Environmental Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Tara Pelembe, Head of Environmental Management Division, St Helena

(1) What particular aspects of environmental support/admin/funding from the UK Government are welcomed? What environmental support/admin/funding is not welcomed? Would the Governor taking a closer interest in environmental protection be appropriate?

All support from the UK Government that is currently received is welcomed—this comes in the form of funding and technical expertise. The Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) has been an important funding source for the development of Enviromental projects and, through these, raising the profile of the importance of the environment on island. We hope that the new Darwin Plus continues to develop this important role.

The funding of St. Helena’s airport has included the environment as a core component of the project development and of the implementation monitoring. St. Helena also benefits from technical environmental support through the Department for International Development (DFID) technical cooperation funding to St. Helena. Advisory and training posts within the new EMD have been recruited via this funding source.

We continue to develop this support where the opportunity arises. We are, for example, currently exploring the possibility of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) providing the scientific authority role for St. Helena as required by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) input into the South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI), via the JNCC is a welcome, tangible way of connecting and sharing expertise within the South Atlantic Overseas Territories.

There have been two recent gaps in access to advice within UK government which have resulted in a noted decrease in communication with the related UK departments—ie there is now lack of clarity around focal points for OT environmental issues within DFID’s Overseas Territories Directorate (OTD) and within Defra.

A dedicated Overseas Territories Environment officer within Defra would be a welcome step, as would dedicated people within the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

A programmatic, rather than project, approach to funding would be welcome to ensure longer term sustainability for work on island.

(2) What more should the UK Government be doing to support environmental protection in the overseas territories. Does the 2012 White Paper, which sets out the UK Government’s strategy, meet your expectations?

Mainstreaming the environment is a key objective under St. Helena’s National Planning and is being incorporated in the development of the programme and project management systems being developed for capital/infrastructure projects

There are a number of environmental awareness/protection strands in the airport project with environmental staff in Basil Read, the Project Monitoring Unit, SHG and DFID’s Airport project team, who work together on environmental issues.

The UK Government White Paper 2012 appears to embody the principles of sustainable development with explicit focus on economy, society and the environment—the three pillars of sustainable development. How, and if, this translates into reality and actual support in each of the territories will become clearer over time.

On St. Helena

The Department for International Development (DFID) has committed £250 million to the construction of an airport to stimulate economic growth. This is linked to funding to support economic development while the airport is being built.

A new Environmental Management Directorate1 has been created to take forward mainstreaming of the environment across the island.

The Sustainable Development Plan2 has three National Goals—one focussing on economic growth, the other on social development and a third on environmental management.

Recommendation: Regular (c. two yearly) reports on progress (against agreed indictors) of sustainable development in the UKOTs might be a good tool for picking up on whether UK and OT governments are delivering and whether trade-offs are appropriate.

Recommendation: In 1999 when the White Paper—Partnership and Prosperity was produced, to ensure the environment was given appropriate profile within UK and OT governments, the Environment Charters were produced. These had commitments for both the UK and OT Governments against which progress could be monitored. There are differences of opinions on how effective the Environment Charters were but they did provide a basis for securing support and resources and also covered the wider environmental management, which appears to have a lower profile than conservation, biodiversity protection and climate change. It is therefore recommended that a charter or something similar is developed between UK and OT governments outlining in more detail the nature of agreed environmental commitments.

(3) To what extent is the UK Government discharging its international responsibilities concerning the environment and biodiversity?

The UK Government has recently (April 2008) created an Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy.3 This strategy provides a framework for cross Whitehall input into biodiversity in the UKOTs, and establishes a mechanism for implementing this. From an EMD perspective the main manifestations of this are

Funding: the creation of the new Darwin plus which combines all previous HMG funding sources for TO biodiversity conservation.

Support: In particular the ability to write to HMG officers for advice and support around a range of areas, the invertebrate identification service that FERA (the Food and Environment Research Agency) provides, the technical and advisory support provided by Royal Botanical Gardens Kew and JNCC.

Recommendation: Links into Multilateral environmental agreement processes need to be specifically tailored to UKOT situation and capacity, with adequate interpretation and time being given if meaningful input is required.

Recommendation: Increased and improved access to a wider range of support for a range of environmental areas, that is available within relatively short spaces of time. Currently this is delivered for St. Helena via a calldown contract.

How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change

The UK Meteorological Office has a memorandum of Understanding with the St. Helena Government to fund the running of a recording station on the island and provide technical training, information and support. The data generated can provide the foundation for our work around climate change.

JNCC has produced a suite of materials on climate change in the UKOTs.4 These provide a good foundation for climate change adaptation and mitigation policy.

On St. Helena

There is a target to develop a climate change (adaptation and mitigation) policy in the next year. In the development of the policy, we are likely to look to UK government to tap into expertise and advice on the policy development.

Recommendation: Although there has been support to some general work on climate change in the UKOTs and to specific developments of climate change strategies in the Caribbean, St. Helena has not really benefitted from these. St. Helena still requires a comprehensive study to determine what predicted climate change impacts will be, so that we can incorporate recommended adaptation and mitigation measures into policy and planning.

On St. Helena JNCC have supported the creation of an environmental management Directorate and associated policy and legislation through secondment of a staff member and funding for data management and research.

JNCC and the St. Helena Government (SHG) Environmental Management Directorate (EMD) also partner on a Darwin funded marine mapping project.

DFID have supported this through their Technical Cooperation budget to St. Helena providing funding for the following roles:

Director of environmental management.

Environment Risk Advisor/Trainer.

Terrestrial Conservation Advisor/Trainer.

“Call-down” support for specialist technical advice.

JNCC/DEFRA have also given funding support for training courses and small projects.

(4) Do UK government departments work effectively together on overseas territory issues? Would you welcome stronger support from any UK departments in particular?

From an OT environment directorate perspective, it is difficult to gauge whether UK government departments are working together effectively on overseas territories issues. We have strong links with DFID, and JNCC. We have good links with FCO, who have worked to develop a sustainable approach to fisheries across the UKOTs.

We have occasional links directly with Defra (mainly on multi-lateral environmental agreements) and sporadic, if any links with other UK government departments.

Stronger links with Defra and with DCMS would be welcomed. The former, to be able to tap into environmental expertise that is broader than that linked to biodiversity (provided through Defra’s JNCC). The latter, to link into expertise around the built heritage—conservation, preservation and advice around which is currently underdeveloped on St. Helena.

(5) The UK Government has consolidated its environmental protection funding for the overseas territories into the “Darwin Plus” Fund. Is this a positive development and is the Fund big enough to support the work that is needed?

The concept of a single fund rather than multiple funds, is one that we support. It streamlines processes, enables the building of capacity to write applications to a single funding source. St. Helena has benefited from the Darwin Plus Fund (although EMD’s submissions weren’t funded), and we will continue to apply. Additional funding would of course be welcome if this meant that additional projects could be funded. A programmatic approach to funding would also be welcome, so that a more sustainable approach to environmental management is encouraged. Project funding does not lend itself to long-term sustainable environmental management.

(6) Do your environmental departments have enough staff and the technical expertise you need?

There are arguably never “enough” staff and technical expertise. On small islands, the range of technical expertise required is unlikely to ever be 100% available within the staff cohort because of the range of the spectrum of environmental issues. However currently St. Helena is at a stage where it has more staff and greater access to technical expertise than ever before. The EMD has 24 staff. In addition we tap into technical expertise from organisations and individuals on island, and are in the process of setting up a second “call down” contract where we tap into a range of technical expertise provided by an external organisation (funding for which is provided by the Department for International Development through its Technical cooperation budget for St. Helena).

The Darwin Initiative and OTEP funding to the island has also helped to bring technical expertise on to the island to build on the local expertise we have and as such, we currently have invertebrate and marine specialists doing baseline research in these two areas.

The development of the SAERI is also anticipated as being a useful system for providing, and developing, technical expertise within the region.

(7) What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in the territory? Is there a role for the UK Government to ensure that this legislation is enacted?

SHG has recently reviewed all of its legislation to see what aspects of environment are covered, what gaps are there, and is in the processing of drafting a new environment law to update and address gaps. The law is in the process of being drafted (this will be done over the next 10 weeks) and then it will go through the same process as any other law required to be enacted on island. There is currently no indication that the law will not be enacted at the end of this process. As such, for St. Helena there is currently not a requirement for UK government to ensure that the legislation is enacted. If, for some reason, the new environmental law is not enacted as anticipated, input from UK government might be beneficial.

(8) What estimates have the territory’s government made of the value of natural resources and ecosystem services to the economy of the territory?

No work on the economic value of the environment has been carried out.

(9) What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory government to account for their environmental practices?

Under the new National Environmental Management Plan, there is a target to establish an Environment Scrutiny Board. This is planned to be established within the next six months.

Environmental Impact assessments are policy and legal requirements that are embedded in the planning process.

The St. Helena policy process requires environmental assessment of all new St. Helena Policy.

Executive Council memos require a statement on the environmental impact of the required decision.

18 April 2013