Environmental Audit Committee - Minutes of EvidenceHC 332

Back to Report

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee

on Wednesday 17 April 2013

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Martin Caton

Zac Goldsmith

Mark Lazarowicz

Caroline Lucas

Dr Alan Whitehead

Simon Wright

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Dr Mike Pienkowski, Honorary Executive Director, UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Dr Chris Tydeman, Chair UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Clare Stringer, Head of UK Overseas Territories Unit, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Jonathan Hall, Partner Development Officer, UK Overseas Territories, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, gave evidence.

Q49 Chair: I would like to give a very warm welcome to each of the two organisations with us this afternoon and to thank each of you for very comprehensive and detailed written evidence. What I would like to do, in this our second session on the inquiry into overseas territories and environmental issues and biodiversity, is not to ask you to give background information-because I think it is all there in the evidence that we have received-but to start off by saying that the White Paper that has recently been published is the first one since 1999. There has been a 14-year gap. Does that mean that all either was or is now well with overseas territories, and does this White Paper address the concerns? In terms of the timeliness of the inquiry that we are doing, what recommendations should we be looking to make to make any White Paper an effective document? I do not know who would like to start off.

Dr Pienkowski: Shall I kick off?

Chair: Please do, Dr Pienkowski.

Dr Pienkowski: I think I have been elected because I am not quite the oldest but I recall some of these activities. The 14-year period has been something of a game of two halves, really. For the first seven years of the period from the 1999 White Paper we thought there was quite major progress. For example, the Foreign Office agreed Environmental Charters with the territories, as the White Paper wanted. It supported our forum and others to facilitate the territories to develop strategies to implement them. It started a small-grants programme to help conservation in that framework, and it worked collaboratively with frequent meetings with our network and supported the workshop conferences for practitioners in the territories. That was all good.

However, some time after that, we felt that HMG’s interest in the area seemed to decline somewhat. Support for strategic environmental planning and integration with other economic sectors declined until very recently. Meetings with our network were reduced-effectively ended eventually-and support for the workshop conferences ended. We felt that Government officials became disinclined to work with our network of NGOs. I think a major change taking place in that period, at least as we perceive it, is a change of attitude from Government personnel. At the earlier stage, FCO environment personnel-and effectively FCO was the only Department involved closely then-considered that conservation and biodiversity in the territories was something that they shared responsibility for. They worked with our network, with conservation workers, both NGO and governmental, in the territories to plan and fund solutions. This has changed progressively, so that now the attitude is more that conservation is the responsibility just of the territory and the territory can become a supplicant to HMG for funding, which does not seem to us a constructive approach.

There has been some success in bringing more UK Government Departments into involvement, but this has resulted in a good deal of passing the parcel rather than co-ordinated action and the loss of anyone accepting leadership of the issue. Perhaps I should break there, because my colleagues from RSPB might want to say something.

Q50 Chair: Your analogy of the game of two halves is very useful and your kick-starting of all of that. Just before I bring in the other colleagues, you mentioned this issue about the different personnel. Can I ask how much the change in attitude was an issue of professionalism or an issue of Government policy? Was it the individuals and the Departments concerned? I know you make quite extensive reference to that in paragraph E24 of the evidence that you gave us. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Is that the view that is coming down from Government on high, or do you think it is the lack of understanding by the individuals concerned?

Dr Pienkowski: It is obviously very difficult to talk from outside. I think there are a variety of factors. One is there is high staff turnover. That is policy in FCO, and it is fairly frequent in other Departments as well. That was certainly exacerbated by the abolition of the FCO’s Environment Department in about 2006, and the delay of several years before-in fact, following the intervention of this Committee in 2008-Defra picked up on some aspects, at least for a while. One of the areas that suffered particularly in that context was the Environmental Charters. We think that, guided by our partners in the territory, they remain very highly relevant tools for conservation. They are certainly aware that there is a framework, which does not go out of date rapidly so it does not need a lot of maintenance, and they are enabling and have set out some clear commitments.

What is more, there has been a recent investigation by the Bermuda Ombudsman, which we refer to in our written evidence. She has analysed clearly that these are legally binding, with similar status to the anti-money-laundering regulations that we think HMG are still quite keen on. In fact, even some of the Crown dependencies, which of course were not included in the Environmental Charter exercise, are currently looking at the possibility of doing something with those, and some other foreign Governments are copying too. I think the fact that loss of interest in Central Government, which is apparent to us, may have impacted on that and gave a total lack of continuity. Whether that is something that was set from a high level, a political level or at more official level, we just don’t know. Equally, it is something that has not been limited to one administration or another.

Q51 Chair: Just picking up on what you said about the Environmental Charters, you mentioned Bermuda. They do not seem to be mentioned in the White Paper, do they? Are they relevant now? Should they be in the White Paper?

Dr Pienkowski: I think we may have missed that one, actually. Yes, certainly, I think Bermuda may have-as a previous Minister pointed out to me-a higher GDP per capita than Britain, but it does not have that many capita. It has no economies of scale, so it does need involvement. We find it very helpful in the sense that, because it does have some more capacity than some of the other territories, it is quite good at setting an example and helping those out, but there is no reason that we are aware of to exclude Bermuda. I know that when you are talking in the European Union context, Bermuda opted not to be an overseas country or territory, but that is not really the same thing as dealing with matters within the UK.

Clare Stringer: I would say 14 years is a long time between White Papers and we really welcomed the 2012 document. We think the language that is used, talking about exemplary environmental management and setting world standards, is actually appropriate for what the UK should be aiming to do in the overseas territories. We think that is really good. But we do think that the White Paper is also a missed opportunity, because there are no measurable objectives. There is no way for us to actually measure whether this ambition has been achieved and there is no work plan set out to do this. There is a similar issue with the overseas territories biodiversity strategy, so this document that Defra put together in 2009. We see this as an outcome of the last Committee report where Defra were pushed to take the lead for biodiversity in the territories. Again, we welcome this document. We think it is a great starting point, but without an implementation plan and resources to implement it it is just a nice looking document on people’s bookshelves all over the country.

Q52 Chair: Dr Tydeman, would you like to respond?

Dr Tydeman: We would like to see work plans developed for how the aspirations of this White Paper will be achieved, so that we can come back in 10 years and say, "Yes, we have world-class environmental management in the overseas territories", especially the uninhabited territories where HMG is the lead organisation guiding environmental management. We would like to see the recommendations that we have put together in our legislative review document-which was part of our written evidence-followed up, so that we can also say that the environmental governance framework in the territories is much improved. What we are looking for is HMG taking concrete action to match the fine words that we are seeing in these documents.

There is also another White Paper in 2006 that has some objectives in there for the overseas territories, which are stronger than anything that has come out in this White Paper; it does build on the 1999 White Paper.

Q53 Chair: Is that the White Paper that was from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Dr Tydeman: That is right, yes. It was the priorities for foreign affairs.

Q54 Chair: So, you would be advising us to look at what was specifically set out with outcomes going back to that 2006 White Paper?

Dr Tydeman: The detail is already there, and what this White Paper appears to do is to weaken what is in those two previous White Papers. In terms of the Environmental Charters, this White Paper does not mention them at all. It relies on the biodiversity strategy. But, as we have already said, the biodiversity strategy is deficient in not having clear objectives to meet what it has as an overall relatively good goal. There is a gap between what the high level is and what needs to be done on the ground quite considerably, and I guess we will come back to that a bit later.

Q55 Chair: Yes, we will. Thank you. Mr Hall, did you want to come in at all?

Jonathan Hall: No, I think my colleagues have covered everything, thank you.

Q56 Chair: That is fine. One more thing about this White Paper before I move on. The Government makes a distinction between inhabited and uninhabited territories in this 2012 White Paper. Is that a reasonable distinction to make? Is that how you think policy should be set out in this White Paper?

Dr Pienkowski: I think it is a reasonable classification. It is what you do with it. I concur with my colleagues. One of the difficulties with starting off looking back is that you forget what has happened recently in a sense, and I agree that there are some very good words in the recent White Paper. I should also acknowledge the fact that we are pleased that, following our written evidence, the FCO has started referring to the Charters again, and we welcome the new Director of Overseas Territories, who seems to be taking a much more positive role.

Your particular question on the uninhabited territories-of course, HMG is the Government and so it can act without having to work with a locally elected Government. We would like to see it act strongly on that. For example, we cannot see why it has not already included all those uninhabited territories in its ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity. A good action would actually just do that.

Dealing with the inhabited territories, clearly that needs agreement between the local Government and HMG. We would like to see a more proactive approach by HMG. All our colleagues in the territories we talk with-officials and NGOs- would welcome that, too. For example, staying with the international convention context, in the 1990s our forum worked a lot with the territories to get a total sign-up to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the designation of various sites. All we needed to do that was to spend some time talking to decision-makers to explain what it was about. That sort of approach works, and I do not see why it shouldn’t work with the Convention on Biological Diversity as well.

Q57 Simon Wright: Thank you. I would be interested in your general comments on attitudes towards environmental protection from the populations of the inhabited overseas territories and to what extent you think that these issues are considered a priority or whether, for example, economic considerations will always take precedence. Furthermore, whether you think there is any more work that could be done to raise public awareness of some of these issues within the territories.

Clare Stringer: Our view is that the local populations for most of the overseas territories are incredibly dependent on the natural environment. However, sometimes they are not in a position to influence some of the biggest potential threats. With small populations, they are not major contributors to climate change. They may not be doing things like over-fishing. Those territories that have, for example, albatrosses, are not the ones who are driving by-catch usually. It is happening outside, so they are very vulnerable to external pressures.

They are also vulnerable to the offers of large cash incentives; I am not talking about anything improper, but the offer of new employment opportunities, of new industry that could bring economic revenues into territories. Those are very enticing offers. I think it is very difficult to balance those appropriately, looking to a sustainable development path, without having robust legislation and transparency systems in place. Our recent review of environmental governance showed that in a lot of the territories those things simply are not in place.

Very few of the territories-if any-have transparency legislation, so freedom of information does not exist. Decisions are made by either Foreign Office-appointed governors or by elected council members but often behind closed doors, so it is very difficult to know why decisions are made the way that they are. That does leave these administrations open to corruption, and we have seen that in the Turks and Caicos in recent years. The fact that these decisions are not made openly means that it leaves an atmosphere or an environment where corruption can occur. Jon, do you have the figures on how many territories do not have environmental impact assessments?

Jonathan Hall: There are at least five.

Clare Stringer: In the Caribbean?

Jonathan Hall: Yes, certainly on major development proposals. That would not be across the board, but in each of those cases there would be at least one major loophole of either Government-driven or private developers not needing environmental impact assessments for their major developments.

Clare Stringer: We do think that, unfortunately, there are still quite a few situations where immediate financial gain can be taken at the expense of the future for these territories. This is not happening everywhere, because some of the territories are very good and responsible in managing their environment, so I do not want to come across as if we do not think anyone is capable of managing their system sustainably. Some of the territories are exemplary and very, very good, but there definitely are issues.

Q58 Chair: Did you want to come in, Dr Tydeman?

Dr Tydeman: Yes, please. In terms of the funding arrangements, for example, if you look at the EDF from the EU, the overseas territories have to make a prioritisation as to what they would seek funding for. It is very rare for them to do that for environment, for the very reasons that RSPB have just been suggesting that infrastructure is much easier to show that you have a result on. That is true not just for overseas territories; it is true for virtually every bit of funding under the EDF.

I work on this for water provision in the rest of the world and very few countries prioritise water. If you talk to the general populace, they will put water as their top priority, whereas the Government will put down they want a hospital or a road or a quayside or something like that. Although the people in the overseas territories are very close to the environment-much closer than most of us are-and almost just accept that it is there, they do not make a big thing about it like we do; therefore, they do not treat it in a way as we do as something special. They just treat it as something everyday. When it comes to the funding, as I say, they do not prioritise it.

Dr Pienkowski: If I could just build on that, we have a lot of experience of speaking with local people in community meetings as well as with their leaders. It is clear that if you said, "Do you value biodiversity?" they will probably look at you pretty blankly. If you then talk about things like sustainable fisheries, which are very important in Falklands and Tristan da Cunha, or vegetation and soils as a water reservoir in Montserrat or Saint Helena, or natural storm surge protection in the Caribbean, or small-scale tourism, then yes, they want it. Because, as my colleagues said, in some cases they are very close to the land having within their own memories been working on subsistence farming, then there is that very close association. You are starting off with a plus there, but, as my colleagues have also said, there are pressures.

We are dealing with small communities whose governmental bodies are more on the scale of parish councils in some cases than others, so it is really very difficult for them to negotiate or avoid legal but excessive influence by international companies whose economies are much larger than theirs. There is a big pressure for them to deal with. As we said, there are some problems in openness, particularly around accountability in their systems.

Q59 Caroline Lucas: I think Clare mentioned that some of the territories were exemplary and some were less so. Is it possible to say whether it is to do with the structures that have led to that outcome, or is it to do with the individuals, in terms of trying to learn what it is that has allowed some to be exemplary, and so to bring up the rest? Is it possible to say?

Clare Stringer: I think it is a combination. One that I am thinking of-which is very good in terms of sustainable fishery management-is Tristan da Cunha, where they have learnt from past experience where the fishery was over-harvested and they are now very conscious that that fishery is fundamental to the survival of the community. The fishery manager is very well qualified. He is always looking forward and takes a very good approach to making sure the quotas are set at an appropriate level, not over-harvesting. He looked at some of the other fisheries in the overseas territories, and he said to me, "I look at this and think, ‘What are they doing?’" I am not going to name any of those, but I think it is often individuals and also the experiences that they have had in such small communities. As Mike was saying about companies having a lot of influence, individuals in some of the small communities have massive influence, far more than in a community like we have here.

Dr Pienkowski: If I could follow on, on that, Cayman has a pretty good freedom-of-information model. Bermuda has, as I already mentioned, a very good ombudsman system. You are depending on particular individuals almost in particular posts, which is a feature when you are dealing with small communities. That tends to have a bigger effect than when you are dealing with larger systems.

Q60 Simon Wright: How effective are the locally based NGOs, and would it be beneficial or not to have greater engagement from British NGOs?

Dr Pienkowski: We think one of our prime successes has been to help local people form conservation NGOs in territories where there weren’t any, and also to help both the NGOs and the small official conservation bodies to increase their capacity. But they do have particular challenges. As we were just alluding to, they have small pools of people to draw from both in terms of their officials and their membership. There is a lack of understanding in some territory Governments that a different opinion by civil society is valid and potentially constructive rather than something that is over-negative. Obviously, that also gives a risk to any local funding. They have difficulties overcoming the erroneous assumption-which I think we have managed to largely get past in Britain now-that environmental protection and development are necessarily in opposition. We also have the problem, which we alluded to elsewhere, that they are dealing with hugely important global biodiversity on the basis of a tiny human population base. So, they are all given bigger challenges than the bigger bodies.

In terms of working with them, I would probably refer you to the evidence that Bryan Naqqi Manco gave to you last month about welcoming outside bodies, provided that these are guided by the wishes and needs of the local bodies. That is something we have certainly tried to follow, without imposing an outside agenda on these things. Their message was the more the merrier provided that is the approach used.

Jonathan Hall: One of our core priorities is trying to build up local and sustainable overseas territory NGOs, and there are many passionate conservationists among them. But there are some difficult structural factors that a lot of these NGOs do face. Building on Dr Pienkowski, a lot of these NGOs do rely on Government subventions for a significant proportion of their income. There is a fear that if they do some meatier advocacy on a high-profile development or issue that their subvention could be jeopardised. Also, in some cases there are expatriates leading these NGOs whose main worry-justly or unjustly-is that even their immigration status could be threatened if they do speak out. We certainly know of at least one overseas territory NGO that wrote evidence for this Committee but then decided it would be wiser not to submit it as it was too fearful of local repercussions. These are very small communities, so it can be very personal.

Q61 Simon Wright: Thank you. I would like to move on to legislative matters. Do the overseas territories have the appropriate legal tools in their own domestic law to protect the environment? Furthermore, is the existing environmental legislation enforced effectively?

Jonathan Hall: If I can start, one of the big pieces of work that we have recently completed is a review of the biodiversity and development legislation in the territories. It did reveal that there was some very good practice. Gibraltar was strong across the board, and Saint Helena, for instance, had very good development control procedures in place. But it did highlight that there are major and some systemic gaps in many cases. Only four territories have strong terrestrial protected-area networks, seven have moderately strong marine protected-area networks, while four still have none at all. There is this issue with the environmental impact assessments not being required and transparency and accountability often being weak. So, there is a difficulty on that legislation side.

Many territories do have processes in place to try to strengthen these, and one of the most interesting revelations that we found from the report was how many stalled environmental Bills there are in the territories. At least five major Bills that would fill a lot of the gaps in environmental governance have been drafted and then through various-sometimes political or bureaucratic-blockages have not been passed. In some cases, these date back all the way to 2001. So, there is a big gap on the legislative side and then, also, on the enforcement side. Certainly, in trying to enforce marine protections, these small islands often have vast exclusive economic zones and very small populations. So, for instance, funding patrol vessels to prevent illegal harvesting, fishing or even sand mining is difficult.

I think the recommendations that we would make would depend on the scale of the territory with the various issues. In the uninhabited territories the gaps can be remedied much more directly by the UK Government, which has much more direct control. In particular, some of the transparency and development control gaps but also finishing off protected area networks. Then we have some of the smaller territories. For instance, in the Pitcairn Islands they do have an Environment Department, but the overall population is only 50 people, and the woman, who is excellent, who leads the Environment Department is only paid for 5.2 days a month to lead that department. Again, it requires the UK Government to do proactive policy support there. In particular, biosecurity legislation has been a long-time priority of theirs, but they simply do not have the capacity.

Then in the larger overseas territories, and particularly in some of the Caribbean ones, there are much more local capacity and local processes. This is where there is more of a political role for the UK Government, in particular via the governors, the FCO-appointed officials who normally chair Cabinet meetings and have a lot of soft power as well as some quite hard power, and to use them to advocate for strengthening that legislative framework.

Q62 Zac Goldsmith: You just mentioned two issues that I want to come to later on: Pitcairn and capacity. I understand that there was a vote among Pitcairners, which I believe was unanimous, calling for the establishment of a marine protected area. As I understand it, the British Government is supportive, but I suspect we will hear about that later with the evidence session with Ministers. But the reason given for very little progress so far is about capacity, and it comes down to funds. Is that your understanding? I suppose more broadly it would be useful to know whether or not there are any lessons that we can draw from the other two big overseas territory marine protected areas, the British Indian Ocean and Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Is there anything that we can learn from those two initiatives, which would make it easier in places like Pitcairn to establish large marine protected areas? I suppose what are the obstacles?

Jonathan Hall: Certainly enforcement is the biggest challenge, and making sure that this marine protected area is more than lines on a map and isn’t just subject to uncontrollable illegal fishing. Working out how to fund that in a sustainable manner is a serious issue. Also, my understanding is that there is a desire on the UK Government’s part to look again at alternatives for that exclusive economic zone, and looking again at trying to develop a sustainable fishery or being certain that there isn’t something commercially viable there that could provide funding for a research vessel.

With regard to the other two large marine protected areas, they are different in that they did start with a viable commercial fishery providing income, again, generating a need and funding for patrol vessels. They have that infrastructure in place, which simply does not exist in Pitcairn, so it is hard to translate from one to the other.

Q63 Zac Goldsmith: Do you know what the costs would likely be for Pitcairn? What kind of funding would be required to make it work?

Jonathan Hall: I am afraid I do not have that to hand but could-

Q64 Zac Goldsmith: Just one last question on that: do you know what it is actually that they voted for, Pitcairn islanders? What type? Was it just in principle approval for a marine protected area-

Jonathan Hall: It was quite a specific detail looking at a core area for recreational and some sort of internal commercial fishing, I believe, around the core Pitcairn Island and then looking at a very large no-take zone in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Q65 Zac Goldsmith: The Government is looking to find a way of generating the funds from that area-that seems to be what you are suggesting-if there is a basis of a commercial operation there that could fund the policing of the marine protected area?

Jonathan Hall: I am not sure one would definitely lead to the other in the UK Government’s eyes, but I think as Pitcairn does require an extensive subsidy from the UK Government, before closing off the EEZ to a lot of the fishing they want to be certain that they cannot have sustainable funding derived from fishing in that area.

Chair: Perhaps that is something we can take up when we get Ministers before us; but, Simon, back to you with your questions.

Q66 Simon Wright: Yes. Jonathan has already answered part of this, but are there any further comments in regard to the extent to which the UK Government can influence legislation and enforcement in the overseas territories?

Dr Pienkowski: Yes. Just picking up on the point about Pitcairn before I move on to that, my understanding is the emphasis of the Pitcairn protected area would not be on take but on viewing, because the Pitcairners don’t do much fishing in the area at present and don’t license fishing. As I say, I think that could be explored further.

In terms of Mr Wright’s general question, I back up what has been said on the other matters about legislation and delays to them. We also have indications from overseas territory personnel, both governmental and NGO, that again more encouragement from Britain would be useful. It is an area that is already included within the Environmental Charters as helping.

In terms of enforcement, there are major problems in enforcement, and, sadly, the problems identified by the Bermuda ombudsman are by no means limited to Bermuda in terms of enforcement. Sadly, I have to say there also seems to be a problem when HMG is in direct control of a territory or certain aspects. We have indicated that in our written evidence, and also the oral evidence from territory officials makes some mention of that. In the Turks and Caicos, the direct British Government rule for three years effectively abandoned the line previously promoted by HMG, for all the territories, of taking a long environmentally sustainable view in favour of short-term finances, which is a threat to the environment. I suggest that we could update our written evidence to you on that matter if it would be helpful after this.

Chair: Yes, we will come to funding in a moment. Dr Tydeman?

Dr Tydeman: I want to link all of those answers and questions to the dreaded word "Gibraltar". In the RSPB study, it came out as strong on every level for legislation in Gibraltar. Unfortunately, the enforcement is not good, and that is largely down to the fact that the British Government is utterly resistant to using the Royal Navy for fisheries protection. This was covered years back in a 1999 Foreign Affairs Committee report on Gibraltar, which suggested that the Royal Navy should be used for fisheries protection in Gibraltar. I have been working there since June last year on the fisheries issues between Gibraltar and Spain, and it was quite clear that the British Government will do anything to avoid having any sort of conflict and upsetting the Spanish Government. It is less than thinly veiled hints that I have received that my report should allow Spanish fishing, that we should go back to the days of a Foreign Office Minister in 1999 suggesting that the Gibraltar Government should do away with their 1991 Act protecting the marine area around Gibraltar, which to me is pretty scandalous. I hope that that line is not currently followed by the present Government, although it is not clear exactly what the situation is.

I have spoken to the Commissioner of Police in Gibraltar, who is responsible for implementing the legislation there, and he said, "Why should I send my guys out in white shorts with not even truncheons against Guardia Civil boats with automatic weapons, who are helping Spanish boats break the law, and the Navy is not called in?" That is contrary to the answer that was given by a Minister in the House on October 16th. Mr Lidington said that the Navy was called in. I would be very interested to know on how many occasions the Navy was called in in the last couple of years, because it is less than a couple that I know of and the Spanish boats are coming in quite regularly. There is a real enforcement issue in Gibraltar on the fisheries side when the legislation is actually very good and has been in place since 1991. I can give you chapter and verse on that. Unfortunately, the report is not out yet, but it will be in a couple of weeks, and we will supply it to you as a supplementary.

Chair: We would be very happy to have a copy of that.

Dr Tydeman: Yes.

Chair: Thank you. I will turn to Caroline Lucas.

Q67 Caroline Lucas: The more I hear the more shocking just generally the whole situation seems to be. We are sitting here listening to the description you have just given of the Navy not acting to enforce legislation. We have heard about other legislation that has been stuck there since 2001, blocked in some weird way, which has not yet gone through. We have heard about organisations that are afraid to give evidence because of the repercussions that might happen. I do know where it will fit in our report, but I do think somewhere we need to be talking about something that is constitutionally not working, to put it very, very mildly. My question was actually about capacity, which you have touched on a couple of times already. Jonathan, the person-you were giving the example; was it 0.5 of a day or five hours?

Jonathan Hall: 5.2 days a month.

Q68 Caroline Lucas: 5.2 days a month; so, she has 5.2 days a month, and then in your evidence you were saying that Defra, which is the lead Department for OT biodiversity, does not have a single staff member with full-time overseas territories responsibilities. We have DfID, which was not much better. FCO-we have one, but it might not be full-time. No wonder you say it is a chronic lack of capacity there. Can you say a little bit more about the impact that that is having?

Jonathan Hall: Certainly. The person at the Foreign Office is full-time and very good. With Defra, the lack of dedicated capacity there is possibly the single biggest roadblock to progress in the environmental management of the overseas territories. It means that no strategic work can happen from the UK Government side. Every time that promising policies do start-for instance, last month a review of this overseas territories biodiversity strategy, or some very good environmental mainstreaming projects that have gone on in some territories-it means that there cannot really be any follow-up or implementation, as Defra doesn’t have anyone there to do it. So, it is immediately chopped off at the knees. Our view would be that, as the territories have 90% of the threatened biodiversity for which the UK is responsible, Defra does need several dedicated people. The idea of doing this really complicated trans-national cross-jurisdictional area off the side of the desk is simply not possible.

Q69 Caroline Lucas: Any other comments?

Dr Pienkowski: Yes. We think perhaps the biggest change since your 2008 report is the reduction of effective communication between the British Government and our network and, it would seem, within the governmental Departments. In 2008, Defra set up a one-stop shop for inquiries about the overseas territories conservation. It never really worked, and recent emails to that address were found to bounce as undeliverable. As our colleagues have said, it says everything about their approach that for several months they have not filled the half post they allocate to the overseas territories, so even when they do they will have lost all continuity.

They also tend to devolve things to JNCC. But that lacks capacity and is now prevented by Defra from getting into policy work, so that will not get us very far. DfID’s lack of commitment to joined-up Government is rather well illustrated by moving its overseas territories department to East Kilbride. I have nothing against East Kilbride, but it has caused a loss of ability to link up with other stakeholders and a loss of corporate memory because all the staff changed. They did not want to move there with family commitments and so on. Again, their environment in overseas territories depends on one officer, and there is no overlap when that post is vacant, as at present. Again, the lack of such an officer-

Q70 Chair: Which post is that?

Dr Pienkowski: That is the environmental post dealing with overseas territories in DfID. When you do not have that post, like the earlier loss of the Environment Department in FCO, there is no one internally arguing the case for environmental aspects in development projects. We indicated in the written evidence that FCO had some problems, but, as I mentioned earlier, we do see recent signs of improvement following the new director, and we hope that is correct. I think there are some major challenges there in the capacity of the British Government to help in these areas.

Dr Tydeman: Can I follow up on that?

Chair: By all means.

Dr Tydeman: If you read the Government’s written response to your Committee, it says that there is an overseas territories biodiversity group, which is responsible for making sure the biodiversity strategy is implemented. That committee barely functions, if I am being kind. It has no authority to make decisions, and it does not report to Ministers, so I wonder how on earth it is supposed to make sure things are implemented. It is also quite narrow, in that it has DfID, Defra and FCO on it and not the other Departments. I have raised with the FCO the possibility of expanding it, given that the White Paper suggested all Government Departments now have a responsibility to include the ones that are most likely to have been. For example, MoD is responsible for the Cyprus sovereign bases and a great chunk of Gibraltar as well, and I am sure elsewhere in the world as in the Falklands. You have them completely out of the loop as far as I can see, unless they are drawn in for ad hoc discussions.

Local Government-when DoE dropped local Government and Defra took over-Local Communities and Government Department: where does that sit in terms of providing planning advice to, for example, EIAs and planning advice in overseas territories? I do not see any evidence. There might be evidence, but I do not see it. It is something I think the Committee might wish to follow up on, as to how this co-ordination across Government Departments is effected.

Q71 Caroline Lucas: Thank you for that. In a sense, it pre-empts my next question, which was, given that the responsibility is split between so many different bits of Government, I was going to ask you about the challenges for joined-up Government. You have already indicated that there are severe challenges to joined-up Government, not least because the capacity is not there and, even if it was, you need better ways of working. If you were to make any recommendations about how co-ordination could be improved, beyond the obvious one of having some posts to co-ordinate, is there more you would say about that?

Dr Tydeman: I think my colleagues differ slightly on this, in that I think RSPB would favour Defra to still be the main part responsible for environment. I think we would tend to go for the FCO, since they have ultimate responsibility across the territories. If you look at the level of responsibility within the two Departments, FCO have an overseas territories directorate with a director, whereas with Defra you have a one half-time post sitting in a biodiversity unit within a bigger directorate. In terms of level and scale, FCO for us would be the one to go for, but I know my colleagues have a slightly different view from what-

Chair: I am going to bring in RSPB to have their say on this.

Clare Stringer: We do favour Defra as the lead on biodiversity in the overseas territories, because we think that Defra is a huge resource for the overseas territories that they are not able to access at the moment. There is a huge wealth of technical expertise and policy expertise within Defra, and we would like to see that opened up to the territories. We would like to see territories’ issues mainstreamed across Defra, so that everyone within Defra knows that this is the Department that is responsible for the overseas territories, it is part of all their strategic documents, it is part of their planning, and we would like to see their capacity substantially increased in terms of dedicated staff working on this issue.

I have to say that we-RSPB-as an organisation are doing this ourselves now. We have just gone through a new strategic planning process, and, I am happy to say, overseas territories are mainstreamed throughout our strategy. Our capacity on overseas territories has grown from one full-time person seven years ago to three now, so we at RSPB have more full-time posts dedicated to overseas territories than Defra. I do think that that is something that perhaps the Government could improve.

Also, we have 1 million members in the UK, and this is an issue that they really care passionately about. Every time we engage with our membership on overseas territories we have a really positive response. It is something that members of the public here in the UK do respond to.

Dr Tydeman: Perhaps I could just clarify what we would like is the FCO to make sure things happen but Defra to do them; not that Defra shouldn’t do them and the FCO should but that the FCO, as the lead agency, should be responsible for making sure that these things happen, which currently is not the case.

Q72 Chair: I am just trying to establish whether there is a difference of opinion between you; because you seem to be saying that FCO does not do conservation and Defra does not do FCO, but if constitutionally the responsibility rests with FCO for overall co-ordination, presumably there is common ground that if that was there, then the Defra expertise could fit in with that?

Dr Tydeman: Yes, exactly.

Clare Stringer: Absolutely. I don’t think we are far apart.

Dr Pienkowski: We try not to be. If I could add-I think another big change that has taken place since your 2008 report-which I alluded to briefly before-is the decline in contact between governmental bodies and our NGO network. It seems to me this is a loss of resource because if resources are tight, which they clearly are at present, it would be better to pool effort and keep contact going. So, we would like to restore that in a more flowing basis than is the case at present and get back to something that works rather more effectively in pooling effort and information.

Q73 Caroline Lucas: I was just noticing as well in the evidence about DfID-of course, because DfID would have lead responsibility for international climate change adaptation, so the lack of resource there is deeply worrying. That is just an obvious reflection, but I had forgotten that they took the lead for that rather than Defra on climate change.

Dr Pienkowski: DfID also has in its constitution the requirement to give some priority to the legitimate demands of overseas territories, but it does not seem to be very manifest in its actions at present.

Q74 Caroline Lucas: My last question is if we are talking about trying to strengthen the capacity in the UK Government, in order to be able to put a higher emphasis on environmental protection, do you think that is something that the governors in the relevant places would welcome? Is there a danger of the UK Government being perceived to be sticking its nose in and being unhelpful, or do you think that if HMG were to be taking a closer interest in environmental protection, it would be welcomed?

Clare Stringer: Recently, at the workshop Jonathan mentioned to review the overseas territories biodiversity strategy, JNCC co-ordinated a workshop held at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and that was attended by many of the overseas territories, by representatives of their Environment Departments. Quite a few of the attendees from those Environment Departments said that they would welcome the governors giving them some clear leadership on this and supporting them, because often in the territories the Environment Departments are effectively weaker than some of their corresponding business colleagues. They would actually welcome the governors saying, "We think this is important". It would give them some support.

It is often the case that, when we talk to the UK Government about environment in the overseas territories, we are told it is a devolved responsibility and, therefore, the local Governments have to lead it. But in fact if you look closely at the individual territories, governors have huge influence and responsibility, and their behaviour, the things they support, the events they attend, the speeches they give can all be very influential. In some territories, they do make the laws. Obviously, in the uninhabited territories but also some of the territories with smaller populations they are very, very influential. DfID can also be very influential in those territories where they supply a lot of the budget. They can also support the development of robust environmental legislation. I think we can say on Saint Helena, where they are supporting the development of the airport, they have supported as a priority the development of good environmental legislation, and that is really very, very good to see.

However, that is not always the case in all the DfID-supported territories, so we would like to see all of the Government Departments showing leadership in this area and standing up for the environment, really.

Dr Tydeman: Can I just take it up a level? We have referred several times to this overseas territories biodiversity strategy, which lacks objectives, as we have said. If you put it into the bigger picture of biodiversity in the UK, it is now more than a dotted line away from the rest of how biodiversity is strategized in the UK. In each of the country territories the devolved responsibilities now have their own strategy. There is no longer even a UK biodiversity strategy but four strategies that are pulled together by the Chief Scientist or relevant agencies.

That strategy sits somewhere out there. I have discussed this several times with Government agencies, and each time they say, "It is a dotted line", and every time I see the document the dotted line is missing. If you are going to make choices about biodiversity, you need to have everything in the picture at the same time. At the moment that is not the case. You have the devolved responsibilities here and the devolved responsibilities in the overseas territories, and those that the Foreign Office are responsible for are completely separate. To me, that does not make any sense at all. If you are going to look at priorities for biodiversity, you look at them in the round, not each individual bit separately, and decide within them what they are.

Dr Pienkowski: Can I just add a note on governors, because how locals react to governors tends to vary with a lot of factors. It is not an easy job. A common feature of the successful ones seems to be that governors need to be of a calibre to demonstrate by their actions, as well as their words, that they support the territory, its environment and people without, of course, undermining the HMG priorities as well. It is not an easy task but one that does work when you have those combinations of things together.

Q75 Chair: I just wonder, in terms of specifications in respect of governors who are appointed, what would you say should be in there?

Dr Pienkowski: It certainly will require proven wisdom, an empathy with local people, the judgment of Solomon probably, and a very good briefing in the key issues. In the environment we always used to offer a briefing to governors before they took up the post, and we are very happy to keep doing that. It is slightly erratic whether it happens at present. That is only one aspect of many others, because we are talking about the environment here. If we have further thoughts on job specification, we will send them straight away.

Q76 Chair: Just before I move on to Martin Caton, can I ask RSPB-because we heard just now from Dr Pienkowski about how difficult it was to get access to the point of contact, either with Defra or with DfID-do you have similar problems contacting Government Departments here?

Clare Stringer: It depends on the Department. We do not see DfID very often. I must say part of that has been the relocation to East Kilbride, although we have seen some of the officials who are based here in London on the Saint Helena desk a bit more regularly. We do talk regularly with the Foreign Office. We find them very open and generally very good to deal with. Because the overseas territories post is currently vacant, we are not having much contact with Defra at the moment. In general, we are in a privileged position as RSPB because we have other reasons to meet with Government and we can often raise the overseas territories at those meetings. So, I accept that we are in a different position to smaller organisations.

Q77 Martin Caton: You have touched on funding for environmental protection. Can we move on to look at the UK Government’s responsibility in that field? As you know, the UK Government has consolidated its environmental funding for the overseas territories into what we call the Darwin Plus fund. Is this a step in the right direction, and are the resources enough?

Dr Pienkowski: Obviously we welcome the restoration of the level of governmental funding to what it was before the sort of gap year, but we do have some reservations about Darwin Plus. In particular, it is a further move away from the shared-responsibility approach that used to dominate the funding approach by HMG. Again, rather than a situation where HMG is viewing applications relating to the territories’ work as something they share responsibility for, or indeed helping to build those applications, it is now treating them in just the same way as if they are foreign countries where HMG does not have responsibility. Although we think Darwin generally is an excellent programme, we are not sure it fits very well with the overseas territories’ role.

Jonathan Hall: We were certainly very pleased with the announcement of this Darwin Plus funding line and, in particular, bringing the three departments together into one fund, thereby consolidating all their inputs and we hope making it harder for any individual department to cease its funding. We would note also that £2 million for each round can go an extremely long way in the territories. The funding remit of Darwin Plus is not only biodiversity-which is estimated to need about £16 million a year in the territories-but also climate change, also water management, also waste management. This single fund does have a vast remit and at that level of funding can only begin to scratch the surface of the issues required. We would also recognise a place for having more overseas territories’ expertise on the funding panel. Overall, we think the flexibility that Darwin Plus has to fund smaller projects and larger projects is very good. This first round that has just been announced appeared to fund a good range of very promising-looking projects.

Q78 Martin Caton: Can the UK overseas territories access European Union environmental funding at all?

Clare Stringer: They can access some but not all. In the last couple of years there has been what was called the BEST programme, which was for biodiversity in the EU’s overseas countries and territories and outermost regions. That was set at €2 million per year, and there were two rounds of that, but that was only a pilot funding programme. That can continue only for three years, and this year will be its final year unless it is found a permanent home. There is no sign that that will happen, so we assume that this year will be the final year. The overseas territories can access some funding from the research from DG Research, the research funding for biodiversity. They can access some funding through our European Development Fund, and they have accessed that funding. What they definitely cannot access at the moment is LIFE+ funding, which is the European Union’s largest instrument for funding nature projects. The French outermost regions, or their DOMs, which are sort of part of the EU-they have a complicated constitutional relationship, just like all these places-since 2007 have been able to access LIFE+, and they have projects running. However, the UK’s overseas territories cannot access that funding. That funding is on a scale that would allow some of the bigger projects to be carried out, so it would be fantastic to get access to that funding. The UK Government has been very actively trying to enable access to that funding line, but that process is still going on. I think all of us would like to see that happen. Interestingly, in the 2011 allocation for LIFE+ funding, the UK used only half of its allocation of funds. So if there had been good projects from the overseas territories, and they had been eligible, it would not have taken anything away from other UK projects. That money was reallocated to other projects across Europe because it was not used in the UK.

Q79 Martin Caton: You have mentioned the difference between what is happening with UK overseas territories and the French ones. What about the Dutch islands in the Caribbean; are they managing to access more?

Clare Stringer: They cannot access LIFE+, but they have a different relationship with their lottery from our territories. Dutch territories can access lottery funding to fund a lot of nature protection work there, whereas our territories cannot access lottery funding-or officially they can, but, in terms of policy, it is basically impossible for projects in the territories to be funded. My colleagues from the Forum might have a bit more to say about that.

Dr Pienkowski: Just on the detail of that, the Dutch territories are changing their constitution at present, partway through this. They will eventually end up rather like the French, in two categories: one which is part of the metropolitan Netherlands-as with metropolitan France-which will be eligible for these things; and one like the French territoires, the Netherlands territories and all our territories, which won’t.

Q80 Martin Caton: Would a way of overcoming the problem with accessing lottery funding be for people in the overseas territories to play the lottery? We understand that there are people in Spain playing the UK lottery online.

Dr Pienkowski: We have investigated the lottery quite a lot. If you wanted to make it link to the ticket purchase-which in fact it isn’t in law at present-you would have a lot of legal changes to make. We have spent some years dispelling some of the myths, including that there isn’t a legal bar on spending in support of the territories. In the White Paper and associated documents, it is clear that the Heritage Lottery Fund can make grants to UK bodies in support of the territories, but in practice this does not happen, and we tried this to work out what the problems were.

Basically, the fund chooses to make support of territories low priority. It also requires that any application made goes to a local UK office where the organisations have a base. What local office knows anything about overseas territories and is going to give them priority over a local application? If we are going to get past this problem, two things are required. One is for DCMS, as a sponsor Department, to accept that the Prime Minister’s comments on the White Paper apply to them too and issue a ministerial directive, so that funds in support of work in its territories is given the same priority as in Britain; and two, that applications relating to overseas territories should go to one point, whether it be a specially briefed local committee or one specially set up for that purpose. Without those two measures, it is not going to happen.

Q81 Martin Caton: The well-informed and committed members of the RSPB may well be very concerned about biodiversity in the overseas territories. I suspect that many of our constituents, if they realised that money was going, would say, "Why on earth is money going to these islands miles and miles away from us?" Do you think there is a need for increasing the awareness among the British public of a lot of factors about the overseas territories but, particularly, its global significance in terms of biodiversity, and, as organisations, are you doing anything to promote that awareness?

Dr Pienkowski: Before both of us have a go at that, I should possibly question one of the assumptions in that. There are, at any one time, a high proportion of populations of overseas territories living in the UK, which is not surprising because they are UK citizens. So it seems quite likely that a proportion of those and their friends buy lottery tickets. Someone asked me why a bloke in a pub should want lottery money to be spent in support of overseas territories, rather like your own question. But over the country as a whole there is a chance of one in 2,000 that that bloke in the pub is actually from an overseas territory, or an even bigger chance that they know someone from there.

What is more, if you happen to be in London, Manchester, Leicester, Southampton, Birmingham, Slough or Crawley, then there is an even higher chance than one in 2,000 that the bloke-or lass; I should not be sexist on this-is from an overseas territory. They are part of the community, and we should not assume they are totally separate in that regard. Also, I don’t in any way dissociate myself from the idea that we need to raise their profile. In fact, our test exercise to the National Lottery was to expand some of the work we are already doing on raising awareness in Britain of the overseas territories’ environment, but sadly that was unsuccessful too. However, we are doing what we can in that capacity and RSPB are doing a lot as well.

Clare Stringer: We would say yes, absolutely there is a real imperative to raise the profile of the importance of the biodiversity of the territories. As you were saying, Mr Caton, a lot of people in the UK would not be aware of how many territories there were, where they were, what significance they have to the UK; the history, the stories-they are all fascinating. I have to say I am a New Zealander myself and I have come to work on the territories here, and I have found that the stories about the territories are some of the most interesting things. You could go on for hours about them, which I won’t, but they are brilliant places, and I think most people here would love to hear about them.

The level of visibility is in contrast to France, where they have the month of the overseas territories, where they have programmes on the television, and, when they give the weather on the radio, they cover their overseas territories at the end. When you buy a Sat Nav for Europe, the DOMs-the French territories that are part of France-are on there. The French territories are fundamentally part of France, and I don’t see that here. The Falkland Islands are well known, and most people would know that that is British, but most of them are virtually invisible.

What is really disappointing is that when there is high-profile media coverage-for example, the recent Spy in the Huddle programme, which featured the Falkland Islands-not very much is made of the fact that it is an overseas territory. These are British penguins that we are watching here alongside penguins from Chile and penguins from other places. So there is a lot more that can be done, and having some publicly funded documentaries made that are branded as about overseas territories-it would be brilliant to feature them on Springwatch or something. We speculate a lot at RSPB whether that could be done, because I think people would be fascinated to see, while we are having spring here, what is happening in the Caribbean, what is happening in the sub-Antarctic on British territory, linking up with schools. There is just so much potential; I think it is brilliant.

We are doing our bit in a small way, so when we published our State of UK Birds report this year, there was an overseas territories bird on the cover, a rockhopper penguin. That is the first time that we have done that, but we have been including overseas territories information in that report for a few years now. We will also launch a state of nature report, which is about nature across the UK. Again, we are including a chapter on overseas territories in that report, which is brilliant, and we have done that with our partners from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and with our other partners in the territories. One of the issues with that is information. For the state of UK biodiversity, we have lots of information that has been collected over years. For the overseas territories, the level of information that we have, despite the amazing abundance of unique species, is just the tip of the iceberg. We can kind of see that there is something big under the surface, but we don’t know what it is yet, and I think that is a real challenge to making these places more visible, just the lack of information.

Chair: Dr Tydeman, I think you want to come in.

Dr Tydeman: Yes, I do, please, just on this and to go back to funding in the EU for a second. It happens that one of my former assistants is a television presenter now. I have spoken to him about whether it would be possible to do a programme on the overseas territories. However, if you look at the cost and the time it would take to get to each of the territories to do a programme about each of them, it is just beyond the bounds of possibility in terms of the available funding. You might manage to do it by using existing footage from those sorts of places and pull the thing together, but it wouldn’t be like a David Attenborough going to each place and saying how wonderful it is. That is a real constraint, in terms of the remoteness of these places, getting new footage and making new programmes and so on.

Q82 Chair: I want to go back to LIFE+, because it is a bit of an issue for me, and because-as you have rightly pointed out-the amount that the UK could claim is just nowhere near what is available. Can you clarify for me, because you have raised this in the RSPB evidence: is the fact that the overseas territories are not accessing that funding a matter for the UK, or is it a matter for the politics of what is going on in Europe; and what would need to happen for that LIFE+ funding to be put to good beneficial use as far as the overseas territories are concerned?

Jonathan Hall: It is primarily a matter at the EU level, and the UK Government has been lobbying to increase access. The European Commission seems very anti extending it to the-

Chair: But not for other countries.

Jonathan Hall: At present, half of France’s outermost entities have access, so France has also been joining in lobbying with the UK Government with the Commission. We have also been working with the UK MEPs, who have taken this up as an issue, but the Commission do seem to be the central roadblock and have been actively lobbying against it.

Q83 Chair: The rules are about to change; or there is a new phase of LIFE+ funding coming up, isn’t there?

Jonathan Hall: Yes.

Q84 Chair: Is it likely to change in the new guidance that is going to relate to the LIFE+ funding?

Jonathan Hall: Potentially. There have been some positive votes in the European Parliament, and on the European Council, that would lead to opening it up. But under the tripartite decision system, they still have the European Commission not only opposing it but actively trying to peel off proponents within the Parliament and within Council. So, it is an ongoing piece of work over the next six months, in particular, that is going to dictate whether that next seven year tranche is open to the overseas territories or not. There are some concerning rumours coming out at the moment that France may have cooled somewhat on the idea, and we hope very much that the UK Government will be able to keep up the pressure.

Q85 Dr Whitehead: I suspect some of my broader questions have been addressed this afternoon, but could we just be specific for a moment on biodiversity? We have the biodiversity strategy from the UK Government, which I have seen was being noted as effectively a memorandum of agreement-I think you mentioned that in your evidence-more than a strategy. At the same time there is very little knowledge or information about the status of biodiversity in overseas territories and not much prospect that that is going to change. Do you think that is a long-term, ingrained notion at UK Government level that this is not something that needs to be addressed, and that the fact that there is very little information on threatened species and diversity within the overseas territories is something of no consequence?

Jonathan Hall: Yes. I don’t think the UK Government has fully appreciated what it has signed up to and the implications of, for instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity. As to the overall goal of the strategy, it does have to help the overseas territories meet their international commitments, but, in practice, there is a lack of knowledge and capacity at many levels. As we have observed, for many territories we do not even know what species are there. There might be data in different places, but the UK Government has never collated it. There are no species lists, and then, of the species that we do know are there, many are known only from one specimen or have never had their populations assessed to see what their conservation status may be. The level under that would be identifying and implementing the conservation actions required.

So there is a lack of strategic overview for biodiversity and a lack of strategic science programme to fill that. The initial steps are quite simple, in terms of simply collating all that existing widely scattered data into one place. We could then say, for instance, "Okay, the birds in the Falklands are well known and monitored, but we don’t know anything about the moths and butterflies on Montserrat. There are a lot of pressures there, so probably that is where we should put the limited resources that we have", and put funds in there.

There would be a big role, in particular, for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee-JNCC-which to date has not had a very strategic science programme, despite its role as the scientific adviser on the overseas territories. There is a lot that could be done, even at a desk-based level, without even funding the required research trips to try to put that baseline knowledge in place on what biodiversity there is and what its threats may be, so that the next levels above, of identifying actions and implementing them, can be done.

Clare Stringer: We should say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has funded the RSPB to do an initial piece of work, a desk study, to collate existing records of species in the overseas territories. By the middle of this year, for the first time, we should have a database with information listing all the species known to be present for each of the overseas territories and assessing whether they have been assessed against the IUCN’s criteria for global threat; whether they have been listed on the IUCN’s red list, and also looking at whether there is any monitoring programme in place for those species. I do think it is appalling that this is the first time this has been done. As Jonathan said, I think it would have been appropriate for JNCC to have taken this on as the science adviser to Government and provider of technical information. It is great, and we are very thankful to the FCO for funding us to do it.

Jonathan Hall: One further thing that has emerged was that last month DEFRA published 31 evidence plans. Only one included any mention of the overseas territories, and that was just one detailed sentence. The amount spent on research in the overseas territories last year was in the region of £165,000, so there is much more scope to develop a proactive evidence research programme; then also to change the mindset of the UK Government, so that they identify the priorities needed to meet, for instance, the Aichi Targets. At present the UK Government doesn’t have any vision of what may be required, and instead does some rather scattergun funding and support rather than taking a more strategic approach, having the priorities and working out where that limited funding should be targeted.

Q86 Dr Whitehead: Presumably, because of the diverse nature of the overseas territories, and the relatively small populations in each of them, with some exceptions, the diversity remains a central issue, i.e. as you mentioned, where do you start, what do you start with, how do you prioritise any work and what then happens to the domestic Governments of those territories. Is there a relationship between development, threatened species and relative isolation, for example, which you can perceive?

Clare Stringer: In terms of more isolated places having more threatened species, you mean, or in terms of development threats?

Dr Whitehead: I am thinking, if you are concerned about the correlation between the fact that there are a number of very isolated places under that headed category, which by definition are likely to have rather more threatened endemic species because they are not anywhere else, then perhaps in one or two places you have a particular combination of that and a population of a few hundred, so the priority and the burden of dealing with that is out of all proportion to the resources that are available without a great deal of additional care and attention.

Clare Stringer: You are absolutely right. There are two very good examples in two of our highest priorities for conservation in the overseas territories at the moment and going forward, Gough Island and Henderson Island. Both are incredibly isolated places, both are World Heritage sites, and both are examples of where the values of those sites are threatened by introduced invasive species. On Gough Island, it is mice that are eating albatross chicks alive on the nest, and on Henderson Island, it is introduced Polynesian rats that are eating seabird chicks and driving the endemic Henderson Petrel towards extinction. The RSPB are working with the UK Government here and with the Pitcairn Government and with funders, from trusts and foundations to individuals. We raised money and attempted to eradicate rats on Henderson Island in 2011. Unfortunately that attempt was not successful, but we remain committed to trying again.

With other colleagues from other organisations and the Pitcairners, hopefully we are going to go back again and learn what we did wrong and be able to take that work forward, because it is so important. There is no way that the Pitcairners can do that by themselves and they welcome our partnership. They are very happy to work with us because they recognise the problem. It is the same with Tristan. The RSPB has worked on Tristan da Cunha and Gough for a long time-about a decade-and we are planning, hopefully, to eradicate the mice on Gough in the future and to do that jointly with Tristan. We recognise that the burden of the technical planning and the fundraising for that cannot be left with Tristan, because with a population of around 270 people, there just isn’t the resource there to dedicate to doing it.

So it is very important for the overseas territories that the support is there from the UK, and the rest of the world, to assist in conserving their biodiversity. As Dr Pienkowski said earlier, it is also important to recognise that our involvement, as outside organisations, needs to recognise the local situation and be done in partnership with local organisations and the local population, because, in order to be sustainable, the local people have to believe in what they are doing. We cannot foist this on them even if we wanted to, which we don’t. It has to be in partnership, and it has to take people with us.

Dr Pienkowski: I support all that. You put your finger on the essential problem: it is the lack of a strategic approach. We have tried to encourage a strategic approach for some time. For example, a couple of years ago we had a workshop, with wide representation, about how we start applying the Aichi Targets to the territories and help the territories develop their strategies. However, you also need a strategy for UK Government and UK NGOs to be able to deploy their resources to help. It is a frustration that we don’t have that yet. While we don’t have that-and obviously all the resources that were identified are needed-we are firefighting. Less than five years ago, a new family-not just a new species or a new genus- of shrimp-like creatures was found in a cave on one of our territories. Within five years, it was proposed for there to be an airport over it, so there is a real crisis of these things. Although we need to keep firefighting, it would make the future firefighting a lot easier if we could develop some strategies to do that.

Earlier, when we were talking about funding, although you focused on justifying the lottery, what we would like to do-and perhaps, given the time, I should do it in writing afterwards-is to talk about some of the other reasons it would be appropriate to support the overseas territories by the general tax burden.

Q87 Chair: By the general tax moneys in the overseas territories themselves?

Dr Pienkowski: No, within the UK’s tax burden. I know it is always a challenge, but we have some thoughts on that, which, if you are okay with that, we could write to the Committee about.

Q88 Chair: What about the issue of tax havens?

Dr Pienkowski: I am an environmentalist, not a tax expert.

Q89 Dr Whitehead: A mini-transaction tax perhaps. On an associated issue, the effects of climate change on those territories-again, because of their positioning around the world, I know that they are in the front line on a number of those issues. How engaged do you think those territories are themselves on those matters, and to what extent might there be active discussions, for example, on adaptation within and around those territories?

Jonathan Hall: The variety would be the first thing to note between the different territories. With many of these populations being much more closely connected to their environments than we would be, say, in London, in terms of their fish stocks and all their water resources on small islands, there can be a good awareness of processes already underway of changing climates. The scale of the challenge is enormous, and the first steps have been taken in some places. Then there are still countervailing forces, which are, for example, developing mangrove forests, thereby jeopardising the climate change adaptation provision that such a forest would provide in terms of preventing storm surges as well as providing a nursery for fish stocks and the like.

There is still a lot of work to be done to make sure that the UK Government itself does not end up exposed to what could potentially be vast financial liabilities, and also for the livelihoods of the people themselves, of course, who are dependent on their natural environments and find themselves on the front line.

Dr Pienkowski: If I can just add to that. For example, the routine clearance of vegetation-as happens for developments, by things just being bulldozed-has impacts, not just on the natural environment but also on the capacity to hold carbon in the system. Obviously, the sheer scale of territories means they are not going to be the major contributor to this issue, but, equally, they should address their things at home.

As was given in evidence to you last month, there are some blockages in the system to moving to more sustainable energy. What the UK Government could do is encourage the overseas territories Governments to try to make sure that those regulation blockages and any perverse incentives are removed, so that at least things can be addressed from that side. Obviously, the adaptation side is more difficult because many of these territories are a metre or two high, so they have a very big challenge. Equally, the factors of protection from storms by mangroves, coral reefs and so on are important, and these should be protected for the benefit of the human community as well as for natural communities.

Q90 Dr Whitehead: There is, is there not, a potential conflict? Bearing in mind the preponderance of small island territories here, one could envisage very early successful endeavours on the complete mass, balance type, energy carbon neutral economies, using tide and solar, some wind, as the main modes of power. But then we have heard already from Turks and Caicos representatives about the possible conflict between low-carbon energy and some of the issues relating to conservation on those islands. How do you think that might work?

Dr Pienkowski: There is a tremendous potential, in particular, for solar energy. They have quite a lot of sun there-which again I am a bit envious of-which tends not to be a big problem in that context. Clearly, once you get into wind systems, you have quite big impact assessments to take account of. Obviously, we should be very careful that anything we advocate in terms of these approaches, the development should have a full impact assessment. There is other potential. For example, in Montserrat there is quite a potential for geothermal energy. They suffer the disadvantages of a volcano; let’s help them get the advantages as well. Wide, flexible thinking could give a lot of potential before you start getting into potentially conflicting situations.

Clare Stringer: In our written evidence, we talked a little bit about an example in the Pacific where New Zealand funded one of their territories, Tokelau, to become the world’s first solar powered territory. We think there could be potential for that for some of the smaller territories. I would echo what Dr Pienkowski said about making sure that any proposals had a full environmental impact assessment and were appropriately sited. The last thing that we would want is to compromise the biodiversity by trying to reduce diesel use. It is important for energy security, as much as for climate, because these places are so small and remote, and if they run out of diesel, then everyone’s power goes off, so it has a huge impact on people’s lives and their ability to communicate with the outside world.

Q91 Chair: We have almost reached the end. One final question from me; in the White Paper there is a reference to Chevening Scholarships and students coming over and studying. Are you aware that there is an opportunity for students to get that kind of access to environmental education for sustainability, as part of that Chevening Scholarship scheme?

Dr Pienkowski: I believe it has been done in the past. I am not sure of any recent examples.

Q92 Chair: You would support that being available?

Dr Pienkowski: Yes.

Chair: It is very much the capacity issue that you talked about earlier. That could be a means of growing capacity.

Clare Stringer: I am not sure about the Chevening Scholarship, in particular, but I do know there have been some very good students studying in the UK from Saint Helena, for example, who have achieved environmental qualifications and have then gone back to work on Saint Helena. Also, through the OTEP programme-the precursor to Darwin Plus-there were a couple of rounds of what were called OTEP Fellowships, which provided funds for overseas territories students to undertake a master’s degree at the University of Exeter. A lot of the graduates of that scheme have gone back to their territories and are holding very influential positions in Government now. So the alumni of that sort of programme are very influential now in the territories, and there definitely is a demand for this type of education.

Also, JNCC with UKOTA-the UK Overseas Territories Association-I think funded a studentship for an undergraduate programme. That is something that has come to our attention. Masters’ programmes are great, but you need to have the people who already have an undergraduate degree to come into a master’s programme or people who can study at that level. For some of the territories, that is not achievable because their schooling locally does not continue through, even to the end of our high school, and then they don’t have the opportunity to do an undergraduate degree because of their incomes and their access to education. Education is fundamental-education and good governance-and all these things that we consider fundamental are fundamental to the protection of the environment. There are good things happening in most of the territories, but it would be great to see more.

Chair: I think you have all been very generous with your time. Thank you very much indeed for coming along this afternoon.