Black-browed Albatross, Falklands Local Governance/Development, Capacity Building and Conservation Process in the UKOTs not necessarily in that order St Helena cloud forest Dr Mike Pienkowski Honorary Executive Director UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum www.ukotcf.org
Spectacled Petrel off Tristan da Cunha group, this species breeds only on Inaccessible Island. Garden Pond, rich seasonal pond, Turks & Caicos Islands Elephant Seals, South Georgia
Parts of UK UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: King Penguins, South Georgia - within the sovereign territory of UK, but - not represented in UK Parliament, nor main UK budgets Constitution and nature of each Territory different. Nesting Green Turtle, Ascension Sombrero Black Lizard, endemic to the tiny island of Sombrero, Anguilla
Jubilee 2002: relative sizes Human population Land area (km 2 ) UKOTs & CDs 406 150 17 967 Metropolitan UK (GB & NI) 61 000 000 244 101 Individual UKOTs: <50 persons (Pitcairn) to 66,000 (Bermuda) and CDs to 91,000 (Jersey); mainly about 2000 to 20000 each
Initiative for biodiversity and environment in EU ORs and OCTs Our co-ordinating organisations in France, Netherlands, UK and potentially others are working together to help, and are keen to co-operate with OCT partners, member states and the EU institutions. Humpback Whale, Greenland
Global biodiversity importance of UKOTs Reverse of their usual peripheral importance, with domestic UK being the minor partner in this case UKOTs hold: (All figures for UKOTs under-estimates due to incomplete study) 24 endemic (i.e. occur nowhere else) bird species (0 or 1 in GB&NI) 100 endemic reptiles (0 in GB&NI) 500 endemic invertebrates (> 99.2% of endemic terrestrial invertebrate species occurring on UK territory) 200 endemic plants About 50% of the world's breeding albatrosses One of the world's major coral reef nations Drury s Hairstreak, Turks & Caicos Is Caicos Islands Reef Gecko, TCI
Bird species endemic to domestic UK: Nil (sometimes one) Bird species endemic to UK Overseas Territories (conservative listing):24+ St Helena Wirebird Bermuda Cahow Falkland Steamer Duck Cobb s Wren South Georgia Pipit Montserrat Oriole Ascension Frigatebird Pitcairn Reed-Warbler Henderson Lorikeet Henderson Crake Henderson Fruit-Dove Henderson Reed-Warbler Spectacled Petrel Yellow-nosed Albatross Tristan Albatross Great Shearwater Atlantic Petrel Inaccessible Rail Tristan Moorhen Tristan Thrush Tristan Bunting Grosbeak Bunting Gough Moorhen Gough Bunting
St Helena cloud forest Natural ecosystems are crucial also for the economies of UKOTs. Natural land vegetation and soil Prevention of erosion Main reservoirs for water (St Helena, Montserrat) Nature & cultural tourism Potential for medicines etc Mangroves & coral reefs Important nurseries for fish Filter coastal pollution Shoreline protection Tourism 10% of world coral reefs are in OTs of UK/F/NL Sustainable fisheries are the main source of income in Tristan da Cunha, Falklands & South Georgia Tristan da Cunha
What are the main threats? Habitat destruction, loss of natural ecosystems Invasive species Over-exploitation Pollution Climate change - brings risks of unprecedented scale for all UKOTs: - in itself (sea level rise, storms, culture and quality of life, etc) - by combining with other threats (invasive species, loss of ecosystems...)
Consequences 39 recorded global extinctions in UKOTs (despite limited study) 2 species survive only in captivity/cultivation He-Cabbage, St Helena: reduced to a few individuals Latest recorded global extinction in UK territory (St Helena Olive) 2003 afteruk agreed target to reduce rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. At least 240 species are at high risk of global extinction (see also presentations by Royal Botanic Garden Kew and RSPB). The Remipede crustacean Micropacter yagerae : the only member of its genus and of its family, Micropacteridae. It is known only from the caves by the airport at Providenciales, Turks & Caicos, important also for other wildlife. Plans to expand car-park by destroying these caves. No EIA has been done. The airport design could easily be modified to avoid expanding the car-park into this area. Done under direct UK rule.
UKOTCF-organised conference in Bermuda Brings together conservation & science bodies in GB, UKOTs & CDs Involves wide network of individuals with relevant expertise Works on a largely volunteer basis Lacks funding (could be more efficient if modest funding were available) Works closely with governments of UKOTs and UK
What is UKOTCF?: Member/ Associate organisations linked to a particular UKOTs/CDs Alderney Wildlife Trust Anguilla Archaeological & Historical Society Anguilla National Trust Ascension Conservation Centre Ascension Heritage Society Bermuda Audubon Society Bermuda National Trust UK Antarctic Heritage Trust Chagos Conservation Trust National Parks Trust of the Virgin Islands, BVI Jost van Dykes Preservation Society, BVI National Trust for the Cayman Islands Akrotiri Environmental Education & Information Centre, Cyprus SBA BirdLife Cyprus Gibraltar Ornithological & Natural History Society La Société Guernesiaise National Trust for Jersey Société Jersiaise Isle of Man Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture Montserrat National Trust Pitcairn Natural Resources Division St Helena National Trust La Société Sercquiaise Turks & Caicos National Museum National Trust of the Turks & Caicos Islands Turks & Caicos Reef Fund
Facilitating capacity development of UKOT NGOs and officials Close working relationships between Forum and member organisations based in GB and those in the Overseas Territories, helping to transfer skills and experience to and between UKOTs Followed successful strategy of: 1. helping local people form conservation NGO where not already exist; 2. helping that NGO (and often the UKOT government environment department) develop capacity to manage itself; 3. evolve into a programme of jointly run conservation projects. 4. Raises awareness in GB of UKOTs, their conservation importance and needs, and UK Government s shared responsibility in this regard.
A few, of many, project examples Review of Ramsar Convention actual and potential Wetlands of International Importance in UK Territories, and help with designations Development & implementation of community-based plan to manage & use sustainably area around largest UKOT Ramsar site Series of working conferences for UKOT conservation practitioners Identification of issues picked up as projects by partners, e.g. as mentioned in RBGK & RSPB presentations Development for Education Dept of schools curriculum and courses on water systems in the arid Turks & Caicos Islands Review of fishery issues for Gibraltar Government Greater Antillean Bullfinch, TCI Flightless Steamer-duck, Falklands Gouliot Caves, Sark
Some successes of the network: Developing capacity in UKOTs Conservation projects with local partners Increased environmental awareness in UKOT governments Increased environmental awareness in UK Government at some official levels but a long way still to go Opportunity of Environment Charter process Leopard Seal. British Antarctic Territory
Background to the Environment Charter process 1997 events, leading to 1998 policy speech on UK/UKOT relations; and plans for White Paper. UKOTCF need for inclusion of chapter on environment checklist approach, on EU & other models 1999 White Paper and check-list approach modified into the Environment Charters Two years of working out what an Environment Charter should look like On Sept. 26, 2001, UKOTs Cuban Crow, Turks & Caicos Islands & UK signed Environment Charters which included Statements of principles and undertakings by both parties.
Developing a strategy to implement the Charter: The first commitment was to formulate a detailed strategy for action. The goal was to integrate environmental conservation into all sectors of policy planning and implementation. Development, by TCI, of the first strategy to implement an Environment Charter, facilitated by UKOTCF, with support from UK Government.
Next stages: The pilot model strategy was applied and developed further by St Helena Other Territories at various stages of development of strategies. Many activities are progressing, but some less so. Overall review of Charter implementation undertaken by UKOTCF, collating information from Territories. Bottlenose Dolphin, Ascension I Rockhopper Penguin, Falkland Islands
Despite this support, why are species going globally extinct in UK territory? Under international conventions, UK Government shares responsibility for biodiversity conservation in UKOTs with the UKOT Governments. Therefore UK Government spends at least 4 orders of magnitude less per endemic species in its Overseas Territories than in Great Britain & Northern Ireland. However, despite the small economies and human populations of UKOTs, few UK funds are allocated to conservation in the UKOTs. UK Government spends about 500 times less on conservation in UKOTs ( 1m pa) than in GB & NI (> 460m pa) (UK Govt figures) There are 10x to 100x more endemic species (or several other measures) in UKOTs than in GB&NI.
Limited resourcing UKOTs cannot get international aid because they are part of UK. Need also to make National Lottery funding etc available for UKOT & CD projects, but lottery bodies think that the UKOTs are foreign! Small projects fund (EFOT, OTEP) of FCO/DFID was vital but cancelled twice within about a decade of UKG s commitment to start it. Now restarting, including also DEFRA, after a lost year. Mid-sized projects: at a stage when, in domestic UK, a project would move into a species recovery plan or management plan, it stops in a UKOT (the areas of UK territory which have most global endemics and other features of world importance) because of the lack of such a fund. UK charities and commerce few European Union attempts but outrageously bureaucratic and slow NGOs, incl UKOTCF network major continuous contributions of time for last 20 years UKOTs own resources
Major challenges Maintaining awareness and support in UK Government; widening to other Departments Dispersed responsibility and lack of UK ministerial interest in UKOTs Lack of public awareness in domestic UK Lack of funding Small capacities and economies of UKOTs, compared with development companies Perception in UKOTs of intensive development as good despite evidence Greater Flamingos on a site now lost, Grand Turk, TCI
How are we doing on ecosystem protection? Environment Charters include commitments to: 2. Protection of key habitats, species & landscape features 4. Environmental impact assessments 5. Open and consultative decision-making This is failing, e.g. in: Blue Iguana, endemic to Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands Turks & Caicos Islands major built development now, including in several national parks & nature reserves, without available EIA or public debate. Concern expressed in evidence to HoC Foreign Affairs Committee at restriction of free speech in TCI British Virgin Islands subjected to ever-larger development proposals and a virtual collapse in the assessment, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms of government, with constant violations by some developers. Bermuda planning regulations by-passed to build hotel on coastal woodlands, also removing cliff coastal defences and seabird nest-sites. Anguilla local concern expressed at the rate of developments, including a current 700% increase in hotel rooms, impacting natural or other heritage features Cayman Islands and Montserrat Concerns about procedures for road developments impacting natural areas
What are the main needs to stop the loss of biodiversity and enhance sustainable use? An open approach in UKOTs to decision making in planning, with encouraged involvement of civil society. Recognition in UK (public, officials and politicians) that Territories are part of UK, not foreign and that it shares responsibility for their conservation. This means UK Government both: - providing a major contribution to funding conservation work in UKOTs/CDs - implementing its responsibilities for the UKOTs, this having a major impact on the environment Central Mangrove Wetlands, Grand Cayman Mountain Chicken frog, endemic to Montserrat and Dominica
Weaknesses in governance in the UKOTs (A) Basic premise of devolving matters to UKOT governments: they carry out their responsibilities in a manner which reflects best practice. The Environment Charters lay out steps, such as mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before high-impact decisions are made. However, several aspects of political life in most UKOTs run counter to the necessary high standards. 1) The political nature of land-use and development decisions is, in places, considered to be the province of Ministers, who tend to feel that they know what is best and that environmental considerations are very much secondary to what they see as economic gains. Once a Minister takes over the decision regarding a major development through a Special Development Order (SDO) or similar process, officials and departments charged with protecting the environment are effectively gagged. They are simply outgunned by developers who have direct access to the Minister making the decision. This concept of absolute Ministerial discretion is what enabled the kind of corruption seen recently in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
3) The small populations of the UKOTs mean small constituencies. This makes it difficult for politicians to carry out long-range policies which may be unpopular in the short term, like fisheries management decisions. What politician with a ten-vote majority is going to impose controls over something like spear fishing, when a significant number of his constituents will be angered by them even when experience shows that a ban will prolong the life of the fishery? Weaknesses in governance in the UKOTs (B) 2) Decisions tend to be made in secret and no reasons are normally given, including by the boards responsible for considering development applications. Decisions with huge environmental consequences are often made in secret with no public consultation. 'The Seven Principles of Public Life' laid out in the 2012 White Paper, includes the principle Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their actions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. This could not be further from the reality of several UKOTs.
It is concerning that HMG, when being directly responsible for some aspects of governing a UKOT, seems to adopt some of the same practices of secrecy, lack of consultation and lack of taking account of environmental considerations. (A) Against much local feeling to maintain sites of biological and cultural importance, the DFID-dominated government in Montserrat is currently allowing and indeed promoting destructive development at Pipers Pond (the only remaining mangrove area on the island), Carr s Bay Battery historical site and the historic cemetery. Other approaches retaining these features would have been quite feasible. At Ascension Island, when, late in 2005, HMG resumed direct rule from the locally elected Council (for no explicit reason), the planned adoption by the Council of a draft strategy to implement the Environment Charter was lost without trace.
HMG, when being directly responsible for some aspects of governing a UKOT,...(B) HMG and Royal Navy failing to support the Government of Gibraltar s attempts to enforce environmental protection legislation against illegal incursions of Spanish fishermen and the paramilitary Guardia Civil into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW). HMG failed also to deal in a timely manner with the Spanish government putting forward BGTW as part of its own Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive. HMG has direct responsibility, administered by MoD, for the government of the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas, but illegal hunting of migrant songbirds remains a problem. SBA Administration should enforce bird protection legislation, in conjunction with the neighbouring Republic of Cyprus, whose laws those of the SBAs normally match.
How does UK Government fare environmentally when it governs a UKOT directly? (A) Twice in some 20 years, UK Government has had to take direct responsibility for governing the Turks & Caicos Islands (TCI). In the early 1990s, the direct government fulfilled the requests of local people by implementing protected area legislation and designating some such areas as well as helping establish a non-governmental conservation body. A decade later, UK Government agreed with UKOTs the Environment Charters. UKOTCF does not question the necessity of UK Government taking direct responsibility for governing TCI again from 2009 to November 2012. However, UK Government, in this role, has moved backwards on some aspects of sustainable development and environmental management, including:
How does UK Government fare environmentally when it governs a UKOT directly? (B) the abolition of the Conservation Fund, based on an ear-marked element of taxes on tourists and other visitors (and originally introduced by TCI Government as a condition of UK grant aid); an attempt to re-sell for built development undeveloped areas recovered after illegal sale by the previous government; the considering of deep dredging of a channel through nature protected areas, whose earlier dredging devastated some sustainable fisheries as well as the nature reserves; the encouragement of high-rise developments; the encouragement of, and amending laws to allow, the development of a dolphinarium (or dolphin-prison); and enabling and approving the unnecessary destruction of caves which will cause global extinction of an endemic (at family level) crustacean. This could still be stopped Has desperation to achieve income outweighed proper environmental considerations during direct rule by UK Government?
From the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report on Halting Biodiversity Loss (published 10 November 2008) With leadership, and a relatively small sum of money, the incredible biodiversity found in our overseas territories can be safeguarded into the future. One of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing the catastrophic global biodiversity loss currently occurring would be to accept its responsibilities and to provide more support for the UK Overseas Territories in this area. A reflection from UKOTCF It has been a little difficult to find evidence for such leadership in HMG officials over the past 6 years in contrast to the previous decade. However, we never give up hope...
Hope... or Irrational Optimism? The 2012 White Paper did at least have some aspirational words, even if the overall content was poor. FCO has just appointed a new Director of Overseas Territories, with a science qualification and experience Jeremy Madeiros and Somers (Photo: Andrew Dobson) of working in FCO s Environment Department when it existed. UK Government has started to address some of the criticisms of the White Paper, including: - re-establishment of project funding to the level of a year earlier; - re-emphasising the Environment Charters, not mentioned in the 2012 White Paper. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee maintaining oversight by instituting an Inquiry into the White Paper. Continued dedication of conservation workers (both governmental and NGO) in the UKOTs, despite the frustrations.
www.ukotcf.org