really learned the extraordinary amount that we do not know; just as one example, setting up a light one night and discovering that we probably had several hundred species of micro-moths, the majority of which had never been described. It is a bit humbling. Our baseline knowledge really needs some help. We need a lot more of that work. That work continues, but it tends to continue piecemeal and externally driven. We will have people come in and say, "I want to do a monograph on the spiders of Turks and Caicos". They do it, and sometimes we get good data back and sometimes we get things back that are a little difficult for us to access.

Of our other challenges and threats to biodiversity, one of the most important is illegal and unchecked development. A lot of development goes on without any real permit. There is a lot of development out in the bush and areas that have not had planning approval yet. I believe we have one planning enforcement officer right now, and he is great, but busy.

Dr Offord: He is a little busy?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. The planning department has always been under strain because, as an example, Providenciales-in 1960, I think they had about 220 people; something along that line. They now have about 27,000, and the majority are from immigration. It is a situation where it was not a bunch of kids being born that needed cribs to live in; it was a bunch of adults coming in that needed homes to live in. There are pieces of the bush being taken away slowly. There are areas of the reef being taken away slowly by over-fishing; invasive species are another big problem, particularly lion fish, casuarina along the beaches, and several other plants that we have trouble with. Feral cats are a big problem to our endemic reptiles and birds.

Back to the illegal development, as I mentioned before, we have a lot of charcoal production, which aims at the tropical hardwoods, many of which are endemic to the Bahama archipelago, which includes the Turks and Caicos, or are endangered, such as mahogany and lignum vitae. These are CITES-listed species. Along with that, there is our capacity to monitor and to manage and to know what we have: right now I am working on red-listing with Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and we are dependent on downloading information from my head of, "Okay, here is where I have seen the endemic slender-stemmed pepper-grass; here is where I know it is." But this is an ephemeral plant that only appears after heavy rains. I have not been everywhere after heavy rains, so we really have to step up our baseline knowledge and our capacity to get it into place. That way we will be able to better adjust our threats. Those are the threats I know that we have-development particularly; illegal development and unchecked development, invasive species and our capacity to manage it.

Q39 Dr Offord: Can I ask you also the same question? When do you feel that your baseline assessment will be completed, or to the best of your ability?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Well, as a scientist, never, but as a policy person, I would hope within the next 10 years. I say that generously, because I am a bit worried about the financial climate recovering as quickly as it will in other places. I would hope that within 10 years we know a lot more about what we have. Like I said, that requires an increased capacity. It requires an internal drive and an internal purpose to get that knowledge down on paper, into the schools and in our facilities, museums and NGOs, ecotourism, and so on, to disseminate as much information as possible. Because if it sits on a shelf, in a jar or in a book, it is fairly useless, but once we get it into people’s minds then that is where it can help; I think a decade, maybe more.

Q40 Dr Offord: I was going to ask you about the extent of recognition by the UK Government of the biodiversity that exists in your territories, but I am going to turn it on its head and ask: intuitively, do you feel that there is complete lack of recognition of the amount of your biodiversity?

Dr Chapman: I do not think there is lack of recognition of the biodiversity. I think there are two things, which we probably keep saying. We would like increased capacity to help protect our biodiversity, and I think there could be more awareness-raising in the UK. I think in St Helena there is quite a lot of raised public awareness, although focused on certain species and habitats. Within the UK the public are probably unaware of the level of biodiversity. Support with that recognition would be greatly appreciated.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Well, I was relaxing on the Tube on the way here and a lady next to me said-sorry, I am going to tell you the story. She said, "Oh, you look so calm", and I said, "Well, I should not be. I do not really get nervous, but I am going into this parliamentary inquiry". She asked where I was from, and I said, "Turks and Caicos", and I was so proud that I finally met someone in London who knew what Turks and Caicos was and where it is. Knowledge of our biodiversity is a bit of a back-burner issue when it comes to the knowledge of the territories in the UK. I meet very few people on the street here; everyone I deal with professionally knows who we are and where we are, but I think we need a little more-I would love Attenborough to do a series on the OTs. I do not know that he will any more, but I hope so.

Peter Aldous: That could be our recommendation.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes.

Dr Chapman: Sorry to interrupt. A dedicated series of OT conservation programmes would be very helpful, because -you have programmes, for example, on the Falklands, and on South Georgia-which are very popular, but the programmes are not linked up under OTs, and I think something like that would be absolutely amazing. It would catch the audience. TV is the main media. If you did have a series like that, even if these programmes had the label Overseas Territories or preferably a new independent set of documentaries covering biodiversity in the OTs, I think that would actually hit the nail on the head.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Within the territory, our recognition of biodiversity is great for me, especially with the young people. When they tour our nursery I ask them about the endemic plants, and they know that the national flower is the Island Heather and that it is endemic; that the Caicos Pine is our national tree and it is a unique variety; that the Rock Iguana is an endemic species to Turks and Caicos. They know what we have, especially the children, and of course the children are telling their parents. The parents recognise that. It is a lot to remember. If the territories have 90% of the UK’s biodiversity, I do not think we can expect everyone in Great Britain to know all of our endemic species. I would like that, but I understand you do not. I do not know all of the endemics to Britain. I think we need increased recognition of the territories for what they are as well. The biodiversity will go along with that, because people are interested.

Q41 Dr Offord: The UN Convention on Biological Diversities charged the UK with the responsibility for biodiversity in the Overseas Territories. How would you react to an assertion that the UK Government is discharging that responsibility well?

Dr Chapman: I feel that we have covered some of those aspects; the funding is fantastic. Could we do with more? Yes. Could we do with more support to various areas? Yes. With a few bits of additional support, that would be very helpful.

Dr Offord: Do you have anything to add, Mr Manco?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes; just generally more support. We really require additional policies and recurrent funding, particularly conservation funding, to address those things, because without long-term recurrent funding to protect biodiversity, we can have a lot of projects-we always have projects, and I have been working on projects for 13 years, and it is great-but in the end I have to move on to something else. Some of the things we work on do not work on the same time scale as financial years. For example, I am working on a tree conservation project right now. Trees do not care that we only live 90 years. They are not interested. They require a little more funding than a three-year project can offer. The key is that it is long-term and that it is recurrent. It is taken as an issue that is of vital importance for the long term and one that will be increasingly important as population rises.

Q42 Dr Offord: Many people are concerned with climate change, and that is going to mean different things to different territories. I am aware of things like acidification of the seas, which kills coral, and invasive species, which you mentioned in regard to the Caicos Pine that has been attacked by a non-invasive species. Beach erosion is another one. We do not experience climate change in the same way in this country, but what would you say that you are actively doing to prevent climate change because you have specific symptoms, shall we say, of climate change that we do not? How do you do things differently?

Dr Chapman: Within EMD we have a division that has a remit to deal with and create policy on climate change. This is another area that needs support; we need support to undertake the assessments, so we can build the findings into policy. We are aware there has been general support in Overseas Territories on climate change, particularly in the Caribbean but not so much the Atlantic, so again we are at a starting point with that. We will not know some of the impact because we are at the baseline stage, particularly in marine environments, but in the terrestrial environment we do have information and we can make a starting point, but again we would like to have support with wider-based assessments so we can help write and implement that policy.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I would not say we are doing much to prevent it, in as much as we know that if climate change is indeed an anthropogenic exacerbated issue, 30,000 people are not contributing to the problem as much as our great big gas-guzzling neighbours and our other territories in the Caribbean basin and the surrounding area that tend to use a lot more fuel than we do. Of course our emphasis would have to be on adapting and we have not done as much as we should. We have done a little bit of social adaptation, identifying problem areas. Most of it has been risks to the economy and to tourism because of coastal development. Unfortunately we have not slowed down really on coastal development except for the economic downturn. There seems to be a general idea among coastal developers that you can just continue to put in groynes and breakwaters and replenish beaches and that that will be okay; whereas if you talk to any people who have been around the sea for a long time, they will tell you that if you move sand from here to there it is going to go back to where it was, or more sand is going to come in and less is going to go out.

We also have the complication of our own contribution to carbon emissions being disproportionately higher than it should be because we use electricity generated by fossil fuels and we do not need to. We have huge resources of sun and wind. We have large shallow banks that could probably be adapted. That would have other environmental implications, particularly for birds, but we could probably develop some wind or solar power elsewhere, and private citizens could do it as well. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, we have a power monopoly that does not permit that, so if you are connected to the grid or if you are in an area connected to the grid, you are not actually allowed to make your own power directly.

Q43 Chair: Is that as a result of statute or as a result of the agreement with the private developer running it?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: I am pretty sure it is the agreement with the power company. sure.

Q44 Mark Lazarowicz: Is it a private company or a state one?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Actually, it is a Canadian-owned conglomerate. I would be very happy to be off the grid myself, but it just is not practicable. I am in a rented apartment, and I cannot install it myself. My landlord would not have an incentive to do it, but we do have energy coming down on us every day from across the Atlantic and out of the sky, but we are not really working on it very hard.

Q45 Dr Offord: I am trying not to put words in your mouth. You did say in your earlier evidence that climate change is particularly affecting the economic and social issues you have just illustrated. Would you say there are environmental areas that you feel need more support as a result of climate change?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Yes. I think one of the things we are looking out for-particularly with sea-level rise-and that I have noticed within the last 10 years, is a changing forest structure in lowland areas, with an increase of inter-tidal trees-mangroves, buttonwoods-in areas that used to not be inter-tidal and now are. Probably about a quarter of our land, maybe up to a third, is just barely above sea level, and it is not arable-it is mostly a Ramsar site-but it is a large area. It is utilised mostly by wildlife. It is very difficult to access, so our ability to do something about it is limited and our capacity to do something about it is very limited. We have one boat, and it cannot get into that area. I think, environmentally, we really have our work cut out for us on that. We need to know more about what is going on and how it is changing. It is just not something we can do with the current number of people and the capacity we have.

Dr Offord: That is great, thank you very much.

Q46 Chair: Can I just come in on a follow-up to one of the questions that Dr Offord asked about the UK Government and how it is discharging its responsibilities in relation to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity? In respect of work to do with CITES, does the UK Government interfere? How does it pick up issues to do there? Would it come in and interfere with what is going on? Would it wait for you to tell them or does it not really engage at all?

Dr Chapman: I am fairly new in post, so I do not have experience of the UK coming in and interfering. I do not feel that that is the case at all. I know you are looking for CBD specifically, but looking at MEAs in general, they need to be translatable for the Overseas Territories so we can feed in a report and link into that, but I do not feel there is any over-negative interference from the UK Government.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Our position is a little different, coming out of direct rule. Like I said, our CBD legislation was shelved. I think it will be brought back up. Our CITES legislation has been delayed, but we did have a recent event that was odd. We export Queen Conch, which is a CITES Appendix II species. We are one of the few Caribbean countries that still has a fishery considered sustainable, but we have to do assessments every year to generate our maximum sustainable yield for our CITES obligations to calculate a quota for export. My director and others in the Ministry have asked for funding to continue the conch assessments, because we know they are declining; we know that Queen Conch is getting harder to find. The fishermen are telling us it is getting harder to find. We have been told that there is no funding available for this. This is something that is going to have to wait.

Q47 Chair: Is that funding from Defra?

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Through the Governor’s Office, according to my director; I was not directly involved in it. This is an issue that she mentioned to me. Interestingly, we also found that a private fishing company, a foreign-owned fishing company, came to us and said, "We would like to develop an investigation into the feasibility of a pelagic fishery in Turks and Caicos and deep-water marine species, long-lining, etc, and we will fund this with the fish that we catch if you can give us the permits to do that". Later it was found out that this body was given something to the tune of $100,000 through the Governor’s Office to fund the study. This is a study that is going to result in data that will only be accessible to people who have the sort of sophisticated equipment that such a conglomerate would have rather than the local fishermen. It will not be of any benefit to the economy. I think it was done with an idea to diversify the fishing economy, but we really need to protect and know about what we are doing right now, what we have-lobster, conch and finfish from inshore-before we look at the larger EEZ and the exploitation of those resources.

We have poaching from other countries; we have the Dominican Republic and Haiti coming into the waters to poach, so we need a realistic knowledge of what we already have before probably we spend lots and lots of money on an external company that wants to make money out of it. That is something else.

Q48 Caroline Lucas: I wanted to pick up on one issue, which was that we have been told by the Pew Environment Group that there was little evidence that the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group, which Defra chairs, has made any contribution to improving biodiversity. The Pew Environment Group have been very outspoken about this-very strong: they have said that there is no evidence that Defra really genuinely assumed joint responsibility for the Overseas Territories.

You have both been very polite, and that is very nice, but I want to invite you to consider being less polite-if it is appropriate; it may not be. You have talked about how more capacity would be helpful, more funding, more support. This is just one last opportunity to say anything else you might like to say about what you think the UK Government could be doing more of in support. I was particularly shocked to hear what you were saying about the unrealised potential for renewable energy. I understand you explained part of the reason for that, but is that an area, for example, where you think it would be useful to have some more leadership from the UK Government, or are the Pew Environment people not really reflecting your views on this? If I have put you in an awkward position and everything you have said stands and you do not want to add to it, that is fine.

Bryan Naqqi Manco: Thank you for calling me polite; I appreciate that. I am nice; I am not diplomatic.

Keeping in mind that we see Defra through the Governor’s Office, and we see the FCO through the Governor’s Office, to us it comes down to one post, one position, because that is mostly who we are dealing with for these things. I think there is a lot of room for improvement, but, knowing some of the people in the positions, there is also interest and even passion in some instances. Yes, there is a need for increased capacity within Defra, I think, in dealing with the OTs, but I think there is a general need in increased capacity dealing with the OTs in general. Colleagues of mine from the French and Dutch Antilles think that it is absolutely crazy that we are handled though the Foreign Office in the UK, and they wonder what is going on. They keep asking me, "Do they really want you guys?" and I say, "I’ll decline to answer that right now. Give me a couple more years to figure it out".

I think I can be comfortable to be polite, honestly and genuinely with Defra, but there is just need for more in general and for dedicated staff, as we mentioned, too.

Dr Chapman: I concur. I would sum it up slightly shorter, but yes, we would like dedicated staff and a bit more leadership to send out the correct messages. I suppose I keep returning to the two main issues for St. Helena; funding and long-term support to address environmental issues would be fantastic. Thank you.

Chair: I think we have reached the end of our session, so could I give a big thank you to each of you for coming along this afternoon. I hope it was not too much of an ordeal, and I hope that our inquiry, when we publish it, will be able to contribute to improved environmental legislation and operations in both of your territories. Thank you both very much indeed.