House of Commons - Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories

Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

3 Protecting biodiversity

28. The UKOTs contain at least 517 globally threatened species. There are 194 such species in the UK. The UKOTs also contain undisturbed habitats of international significance.[45] The UK Government acknowledged the importance and sensitivity of the rich biodiversity of the UKOTs:

29. Endemic species are defined as those found only in specific geographical locations. They are most likely to arise on biologically isolated islands. The UKOTs support many endemic species. On St Helena, for example, 45 plant species, more than 400 invertebrate species and 12 coastal fish species are endemic, with more likely to be identified. Eight endemic bird species were present on St Helena before humans arrived, but only the St Helena Plover has survived to the present day.[47]

Monitoring

30. It is impossible accurately to calculate the number of globally threatened species in the UKOTs, due to the lack of basic survey data. Data are usually available at a population level for vertebrate species, such as sea birds, but presence or absence surveys are often the only available data for plant and invertebrate species. The available data on marine biodiversity are less developed than those for terrestrial biodiversity.[48] The RSPB pointed out that

31. Without enhanced monitoring, Defra cannot accurately report to the CBD on the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs and therefore measure progress towards the UN 2020 target to halt biodiversity loss. In addition to agreeing a timetable with all UKOTs Governments to ratify the CBD (see paragraph 16), Defra must draw together UKOTs Governments, NGOs such as the RSPB, civil society and research institutions to agree a comprehensive research programme to catalogue the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs.

Threats

32. Available data indicate that biodiversity in the UKOTs is subject to immediate and significant threats, including invasive species, under-regulated development and climate change. According to the authoritative International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, for example, the UKOTs are home to 33 globally threatened birds, which is more than the whole of continental Europe.[50] The RSPB told us:

Red List

As the RSPB highlighted, the lack of monitoring means that biodiversity loss in the UKOTs may be worse than the Red List assessment suggests. This is especially likely in the cases of terrestrial invertebrates, of certain plants and of marine species, which are relatively under-researched and rarely subject to international threat classifications.[52]

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

33. Economic activity in the UKOTs is concentrated in a small number of sectors, notably tourism and financial services.[53] The 2012 White Paper stated that "The UK Government will continue to work with the Territories to help them develop their economies."[54] Several UKOTs, such as Montserrat, Anguilla and Pitcairn Islands, are not economically self-sufficient and depend on Department for International Development funding.

34. We appreciate the need for economic development in the UKOTs, but such development must be sustainable. The UK Government acknowledged that point:

Sustainable development is especially important in those UKOTs that rely on tourism, which depends on the maintenance of natural capital. The 2012 White Paper recognised that

The work force in the UKOTs will need green skills if they are to contribute to and benefit from green growth. Given their small populations, some UKOTs may lack a green skills base, the development of which Defra could support. In that context, our 2012 A Green Economy Report contains a number of pertinent recommendations.[57]

35. Managed sustainable development is contingent on the maintenance of an effective planning regime. A recent assessment of development controls in the UKOTs by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development and the RSPB observed that

That report assessed development controls in Cayman Islands, Sovereign Base Areas, Falkland Islands, Pitcairn Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands as 'weak'; and it rated development controls in Anguilla as 'very weak/absent'.[59]

36. Unrestricted development can destroy valuable habitats such as primary forest and mangroves. Opaque planning and development processes reduce stakeholder involvement and increase the chances of corrupt practices or inappropriate developments being granted planning permission.[60] In some UKOTs, legislation implementing baseline development controls such as statutory environmental impact assessments has been stalled by the political process. For example, the Physical Planning Bill was introduced in Anguilla in 2001 and the Conservation and Environmental Management Bill was introduced in Montserrat in 2008. Those Bills would introduce basic planning controls, but in December 2013 none of them had been enacted.[61]

37. We identified a pertinent example how inadequate development controls impact the environment when we visited Cayman Islands (see Annex 1). Grand Cayman has a development plan, but environmental impact assessments are not a statutory requirement for developments. The two Sister Islands, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman, which are relatively undeveloped, have no development plans and minimal planning controls. A British company, Crown Acquisitions, has purchased land on all three Cayman Islands, which it has subdivided into undeveloped plots with planning permission for sale to individuals.[62] Crown Acquisitions told us that it owns approximately 200 residential plots with planning permission on Little Cayman.[63] Little Cayman is the smallest of the three Cayman Islands. It is approximately 10 miles long and one mile wide with a permanent population of fewer than 170. In addition to its healthy marine environment, it supports the largest red-footed booby population in the Caribbean.[64] Those sea birds live and breed on an 82-hectare site, which is a designated Ramsar wetland of international importance.[65] It has restricted infrastructure and resources, a limited road network and no public transport; fresh water and power are limited; waste management is inadequate; and the airstrip is served by a 10-seat de Havilland Otter aircraft.[66] Crown Acquisitions told us that it had not assessed the impact of its proposed development on Little Cayman's infrastructure.[67] While there is no insinuation or inference that developers are committing any criminal or civil offences in their development programme in the Cayman Islands, there is significant local concern about their activities and their impact on unique environments. Although they are acting within the current development framework, developers are risking the biodiversity and ecological sustainability of the Cayman Islands. That is the direct consequence of inadequate development controls and lack of comprehensive governance arrangements.

38. The FCO cannot abnegate its constitutional responsibility to ensure that good governance arrangements are introduced in the UKOTs. Sustainable development in the UKOTs is contingent on their Governments implementing effective development controls, such as statutory environmental impact assessments for major developments and strategic infrastructure plans. Defra must work with UKOTs Governments on developing planning regimes which value and protect natural capital and which promote sustainable tourism industries and economies. Accordingly, the FCO must direct its Governors strongly to advocate the introduction of effective development controls.[68] In particular, the Governors in Anguilla and Montserrat must prioritise the passage of stalled environmental legislation which, if enacted, would at least provide baseline standards on development control. In addition, the extension of the Aarhus Convention to the UKOTs would usefully increase transparency around planning and development (see paragraph 22).

Environmental funding

39. In 2007, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that "environmental funding currently being provided by the UK to the Overseas Territories appears grossly inadequate and we recommend that it should be increased."[69] In 2007-08, Defra spent £152,379 on protecting the environment in the UKOTs. In 2011-12, Defra had increased spending on biodiversity conservation to approximately £3 million through the Darwin Plus scheme, which equates to just £9,000 per globally threatened species.[70] If one compares Defra spending on biodiversity protection in the UK with similar Defra spending on the UKOTs, it appears that Defra "values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in Great Britain and Northern Ireland about 5,000 times more than it values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in the Overseas Territories."[71] Investing to prevent biodiversity loss in the UKOTs is a direct and cost-effective contribution to meeting the UK's international commitments under the CBD. Defra has increased spending on protecting biodiversity in the UKOTs since 2007-08, but a further step change in Darwin Plus funding is required adequately to address the scale of the UK's international responsibilities to protect biodiversity.

EUROPEAN UNION FUNDING

40. LIFE+ is the European Union's only dedicated funding stream for the environment. The UKOTs cannot currently access it, although it has been used to fund environmental schemes in the French Overseas Departments since 2007. There is no legal bar to the UKOTs accessing LIFE+ funding, but some EU Member States apparently oppose its extension to the UKOTs.[72] Negotiations on the next LIFE+ programming period, which will run from 2014 to 2020, are currently under way. The FCO must advance the proposition in negotiations in the European Council that LIFE+ funding should be extended to schemes that protect biodiversity in the UKOTs.

41. Following an initiative by the European Parliament, the European Commission introduced the Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories (BEST). BEST has received two of its three years of pilot funding, after which it must either become a permanent programme or be discontinued. Three projects involving seven UKOTs were funded in the 2012 BEST funding round.[73] We heard that the European Commission is unenthusiastic about extending BEST.[74] The FCO must press the European Commission to build on the pilot and implement a permanent BEST scheme.

NATIONAL LOTTERY FUNDING

42. The environment in the UKOTs could be protected by grants derived from the National Lottery. The Heritage Lottery Fund currently funds conservation projects in the UK. It is legally permitted to fund conservation projects in the UKOTs, but it has never done so because the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) directed it to prioritise accessibility for UK residents in making grants. DCMS stated that "there is no bar on Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) making [grants for work in the UKOTs] but HLF's current policy is to treat any such applications as a low priority."[75] UKOTs residents are currently unable to play the National Lottery. We recommend that DCMS extends the right to play the National Lottery to UKOTs residents using terminals and via the internet . When this is achieved, DCMS should direct the Heritage Lottery Fund to accord applications for projects in the UKOTs equal priority with applications for projects in the UK.

Marine Protected Areas

43. In 2010, the UN declared 2011-2020 the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity to promote the implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.[76] The UK committed to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as part of the evolving CBD process. The object of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets is significantly to reduce biodiversity loss. Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 stated:

To date, 3.2% of the world's oceans is partially protected and less than 1% of the world's oceans is fully protected in no-take marine reserves.[78] Several of the uninhabited and sparsely inhabited UKOTs, including Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha, BIOT and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, have exceptionally large exclusive economic zones which are less biologically degraded than many other marine areas. The UK could make a significant contribution to achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 by declaring new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) around Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

44. MPAs protect marine ecosystems, processes, habitats, and species. They range from highly protected areas in which all extractive activities are prohibited to areas in which some natural resource use is allowed. The benefits of MPAs include maintaining biodiversity, protecting marine habitats from damage by destructive fishing practices, providing areas in which fish can spawn and grow to their adult size and creating a benchmark for undisturbed, natural ecosystems, which can be used to measure the effect of human activity elsewhere.

45. We heard that the UK Government has advanced the argument that establishing MPAs in the UKOTs where the marine environment is not currently under pressure from human activity is unnecessary.[79] Such an approach would be short-sighted. First, the UK can contribute to the achievement of a UN target on biodiversity protection by declaring MPAs in the UKOTs. Secondly, if the UK Government waits for the marine environment to be degraded before it acts, it is conceivable that such damage will be irreparable.

46. Enforcement to prevent illegal fishing and to regulate legal fishing is challenging in remote marine areas. We learned that marine monitoring and enforcement in the UKOTs is conducted only in BIOT, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and Falkland Islands. That means that 3,400,000 km² of ocean in the UKOTs is currently unpatrolled. Licensed fishing takes place in those waters with no monitoring, which may mean that the marine environment in the UKOTs is being illegally degraded.[80] Satellite tracking may make a cost-effective contribution to addressing that problem, although it cannot substitute for marine patrols.

47. In 2010, the previous Government designated BIOT as the world's largest fully protected no-take MPA. BIOT is home to the world's largest coral atoll and one of the world's healthiest reef systems, and its marine biodiversity is internationally significant. Although commercial fishing licences are no longer issued in BIOT, legislation to prohibit extractive activities such as commercial fishing or marine mining has still not been enacted.[81] Defra and the FCO must complete the legal protections for the marine environment in BIOT by prohibiting all extractive activities.

48. Pitcairn Islands has a population of some 50 people, but its exclusive economic zone extends to some 836,000 km², which is more than three times the size of the UK.Because of its remote location in the South Pacific, its marine environment has not been industrially fished, which means that it has one of the best preserved marine ecosystems in the world.[82] As fisheries elsewhere become overexploited, however, it may be fished by distant water fishing fleets. Pitcairn Islanders have requested that the greater part of its exclusive economic zone should be declared a fully protected no-take marine reserve, which would become the largest such reserve in the world.[83] We appreciate that there are resource implications in setting up an MPA around the Pitcairn Islands, but we heard that MPAs are relatively inexpensive to maintain.[84] In this Report, we have identified various sources of funding for environmental protection in the UKOTs that could be used in this case (see paragraphs 39 to 42). Defra and the FCO must respond positively to the Pitcairn Islanders' request to establish a fully protected MPA in line with UN Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 to protect 10% of the world's oceans by 2020.