Call for evidence outcome

Summary of responses

Updated 8 April 2020

Introduction

This document summarises evidence collected from respondents to the Call for Evidence (CfE) on Safeguarding the environment in British Overseas Territories (OTs)

The CfE was launched 10 May 2019, closing 26 July 2019.

As announced at the Spring Statement on 13 March 2019, the CfE invited ideas on how the government can safeguard the OTs’ biodiversity and aims to support the UK’s continued partnership with the OTs in meeting environmental commitments in the future.

The CfE also sought evidence on how outcomes are delivered through existing spend on biodiversity and conservation and whether this is effectively delivering against environmental objectives.

The evidence gathered through the CfE will help inform the next Spending Review.

Objectives and scope of the Call for Evidence

The objectives of the CfE were:

• to identify ways to improve outcomes on the ground, delivered through existing spend on biodiversity and conservation
• to inform Spending Review decisions on the most appropriate and value for money funding arrangements and funding levels, to deliver HMG global/regional objectives for biodiversity and conservation

The CfE scope covered funding for marine and terrestrial biodiversity and conservation projects in OTs, largely relevant to EU BEST and UK Darwin Plus programmes and projects supported through the Conflict, Security and Stability Fund (CSSF). Respondents were also invited to discuss their experiences with other funding streams and revenue sources that have supported biodiversity and conservation objectives, as well as activities including research, international partnerships and projects on the ground.

Whilst this CfE was targeted primarily at biodiversity outcomes, respondents were also invited to submit evidence to demonstrate how local funding streams and other targeted environmental and climate change programmes deliver against biodiversity objectives.

Questions regarding large-scale infrastructure projects such as building waste management/recycling infrastructure and wider funding for the OTs, were not covered by the scope of this CfE.

This CfE asked the following twelve questions:

1. What are the biodiversity challenges you are addressing in your region? What is your role in tackling these challenges?
2. What are your sources of funding? What is the impact of current funds on biodiversity and conservation on the ground in the OTs? Please provide information on specific funding streams/schemes and the outcomes they have achieved.
3. What are the main barriers to tackling the challenges you face? If lack of funding is a barrier, please describe the objectives you would deliver with additional funding and how these relate to UK and OT government biodiversity priorities.
4. What do you think of the current allocation of funds between the OTs and the UK and between strategic priorities? Can you think of ways to improve the effectiveness/efficiency of this allocation and its impact on the ground?
5. Do you have views on how any funds you have accessed are run and administered? How could they be better organised?
6. How have you collaborated with other organisations, both public and private, to ensure spending delivers outcomes? Is there more that could be done to improve collaboration?
7. How are your funded projects monitored and evaluated to ensure they deliver value for money?
8. Does any particular fund deliver better value for money, in comparison to others? How/why?
9. Do you have any ideas of innovative methods to improve biodiversity and conservation in your region? Do you have any experience of use of innovative methods?
10. Are there other environmental or climate change programmes in country that also contribute to biodiversity outcomes, including those funded from the budget?
11. Have you identified any forms of government funding that could encourage financial investment from other sources (e.g. leveraging for match funding, private investment and academic research funding)?
12. How have biodiversity and biodiversity funding supported wider benefits in your region, such as sustainable economic development?

Who responded to the Call for Evidence?

A total of 51 responses were received.

This included:

• 16 respondents from OT governments, representatives and administrations
• 13 respondents from OT-specific NGOs and foundations
• 18 respondents from national and/or global NGOs and research specific institutes, including OT umbrella bodies.

A full list of respondents can be found at Annex A.

Summary of findings

There was broad consensus by OTs that tackling biodiversity challenges are critical and are essential to addressing concerns in their regions.

Respondents suggested that the OTs face three core biodiversity challenges:

• (i) pressures due to economic development (raised by 73% of respondents)
• (ii) threats posed by non-native invasive species (57%)
• (iii) vulnerability to the impacts of climate change (55%)

Biodiversity funding was believed to have supported a wide range of benefits for the OTs, many of which are dependent on their natural resources to support economic development. For example, respondents noted the importance of protecting habitats that sustain tourism revenues.

Many barriers to tackling biodiversity challenges were raised. Common areas of concern were

• (i) availability and duration of funding (raised by 86% of respondents)
• (ii) a lack of human and technical capacity (69%)
• (iii) insufficient data and difficulties accessing previously collected data (41%)
• (iv) institutional and bureaucratic structures (43%)
• (v) public awareness and education (20%)

43% of respondents had received BEST funding. Many of these respondents raised that there was uncertainty as to which funding opportunities would be available post-exit.

Many respondents set out what they would do with additional funding. This included investing in staff and equipment to tackle capacity issues (33% of respondents) or the eradication of non-native invasive species (27%). Furthermore, some respondents wished to undertake direct conservation projects, such as the restoration of carbon-capturing peatland.

Several respondents believed rebalancing funding towards support for local conservation stakeholders would improve the effectiveness of funding, because these groups were more likely to sustain delivery ‘on the ground’. On a related note, some respondents felt that supporting local capacity should move beyond training programmes, enabling OTs to initiate and sustain long-term biodiversity projects by themselves, utilising and supporting local efforts and capacity.

75% of respondents made specific suggestions of how to improve funding organisation, focussing on Darwin Plus. Many of these comments suggested larger funding awards could deliver longer, more sustainable projects. A number of OTs and NGOs proposed that Darwin Plus could be structured in three tiers of small, medium and large scale projects. It was suggested that projects extending beyond two-to-three years could build local capacity and embed sustainable delivery and could offer more support for tried and tested methods of delivery ‘on the ground’, as well as innovative new approaches and technologies.

Some respondents reported successful initiatives involving non-HMG funding. These included the use of “tourist levies” and partnerships with businesses to protect and enhance biodiversity. However, respondents also noted that such opportunities are not always widely available or easily accessible at present. Respondents expressed interest in developing green finance and market-based mechanisms to help fund conservation in the future.

Several respondents identified significant non-funding related barriers to protecting and enhancing biodiversity. For instance, the need for better environmental regulation and legislation. Respondents also noted the challenge of balancing environmental and economic development objectives and the importance of consistently integrating these complex considerations into policy making processes.

Respondents also identified capacity issues related to a lack of academic and technical expertise to monitor and gather evidence on the state of the natural environment and identify, develop and oversee interventions to deliver improved biodiversity conservation and enhancement.

Responses to questions

Question 1. What are the biodiversity challenges you are addressing in your region? What is your role in tackling these challenges?

1.1) The main biodiversity challenges highlighted by respondents were the effects of economic development, the effects of climate change, issues of sustainable marine management and the challenges posed by invasive, non-native species.

Biodiversity challenges

Effects of economic development

1.2) Effects of economic development were cited by 37 out of 50 respondents (73%). Respondents cited the wide-ranging pressures of tourism and expansion due to increasing infrastructure development. This included projects that have not planned for environmental degradation; deforestation; issues resulting from environmental crime and tackling the detrimental impacts of some tourism on habitats. Impacts of local and global pollution were also cited, from sewage and effluence to hydrocarbons and marine plastics.

1.3) For instance, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) noted that growing plastic pollution globally “negatively impacts biodiversity, including regionally important populations of green and hawksbill sea turtles and ground-nesting birds”. The Turks and Caicos Reef Fund focussed on losses from unregulated land development, including “deforestation of tropical forest…dredging of wetlands and degradation of coral reefs due to run-off from land-based pollution sources”.

1.4) Specific challenges cited in the marine environment included managing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and fisheries (including illegal fishing); issues due to marine exploitation and potential local drilling due to fossil fuel discovery; damage to coral reefs due to yachts and broader marine damage from harbour/marina development.

Invasive non-native species

1.5) 29 out of 51 respondents (57%) cited the threats and impacts posed by invasive non-native species to endemic fauna and flora. For instance, in the BIOT rodents have had a “severe impact on seabirds, turtles, land, crabs and native vegetation” (Chagos Conservation Trust). Tristan da Cunha noted an invasive scale insect’s infestation of native trees which could lead to the “imminent extinction” of the “UK’s most endangered bird”, the Wilkins’ Bunting.

1.6) Invasive species were reported to compound changes in climate, hydrology and soils and impact agriculture, forestry and tourism. In BIOT, “where invasive non-native black rats are present this natural link between islands and the associated reefs is broken, which is detrimental to corals recovering from bleaching events” (Chagos Conservation Trust).

Climate change

1.7) 28 out of 51 respondents (55%) cited climate change and the resulting threat of natural disasters as one of the biggest challenges facing OTs. Particular challenges cited included the threat from rising sea levels, droughts, water scarcity, irregular rainfall patterns and warming temperatures. The British Antarctic Territory (BAT) noted it was “one of the fastest warming areas on the planet, with the Antarctic Peninsula… acting as a sentinel for future climate change impacts for the rest of the planet”. BAT further noted that biodiversity is “threatened by habitat loss due to warming surface temperatures, loss of sea ice and glacial retreat”. Similarly, the Chagos Conservation Trust detailed how BIOT reefs were severely damaged by coral bleaching, caused by warming sea temperatures.

Role of respondents in tackling biodiversity challenges

1.8) OT governments and administrations described their central role in tackling biodiversity challenges. The scope described was broad, including habitat and species restoration and protection, tackling non-native species and sustainable agriculture. It also included the regulation of tourism impacts through education and building locally-led illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) monitoring systems.

Question 2. What are your sources of funding? What is the impact of current funds on biodiversity and conservation on the ground in the OTs? Please provide information on specific funding streams/ schemes and the outcomes they have achieved.

Sources of funding

Funding streams and other funding sources accessed, where identified

	Darwin Plus **1	EU BEST	CSSF **2	OT Government funding	Other HMG funding **3	Other EU or international funding schemes	Other funding sources
Number of recipients **4 (% of all those receiving funding )	36 (84%)	22 (51%)	18 (42%)	25 (59%)	17 (40%)	12 (29%)	31 (74%)

**1:Including predecessor schemes

**2: CSSF is not accessed directly by the OTs or NGOs, except RSPB.

**3: JNCC provide additional project and technical support

**4: Does not include HMG bodies that responded to the call for evidence or respondents that indicated that no funding is accessed

Please see Annex B for a table setting out funding streams/sources that have benefited overseas territories (where identified).

2.1) Respondents identified Darwin Plus and EU BEST as the most common funding streams, followed by the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), though the CSSF is not accessed by the OTs directly. Several respondents reported direct OT Government/Administration funding and central HMG funding, such as Natural Environmental Research Council and Global Research and Development funding.

2.2) Other funding schemes provided support, such as the European Development Fund and the EU Global Climate Change Alliance. For example, the EU Global Climate Change Alliance, in partnership with the Organisation for Eastern Caribbean States, has provided $1.2 million that has been used to redraft the British Virgin Islands’ (BVI) Environmental Management and Biodiversity Conservation Bill.

2.3) NGOs, philanthropists and private foundations also provided support. Creative funding mechanisms reported included gift aid and corporate assistance, online fundraising, private individuals and earned revenue.

Outcomes of funding

2.4) Respondents described a range of outcomes achieved through funding, including better compliance with conservation regulations and international obligations; increased understanding and prevention of extinction of endangered species; maintenance of key nature conservation areas; creation of tracking and monitoring programmes; improved biodiversity action plans and social outreach and educational programmes.

Darwin Plus

2.5) Darwin Plus was reported as having provided crucial funding to OTs, with 36 out of 43 respondents who accessed funding (84%) benefiting and laid the foundation for further direct grants from OT governments. The RSPB suggested “nearly all major environmental gains in the OTs have had a Darwin Plus project sustain them and advance them” whilst the UK Overseas Territories Organisation referred to it as a “consistent source of dedicated funding for the territories”.

2.6) In the Cayman Islands, Darwin Plus was reported to have contributed to projects supporting endangered marine turtles, marine protected areas and habitat mapping, research into seabird nesting and foraging activities, sharks and other marine and terrestrial species. The contribution of Darwin Plus and other external funding is believed to have enabled a shift from basic research and monitoring to more ambitious strategic projects, aimed at sustainable outcomes. In St Helena, funding was reported to have prevented the extinction of several endangered species such as lobster populations; improved data availability and funding to analyse human impacts on marine environments and promoted sustainable marine management.

EU BEST

2.7) 22 out of 43 respondents who accessed funding (51%) have benefited from EU BEST funding. For instance, by drawing on approximately €100,000 of EU BEST funds, the Conservation Department at Tristan da Cunha noted that it was able to implement the ‘Forest Restoration & Improved Biosecurity on Nightingale Island’ project, collecting data on the ecology of the endangered Wilkins’ Bunting, with a global population of fewer than 100 pairs. This was the first time the department had ever led an externally funded project. In the Falkland Islands, BEST funding was reported to have supported risk assessments of climate impacts to terrestrial biodiversity and conservation approaches for local whale populations.

2.8) The international nature of the EU BEST funding scheme was said to have presented opportunities to develop relationships between British Overseas Territories and their European counterparts through collaborative regional projects.

Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF)

2.9) 18 out of 43 respondents (42%) who accessed funding have indirectly benefited from CSSF funding. The CSSF funds a number of environment projects, including the Blue Belt programme, the OT Biosecurity Project overseen by the GB Non-native Species Secretariat and natural capital and coral reef improvement projects run by JNCC.

2.10) The Blue Belt Programme has provided support to tackle illegal fishing using satellite surveillance across all the Blue Belt OTs^{[footnote 1]}. For example, Ascension Island received £300,000 of funding from the Blue Belt programme, primarily supporting fisheries patrol and training and scientific equipment. This was reported to have enabled the development of an MPA management plan, partnering with the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to tackle illegal fishing using surveillance satellites, fisheries patrol and monitoring inshore marine ecosystems. In Tristan da Cunha, the CSSF was noted for contributing to the £9 million RSPB-led Gough Island Restoration programme, aiming to prevent the death of 2 million seabird chicks and eggs each year. CSSF Funding was believed to have been crucial to leveraging £3.5 million from other sources to support this project. Tristan da Cunha noted there is currently no regular means for OT-led projects to access CSSF funding.

2.11) Continued CSSF funding for these programmes beyond the expiration date in March 2020 was often cited as essential. Since this call for evidence closed, the continuation and expansion of the Blue Belt programme has been confirmed for 2020/21.

For a detailed example of the impact of current funding in Ascension, please see Annex C.

Question 3. What are the main barriers to tackling the challenges you face? If lack of funding is a barrier, please describe the objectives you would deliver with additional funding and how these relate to UK and OT government biodiversity priorities.

3.1) Responses noted several barriers to successfully tackling biodiversity and conservation. An overall lack of funding was reported to contribute to persistent difficulties in addressing biodiversity and conservation priorities. Other issues related to lack of human and technical capacity, data limitations, institutional and bureaucratic structures, public awareness and education and environmental stewardship in policy-making.

Barriers to tackling challenges

Funding gaps

3.2) 44 out of 51 responses (86%) cited funding gaps as a barrier. Respondents believed that although funding through BEST and Darwin Plus had contributed to biodiversity objectives, long term funding needs had not necessarily been addressed.

3.3) Several respondents raised that EU funding provided an average of £1 million per annum in support for biodiversity conservation across the OTs post-exit, they raised that they would lose access to the new EU LIFE programme and its associated funding potential. Some respondents suggested replacement funding would be most beneficial if it were not “temporary in nature and more constrained in scope” (British Antarctic Survey).

3.4) It was noted that currently only three OTs are eligible for Official Development Assistance (ODA), with two of these (St Helena and Montserrat) due to graduate from ODA eligibility.

Human and technical/data capacity

3.5) 35 out of 51 respondents (69%) cited a broader lack of technical and human capacity to support conservation efforts, not necessarily as a result of funding gaps. Capacity needs included further expertise, management systems and resources to manage MPAs and adhere to Multilateral Environment Agreement (MEA) targets. For instance, a lack of trained scientists was thought to be preventing necessary research in Montserrat whilst the Bertarelli Foundation noted the lack of a research vessel, especially one suited to the deep-sea environment, impeded work in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

3.6) The RSPB noted “in small island communities the continuity of activities is highly vulnerable to personnel change. There are often few large institutions and governance structures, particularly relating to the environment, are smaller and less well-resourced than in large economies where they can be taken for granted.”

3.7) A small number of respondents noted that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) often cannot be carried out due to a lack of scientists/technicians to review them, or were not felt to be sufficiently objective.

3.8) 21 out of 51 (41%) of respondents cited limited existing data as hampering biodiversity efforts. For instance, researchers at the University of Oxford and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) noted that “for almost every coral reef in the world, the period when every coral on a reef spawns simultaneously can be timed to within a few days to weeks - in BIOT, even this is unknown”. Limitations of the collection of data via satellite, drone and marine surveys, outstripping OT handling ability and the need for greater emphasis on quantitative biological baselining were reported. The JNCC cited data accessibility as a challenge with OTs lacking the ability “to maximise use of existing data from prior OT projects implemented by outside agencies because of limited access to data and outputs from diverse work programmes held in diverse, often overseas, locations”.

Institutional, regulatory and bureaucratic structures

3.9) 22 out of 51 respondents (43%), largely OTs and OT-based NGOs, raised issues surrounding institutional and bureaucratic structures. Many focused on internal OT-bureaucratic structures that do not prioritise biodiversity and conservation goals, with economic development sometimes seen as a preferable objective by OT governments. For instance, the Cayman Islands suggested “there is no nationally articulated policy on sustainable development and no commonly agreed understanding about what it means in terms of ensuring that social, economic and environmental concerns all need to be given equal weight in national decision-making.” The British Virgin Islands believed such issues stemmed from “under investment of various stakeholders in establishing sustainable and mainstreamed systems that may be aligned to take into consideration biodiversity in decision making process at the policy and operational levels”.

3.10) The need for a review of environmental legislation and the persistence of poor legislative frameworks were reported. This was believed to be partly due to a lack of capacity and prioritising of special interests, such as fisheries.

3.11) Some respondents noted that regulatory checks, such as Environmental Impact Assessments, are often not mandated by law; or existing regulations are not sufficiently robust. For instance, the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) raised that “the EIA for one project was done by the engineer who had also done the project. An example of a perverse recommendation from an EIA process was that no mitigation was needed for the removal of coral reefs.”

Lack of public awareness and education

3.12) 10 out of 50 respondents (20%) noted that there was a lack of awareness locally in some territories of biodiversity issues. For example, the impacts of coastal degradation, declining fish stocks and the importance of less well-known endangered species.

How additional funds could be spent

3.13) Many respondents gave clear proposals as to how they would use additional funding, contributing to domestic, HMG and MEA goals.

3.14) 14 out of 51 respondents (27%) wanted to devote more work to protecting endemic species via non-native species eradication projects. This included rat eradication in the BIOT (Chagos Conservation Trust) and extending a project to protect endemic seabirds on Gough Island (Tristan da Cunha government), which currently receives CSSF assistance, led by the RSPB.

3.15) 17 of the 51 respondents (33%) referenced building technical and human capacity, from funding biosecurity in Tristan da Cunha and acquiring a shared vessel for marine monitoring and enforcement for South Atlantic OTs, to staffing costs in Turks and Caicos Islands. The RSPB suggested funding environmental capacity in Attorney Generals’ OT offices to help them overcome institutional and bureaucratic problems.

3.16) Respondents proposed other local biodiversity and conservation challenges which they considered would benefit from direct funding to support local delivery. For instance, Falklands Conservation sought funding for carbon-capturing peatland restoration; the RSPB referred to the need to support St Helena’s Cloud Forest, crucial to the island’s water supply and 250 endemic species and Montserrat to support coral reef restoration or the creation of artificial reefs.

3.17) A small number of respondents proposed local education initiatives, the development of long-term biodiversity planning, improvements in data collection or carrying out further research. For instance, Tristan da Cunha is interested in conducting marine research on local kelp, penguin and lobster populations. Sovereign Base Area Cyprus highlighted that a management plan would help in tackling non-native invasive species, climate change assessments and planning.

Question 4. What do you think of the current allocation of funds between the OTs and the UK and between strategic priorities? Can you think of ways to improve the effectiveness/efficiency of this allocation and its impact on the ground?

4.1) Respondents raised a number of issues with current allocations, particularly concerning how distribution of funds is organised and which organisations receive the funds.

Allocation of funds between OTs and the UK and between strategic priorities

4.2) It was considered by 14 out of 51 respondents (27%) that although OT governments and administrations play a key role in determining biodiversity and conservation priorities, HMG priorities may differ from those of OTs. Many OTs expressed the importance of funds aligning with territory priorities, so they are driven by OT environmental issues “rather than by the availability of a funding programme to address a pre-determined issue which may be of high relevance to the UK but less so in the OT” (Falkland Islands). Furthermore, to address biodiversity and conservation issues, “it is critically important that initiatives be led by the Overseas Territories and that they be relevant and specific to our unique ecologies and priorities” (Falkland Islands).

4.3) The UKOTCF pointed out that although increased funding for marine conservation is welcome, there is a need to similarly increase support for terrestrial conservation: “most (94%) of the endemic species for which UK is responsible are in the UKOTs. For obvious biological reasons, these are predominantly terrestrial.”

4.4) Many respondents expressed the need for greater collaboration between HMG and the OTs in setting biodiversity priorities and the importance of incorporating local biodiversity action plans. For instance, the RSPB noted that “the 2018 changes to the funding priorities of Darwin Plus have begun to recognise the importance of these local plans. However, this can and should be strengthened in funding instruments, providing they also remain tightly focussed on policy priorities such as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the 25 Year Plan.”

4.5) Some respondents raised a perceived misalignment between MEA-mandated priorities and OT priorities.

Ways to improve the effectiveness/efficiency of funding allocations

Supporting local conservation efforts

4.6) Many respondents expressed a desire for funding to be granted and delivered locally, given the specific knowledge and expertise of OT governments and local environmental organisations and the potential to drive greater value for money.

4.7) Whilst the role of UK partner organisations in supporting functions such as project management was recognised as useful, the importance of engaging local stakeholders and services was raised repeatedly. It was felt that building local capacity had to move beyond training programmes, enabling OTs to initiate and sustain long-term biodiversity projects by themselves. Funding should go further in utilising and supporting local efforts and local services, networks and expertise. Several responses noted that Darwin Plus funds generally require a partner organisation or institution based in the UK.

4.8) 13 out of the 51 (25%) respondents raised that too little funding of NGO and UK agency led projects reached the OTs but stayed in external partner organisations. This was perceived to impact the OTs’ ownership of projects and reportedly created a sense that funding is directed towards non-essential programme elements, rather than delivery on the ground.

4.9) Eight respondents suggested rectifying this through application criteria that would require the percentage of funding received that would be spent in-territory to be listed by applicants to inform future funding decisions.

4.10) A small number of respondents suggested improving local capacity building by creating schemes which facilitate long term placements between the UK and OTs, sharing environmental knowledge and expertise.

Increasing transparency and accountability

4.11) A few respondents commented that more routes to influence decision making on funding allocations/priorities were needed.

4.12) A small number of respondents noted a lack of communication and transparency in the allocation of funds. For example, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) highlighted how wider consultation and participation of relevant organisations, when delivery partners and relevant OTs were developing Blue Belt work packages, could have helped BAS make the positive case for the inclusion of the Antarctic region and allowed them to access funds.

Question 5 - Do you have views on how any funds you have accessed are run and administered? How could they be better organised?

Accessing funds and administration of funds

5.1) The majority of responses to this question were in relation to Darwin Plus, with a number of respondents commenting that it is generally well run. Several points in relation to Darwin Plus were made, including:

• smaller OTs and OT-based NGOs noted that due to limited staff resources, it was still difficult to apply
• some respondents were in favour of the new two stage process; however a small number questioned why an OT letter of support is no longer required at stage 1, a criticism reflective of the lack of OT involvement noted in question 4
• payment issues were raised, including local organisations having to front costs and loss of funding due to exchange rate fluctuations between installments

Governance issues

5.2) Some respondents raised the issue of accountability and transparency of programme delivery. The most severe responses criticised a perceived ‘donor-recipient’ relationship that reflected a lack of involvement in those experienced in OT conservation in funding decisions. Suggestions for improvement included enhanced OT representation in governance mechanisms, such as the Darwin Plus Advisory Group. Three respondents suggested that the Blue Belt Programme would be strengthened if it could replicate the Non-Native Species Secretariat’s Invasive Species project governance arrangements.

Organisation of future funding

5.3) The majority of respondents considered an increase in existing funding streams and/or the creation of new funding streams critical, to reduce reliance on funds such as Darwin Plus.

5.4) The majority of respondents noted short term funding did not necessarily support best practise, such as “baseline survey and ongoing monitoring, or develop the underlying taxonomic expertise, which is generally not seen as ‘world leading’ or ‘world changing’ science” (BAS). It was commented that “long term programmatic funding would be preferable in many instances to short-term project based funding, currently provided by Darwin Plus and other sources such as the EU” (National Oceanography Centre).

Support for large scale, multi-year funding and tiered funding

5.5) 38 out of 51 respondents (75%) provided feedback about changes to funding. A key concern was a perceived lack of large multi-year funding opportunities. However, some smaller OTs and OT-based NGOs highlighted the logistical challenges of large scale projects and the need to maintain links between key NGOs, universities and organisations. These larger organisations can provide expertise, capacity building and project management experience. The University of Exeter wrote of the need for large project funding mechanisms supporting projects of £1-5 million “for large-scale habitat restoration, invasive species eradications, cogent marine protection plans for one territory or multi-OT approach to a similar programme where networks can be formed”.

5.6) Respondents often highlighted the need to redesign funding mechanisms, not only in light of lost EU funding but also due to concerns regarding reliance on Darwin Plus as a main funding source, including:

• too many bodies competing for a relatively small amount of funding, with OTs often missing out on funding opportunities
• the likelihood that bids over £300,000 are not funded due to budgetary constraints, as well as the general absence of small-scale grants

5.7) Many respondents noted the need for funding to be extended for up to at least five years, to build local capacity and embed sustainable delivery. For instance, Ascension Island noted that no funding streams are “designed for the long-term, ongoing management needed to combat the challenges described”.

5.8) OTs reported that greater variation in funding awards was needed, given both shortfalls in funding for large projects, such as non-native invasive species eradications and absence of small grants. 21 out of 51 respondents (41%) directly referenced a desire to see larger grants and smaller grants available, either within one scheme or through new funding opportunities.

5.9) The main method suggested to redress OT funding concerns, explicitly referenced by 10 respondents, was tiered funding streams: “developing a tiered approach based on agreed biodiversity conservation priorities would enable projects to develop and continue to the implementation stage delivering significant wins for the UK government” (Chagos Conservation Trust). Many of these respondents recommended three funding tiers, with the following breakdown recommended by three respondents:

• small scale projects for OT organisations only, due to lack of funding that goes direct to OTs and to replace smaller grants also available from BEST
• medium, the role currently filled by Darwin Plus
• large scale environmental management and restoration projects

5.10) In addition, a small number of respondents suggested direct delivery should not have to compete with research-based initiatives. These respondents expressed a desire for separate funding streams for research and practical projects.

Funds to support capital expenditure

5.11) 11 out of 51 (22%) respondents highlighted a desire to see capital expenditure limits increased for Darwin Plus or separate funding for such projects. EU BEST funds allow for greater capital expenditure; however, funds such as Darwin Plus currently limit capital expenditure to 10% of a project. This was noted as a major shortcoming in environmental funding provision, given that capital expenditure is needed for infrastructure investment.

Question 6 - How have you collaborated with other organisations, both public and private, to ensure spending delivers outcomes? Is there more that could be done to improve collaboration?

6.1) Many respondents considered that the competitive nature of current funding schemes may discourage collaboration across the OT network and with regional partners and NGOs.

Collaboration with private organisations

6.2) Respondents reported that OTs have increasingly turned to private funding or collaborated with private organisations to mitigate potential funding gaps. For example, Montserrat relies on a funding circle with private organisations such as the Bezos Family Foundation to help them to achieve their goals. However, respondents noted that such opportunities are not always widely available or easily accessible.

6.3) Some respondents also noted that private organisations’ overarching objectives do not necessarily align with OTs. However, some, such as the Marine Conservation Society, highlighted the positive role played by businesses, for instance partnerships to help local turtle conservation efforts.

Case study

As part of the Turks and Caicos Islands Turtle Project, the Marine Conservation Society and the Turks and Caicos Islands government created a partnership with the resort of Amanyara. A bespoke turtle conservation project, the Amanyara Turtle Initiative, was developed to enable guests to directly take part in turtle conservation, financially supporting the satellite-tagging and tracking of 15 marine turtles, financing the monitoring of key turtle foraging sites and funding community outreach efforts.

Question 7 - How are your funded projects monitored and evaluated to ensure they deliver value for money?

7.1) Many respondents acknowledged that monitoring and evaluation requirements could be managed and were realistic. However, some found them to be over-bureaucratic and overly expensive. Application and monitoring demands were reported to make some funds unattainable for OTs:

• BEST was felt to be administratively demanding by a number of respondents, including its final auditing process and there was a view that it should allow for greater flexibility regarding how funds would be spent Darwin Plus allows for more flexibility during the lifespan of a project, facilitating strong monitoring and evaluation.

OT involvement in monitoring projects

7.2) OT governments reported that they tended to be involved in the project management process of NGO funded projects, with the Falkland Islands explicitly stating that there is always a representative on the project management team to ensure that it is focused on delivering value for money and adds value to the OT.

7.3) Typically, respondents reported that if an OT does not have the resource to be directly involved in the project management, MoUs are used to track progress. Whilst not legally binding, MoUs were regularly upheld and allowed the organisation and OT government to work effectively to track and achieve outcomes.

Question 8 - Does any particular fund deliver better value for money, in comparison to others? How/ why?

8.1) Of the direct bid funds, Darwin Plus was perceived as the best value for money by the majority of respondents. It is perceived to give its support to ‘deserving projects’ and have ‘more reasonable bureaucratic demands’ reflecting the limited resources of OTs and allows for greater flexibility throughout the duration of a project.

8.2) Darwin Plus’s requirement to include match funding in addition to core funding was noted as positive, as it was felt that this allowed projects to address OT priorities and have on the ground impact.

8.3) Funding from the EU was generally reported, from those who are eligible, as being administratively burdensome and not flexible enough to address project changes and unforeseen issues.

8.4) Some OTs reported that funding provided by their own governments was sometimes seen as preferable, since it allowed for greater scope in meeting local OT priorities.

8.5) A large number of respondents stated that focusing on evaluating delivery ‘on the ground’ was key to achieving value for money. They emphasised the importance of monitoring and management in the OTs themselves, rather than off-site, to ensure objectives set out in the funding application were effectively upheld.

8.6) It was suggested that a way to maximise value for money would be to include a “lessons learned” assessment which would help pass on knowledge and allow for a longer term evaluation of a project and its long term success.

Question 9 - Do you have any ideas of innovative methods to improve biodiversity and conservation in your region? Do you have any experience of use of innovative methods?

9.1) While some respondents provided examples of innovative initiatives, there was also a concern that funding for innovative methods could be at the expense of funding delivery ‘on the ground’. The general requirement of Darwin Plus to trial new methods posed difficulties for some respondents, given limited capacity and resources and the need to support implementing existing, proven methods. It was suggested that funding criteria should prioritise “expected impacts, rather than innovation for its own sake” (Falkland Islands).

9.2) In some instances, OTs expressed enthusiasm for innovative methods. Innovation was described as “particularly important for OTs with low populations and few staff to carry out ground work. Here innovation and solution finding is key to delivery” (South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute). However, SAERI emphasised “garnering support for a project idea and trialling the methodologies for a larger grant will increase the likelihood of scoping to success rather than piloting to nowhere.”

9.3) The idea of land banking to protect endangered species and partnerships with land owners to protect such species was raised by Anguilla. Furthermore, the potential positive multiplier effect of tying land acquisition with species reintroduction and invasive species control, through an integrated conservation approach, was highlighted by the Cayman Islands. Montserrat suggested offering land grants or other low interest mechanisms to aid the acquisition of land for the purpose of conservation.

9.4) Application or expansion of methods for tackling climate change were highlighted. It was suggested that territories could benefit from access to carbon trading schemes to complement their conservation efforts (BVI). The Cayman Islands lent support to this, keen to explore carbon-based funding and offsetting, as well as international carbon trading locally.

9.5) Ascension Island gave examples of potential innovative technological methods such as new rodent control chemical contraceptives, environmental DNA that could be utilised as a monitoring tool to record species presence from samples in sea water and artificial migration that could be carried out through the translocating of depleted endemic plants.

9.6) Montserrat drew attention to education-based innovative techniques. For instance, a Scholarship Fund could greatly improve biodiversity conservation efforts by encouraging students to pursue career paths in the natural sciences. Sponsorship of sabbaticals of highly qualified personnel to work with and improve OTs Government and NGOs management could help build capacity.

Experience of Innovative Methods

9.7) Experience of innovative methods was wide-ranging. The Central Caribbean Marine Institute (CCMI) has utilised innovative methods in reef-protection. For instance, the Coral Reef Early Warning System (CREWS) focuses on the impact on coral reefs of climate related events such as coral bleaching or approaching storms. Furthermore, a new project to develop a rapid, cost-effective management tool for measuring coral reef health, using fish fin clips as an indicator of trophic complexity, was launched in 2019.

9.8) The BIOT, utilising grant funding provided by the Bertarelli Foundation, has conducted a series of technology trials aimed at improving their surveillance and detection capacity in the enforcement of their MPA. They have further worked with the Blue Belt programme and ZSL to trial use of a drone.

9.9) St Helena National Trust successfully trialled the use of UV light to document the habitat use and population status of the critically endangered Spiky yellow woodlouse. It further partnered with researchers to develop the world’s first ‘deep’ satellite tag, with a crush depth of 6,000m to understand endangered whale sharks in St Helena’s waters. The Trust also helped develop an innovative plastic recycling machine that eliminates marine debris. This has helped to reduce the amount of plastic entering the island’s MPA and subsequently, the amount ingested by megafauna such as whale sharks and rays.

Question 10 - Are there other environmental or climate change programmes in country that also contribute to biodiversity outcomes, including those funded from the budget?

10.1) A number of respondents provided details of ‘in house or on island’ programmes delivering biodiversity objectives. For instance, these could be distributed from OT government or administration funding or be the result of NGO support. Examples include the; Sargassum Management Programme and Lion Fish Response Strategy and Action Plan (Anguilla); Climate Change Trust Fund (British Virgin Islands) and Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, Central Caribbean Marine Institute and Plastic Free Cayman (Cayman Islands).

Case studies

10.2 The British Virgin Islands have established the Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF), partially financed by the Environment and Tourism Improvement Levy (ETIL) collected from incoming visitors to the Territory. Once fully operational, it will focus on biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation and improving infrastructure at visitor sites. The CCTF will be available to NGO, Government and civil society stakeholders.

10.3 The Falkland Islands government currently invests £2.6 million each year (3.25% of Falkland Island government spending) on conservation. This targets illegal fishing; supports scientific research to understand and protect fish stocks, marine and terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity; supports conservation initiatives; implementation of biosecurity measures and funds energy conservation and renewable energy projects.

Question 11 - Have you identified any forms of government funding that could encourage financial investment from other sources (e.g. leveraging for match funding, private investment and academic research funding)?

Match funding

11.1) Overwhelmingly, responses noted that match funding was the most common form of investment, which allowed external funding to be utilised alongside HMG investment. HMG funding was able to be leveraged to secure private funding from individuals, NGOs, corporations, trusts and foundations. It was reported as increasing the likelihood of external funding, since private donors are keen to add to government spending, rather than bear the total burden. Match funding also allowed OTs to fund larger projects, in cases where HMG funding was considered insufficient.

Natural capital

11.2) The idea of utilising a natural capital approach was noted by respondents as a possibility to be explored further. Some respondents noted that this and support in understanding its scope, could be beneficial in promoting new and innovative ways to secure funding from other sources.

JNCC noted that it has already undertaken natural capital assessments with CSSF funding across a number of Caribbean and Atlantic territories in late 2016. The project “pioneered the use of natural capital assessments in several of the UK’s Caribbean and South Atlantic Overseas Territories and built an understanding of the underlying value of biodiversity for economic security and disaster resilience. It also enhanced, through 25YEP related work, capacity to monitor environmental change and integrate environmental evidence into economic policy making and infrastructure planning” (JNCC).

Marketing

11.3) Some respondents highlighted that HMG resources and marketing support to promote the varied and exclusive environments of the OTs could help to attract investment, at relatively low cost.

Infrastructure

11.4) It was suggested that further investment in facilities in the OTs could stimulate external investment.

Question 12. How have biodiversity and biodiversity funding supported wider benefits in your region, such as sustainable economic development?

Economic and societal benefits

12.1) Responses suggested that biodiversity and biodiversity funding have supported a range of wider benefits in the OTs and that they depend to a large extent on their natural resources to support broader economic development and employment. The most widely noted biodiversity benefit by respondents was cited as tourism, particularly marine tourism, contributing to OT economies: Many of the responses highlighted the benefits of biodiversity spending on the lives of OT residents, with biodiversity funding leading to more sustainable employment opportunities:

• RSPB noted that “disproportionately large parts of small island economies depend on their environmental assets. Industries such as tourism, agriculture and fisheries play major roles in domestic finance”

• Gibraltar noted that “collectively we hold a truly staggering amount of biodiversity, which provides us with many goods and services, e.g. fishing, tourism, storm protection, renewable energy supply”

• The Falkland Islands noted that 40% of its GDP originates from its natural resources and that biodiversity projects “all make a significant contribution to the natural-resources part of the economy”

• Anguilla recognised that project funding has helped identify economically viable areas in sectors such as tourism, agriculture and fisheries

• BVI reported that healthy marine ecosystems in the region as a result of funding has directly contributed to sustainable economic development, due to the reliance of BVI’s economy on tourism

• St Helena’s Millennium Forest funding was reported to have “contributed to the provision of jobs, work experience, apprenticeship schemes, overseas training opportunities, conference attendance, upskilling, local and international study options, networking and scientific paper contributions” (St Helena National Trust)

12.2) Respondents also noted that community projects have been established with the support of funds, educating local school children on the importance of the natural environment.

12.3) Some respondents noted the benefits of funding in helping to maintain fisheries, which are a vital source of income for many territories.

Links to climate change

12.4) Biodiversity funding was reported to have helped to promote nature based solutions and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

12.5) Natural capital work by the JNCC in BVI and Anguilla demonstrated the role the natural environment plays in mitigating storm surge impacts on property and infrastructure in the coastal zones. Work in BVI has been able to quantify the monetary benefit, at national and local level, of coastal zone biodiversity (mangroves and nearshore reefs), demonstrating that coral reef systems alone could “provide protection to the minimum value of $74 million per year in avoided costs, with benefits to a wide variety of sectors of society”.

Annex A: List of respondents

1. Anguilla
2. Anguilla National Trust
3. Anguilla Representative in London
4. Ascension
5. Bermuda National Trust
6. Bertarelli Foundation Marine Science Programme
7. Birdlife Cyprus
8. Blue Marine Foundation
9. British Antarctic Survey (BAS)
10. British Antarctic Territory (BAT)
11. British Geological Survey
12. British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)
13. British Virgin Islands (BVI)
14. Catholic Action for Animals
15. Cayman Islands
16. Central Caribbean Marine Institute (CCMI)
17. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)
18. Chagos Conservation Trust
19. Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM)
20. Chester Zoo
21. Environment Systems
22. Falklands Islands
23. Falklands Conservation
24. Fish ‘n Fins and AQUA Montserrat
25. Gibraltar
26. Great British Oceans
27. Marine Management Organisation (MMO)
28. Island conservation for an Island Nation (Joshua Powell)
29. John Ellerman Foundation
30. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)
31. Linda Clarke (Cayman Islands)
32. Marine Conservation Society
33. Montserrat
34. National Oceanography Centre
35. National Trust of the Cayman Islands
36. Natural History Museum.
37. Researches at Oxford University and ZSL
38. RSPB
39. South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI)
40. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI)
41. South Georgia Heritage Trust (SGHT)
42. Sovereign Base Area (Cyprus)
43. St Helena
44. St Helena National Trust
45. Tristan da Cunha
46. Turks and Caicos Islands
47. Turks and Caicos Reef Fund (TCRF)
48. United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA)
49. United Kingdom Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF)
50. University of Exeter
51. University of Oxford, Department of Zoology

Annex B: Funding streams/sources that have benefited Overseas Territories (where identified)

	Darwin Plus **1	EU BEST	CSSF	OT government funding	Other HMG funding **2	Other EU or international funding schemes	Other funding sources
Anguilla	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	DFID	Regional organisations. European Development Fund	Private foundations
Ascension	Yes		Yes	Yes	Natural Environment Research Council funding	European Development Fund	Private foundations and other NGOs funding
BAT	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes through FCO	Natural Environment Research Council funding		Private foundations and other NGOs funding
Bermuda	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes			Private foundations and other NGOs funding
BIOT	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes through FCO	Economic and Social Research Council. Natural Environment Research Council funding		Private foundations and other NGOs funding
British Virgin Islands	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	European Development Fund. European Regional Development Fund. Global Climate Change Alliance	Tourism. Private foundations and other NGOs funding
Cayman Islands	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes		European Development Fund. US Government funding	Local project funding. Private foundations and other NGOs funding. Sponsorship and fundraising. Eco-tourism
SBA Cyprus	Yes		Yes		MOD
Falklands	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes		European Development Fund	Private foundations.UK and US charities.
Gibraltar			Yes	Yes		European Development Fund	Private funding
Montserrat	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	FCO and DFID		Private foundations and other NGOs funding
Pitcairn	Yes		Yes
South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Defra. Natural Environment Research Council		Tourism. Private foundations and other NGOs funding
St Helena	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Defra. Natural Environment Research Council	European Development Fund	# Private foundations and other NGOs funding
Turks and Caicos Islands	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Natural Environment Research Council		Private foundations and other NGOs funding. Donations
Tristan Da Cunha	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Natural Environment Research Council	European Development Fund	Private foundations and other NGOs funding

**1: Includes predecessor schemes

**2: JNCC provide additional project and technical support to the overseas territories.

Annex C: Examples of impact of current funds (Ascension Island)

Source of funding: AIG Core funds

Outcomes achieved:

• ensure compliance with conservation regulations and international obligations, provide informal environmental impact advice to AIG and other island users
• buffer zones free of non-native plant species established and maintained around three protected areas with the help of volunteer work groups. Exploring options to improve rodent control activities.
• preventing the extinction of critically endangered plant species through in situ watering, pest control and non-native plant clearance and the cultivation of ex situ populations to act as an insurance seed source and stock for restoration work. This is undertaken with advice and support from Kew Gardens.
• maintain trails, signs and infrastructure in Green Mountain National Park for the enjoyment, health and well-being of those living on Ascension and tourists. Organise volunteer days and events to encourage people to enjoy the outdoors.
• co-fund seabird team monitoring the ongoing recovery of seabird populations following eradication of feral cats from the mainland in 2004. Investigating causes of decline in sooty tern population and very low fledging success. Exploring how seabird productivity and mortality can be used to investigate health of offshore marine ecosystems and impact of plastic pollution.
• public engagement and volunteering opportunities, education projects, tours and information for tourists, facilitate visits from researchers and partner organisations.

Source of funding: CSSF Blue Belt Programme

Outcomes achieved:

• produce evidence and options paper to support Ascension Council recommendation on designating MPA
• fisheries patrols to enforce fishing licence conditions and respond to reports of illegal fishing activity
• working with MMO to establish an effective response to the threat of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing using remote satellite surveillance
• establishing a system to manage inshore recreational and sports fishing that protects endemic species and complies with ICCAT requirements
• monitoring inshore marine ecosystems and raising public awareness about marine conservation
• developing MPA Management Plan and associated strategies and work plan

Source of funding: Darwin Plus ASIOS project (DPLUS063) - objective to deliver marine research and provide an evidence base to designate the MPA

Outcomes achieved:

• tracking data collected from pelagic fish species and seabirds
• baited underwater video surveys of pelagic predators
• analysis of by-catch in the Atlantic tuna fishery
• economic analysis of the Ascension fishery
• data compiled to provide evidence-base to underpin the designation of the MPA
• Blue Belt Overseas Symposium to celebrate achievements, build collaborations and find solutions to common challenges in future marine management

Source of funding: Darwin Plus Biosecurity Capability project (DPLUS096)

Outcomes achieved:

• developing Ascension’s first biosecurity legislation and establishing robust system for detection, enforcement and surveillance of introduced species
• public information campaign to raise awareness and encourage compliance with new regulations

Source of funding: Blue Marine Foundation

Outcomes achieved:

• monitoring size and productivity of Atlantic’s second largest green turtle nesting area and public engagement work to raise awareness of threats and manage interest with minimal disturbance to the turtles
• plant laboratory fully equipped to allow propagation of endemic plants
• completion of new path to the summit of Green Mountain so visitors can access it safely
• new visitor centre being developed at Long Beach to showcase Ascension’s natural heritage and conservation activities
• reopening of Turtle Ponds as family bathing area
• new science laboratory at island school

Source of funding: RSPB Partnership Agreement

Outcomes achieved:

• co-fund seabird team monitoring the ongoing recovery of seabird populations following eradication of feral cats from the mainland in 2004. Investigating causes of decline in sooty tern population and very low fledging success. Exploring how seabird productivity and mortality can be used to investigate health of offshore marine ecosystems and impact of plastic pollution.
• co-fund biosecurity officer to develop new legislation and implement inspections and public awareness campaign

Source of funding: EU BEST

Outcomes achieved:

• Ecological assessment of Ascension’s seamounts to inform MPA designation

1. The “Blue Belt” are of over 4 million square kilometres of marine protected areas around the British Indian Ocean Territory, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha. ↩