Consultation outcome

Summary of responses

Updated 22 February 2024

Foreword 

Defra ran a call for evidence from 15 December 2022 to 24 March 2023 to gather views on the 2009 Overseas Territories (OTs) biodiversity strategy, which was last revised in 2014.

Defra asked for views on the development of the new biodiversity strategy, and what should be included to make the new strategy most effective in supporting OT biodiversity.

This document summarises evidence collected from respondents to the call for evidence. The analysis given in this summary is based on responses to both closed and open questions.

Overview and background

The 14 UK OTs are global biodiversity hotspots. Spread across all seven major oceans and seas, the OTs support every one of Earth’s major ecosystem types, from polar tundra to mangrove forests. This rich diversity of habitats supports a host of endemic species – those found nowhere else on earth.

With pressures on global biodiversity increasing, we want to do more to safeguard the future of habitats and species in the OTs. In line with our commitment to halt and reverse the decline of biodiversity, we have committed to develop a new, living, OT biodiversity strategy. The strategy will be guided jointly by the priorities and visions of the UK government and the fourteen OTs and developed as a tool to guide future investment in protecting and restoring OT biodiversity.

Defra, working in close partnership with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), has been leading an extensive programme of stakeholder engagement to develop the new strategy. The call for evidence was published to complement the workshops in the UK and in-territory and provide a space for stakeholders not identified to us in our mapping to submit their views online.

Responses summarised below will be analysed together with information sought in response to questionnaires, via remote and on-island workshops, and in discussions with wider stakeholders to develop the new strategy, which we aim to publish in 2024.

Objectives

The objectives of the call for evidence were to identify limitations of the 2009 UK OT biodiversity strategy, and inform HMG of the priorities, visions, and objectives to be captured in the refreshed OT biodiversity strategy.

This call for evidence asked the following questions:

1. Would you like your results to be confidential?
2. Who do you represent?
3. Where are you based?
4. If answered (“UK Overseas Territories”) to question 3; which territory do you permanently reside in?
5. In what way are you involved in biodiversity conservation in the OTs?
6. Were you familiar with the current OT biodiversity strategy (published in 2009) prior to this call for evidence?
7. Have you previously used and or referred to the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy?
8. If answered yes to question 7; how have you used the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy?
9. Below are the strategic priorities of the current strategy. Please indicate which of the strategic priorities you think are still relevant to biodiversity conservation in the OTs? Please select those that apply.
   • obtaining data on the location and status of biodiversity interests and the human activities affecting biodiversity to inform the preparation of policies and management plans (including baseline survey and subsequent monitoring)
   • preventing the establishment of invasive alien species and eradicating or controlling species that have already become established
   • developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation that are consistent with the principles of sustainable development
   • developing tools to value ecosystem services to inform sustainable development policies and practices
   • developing ecosystem-based initiatives for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment
10. Are there any other high-level priorities that should be included in the new OT biodiversity strategy?
11. What do you think the limitations of the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy are?
12. What do you think would make a new OT biodiversity strategy more effective? Please structure your answer under the following headings where appropriate.

• structure and format of the strategy
• support and or commitments from or between UK government and the OTs
• monitoring and evaluation of the strategy
• other comments on how to make the strategy most useful and effective

The last question asked: do you have any further comments or suggestions relating to a new OT biodiversity strategy?

Answers to each individual question can be found in Annex 2.

Responses 

The call for evidence received 33 responses. Most responses (32) were received through the online portal of Citizen Space: one response was submitted by email.

This included:

• 22 respondents from organisations or non-governmental organisations, including 6 organisations based in the OTs
• 4 respondents from OT governments
• 4 respondents from academia or education
• 2 respondents from a government department or arms-length body
• 1 respondent from the private sector

A full list of respondents can be found at Annex 1.

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond and share their views, suggestions, and priorities on the matter. All responses will be considered as the new strategy is developed.

Methodology 

The questions in the call for evidence were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Open-ended questions were analysed using inductive coding; raw data was interpreted to generate themes for analysis.

Each theme was only recorded as one reference per answer and answers may have multiple coded themes where applicable. Annex 2 includes the themes identified for each question. These are marked in quotation marks in the summary of responses.

Summary of findings

The consultation included 13 questions asking for views and suggestions on the development of a new OT biodiversity strategy. Over 50% of respondents answered each question. The consultation consisted of three overarching themes aligned with the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy:

1. Involvement in biodiversity management in the OTs.
2. Views on the current OT biodiversity strategy.
3. Priorities for the development of a new biodiversity strategy.

There was limited evidence that the current biodiversity was used regularly by stakeholders. Of the 52% of respondents that stated they had previously referred to the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy, the majority (36%) reported using the strategy as a reference document for work. Other uses reported including aiding in delivery, funding applications, education, or report writing.

Respondents reported the following strategic priorities of the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy remain relevant to biodiversity conservation in the OTs:

• obtaining data on the status of biodiversity interests and relevant human activities to inform policies and management plans (100%)
• preventing the establishment of invasive alien species and controlling already-established species (97%)
• developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation consistent with the principles of sustainable development (94%)
• developing ecosystem-based initiatives for conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment (88%)
• developing tools to value ecosystem services to inform sustainable development (79%)

Additional priorities to be included in the new biodiversity strategy included restoration, protection, conservation, capacity building, increased funding, training, opportunities, resources, and technology. 18% of respondents highlighted the need to include stakeholders and OT governments in the development of the new biodiversity strategy.

Multiple limitations of the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy were raised. Common areas of concern were:

• the lack of realistic goals, targets, specificity, timelines, and regional differences (raised by 42% of respondents)
• a lack of guidance on delivery and meeting milestones (42%)
• a lack of OT involvement (30%)
• a lack of funding (18%)
• a lack of ambition (15%)

Other responses mentioned the strategy was outdated, with a lack of clarity, inclusivity, and ineffective format.

When asked about improving the structure and format, respondents suggested more stakeholder and OT government involvement in developing the new strategy (36%), including co-design and consideration of specific needs of each territory. Other suggestions included focusing on delivery, milestones, and implementation plans (27%), making the structure SMART and adaptive (18%), and improving clarity, language, and inclusivity.

When asked about how government support could be made more effective in the new strategy, respondents raised the need for more funding (42%), clarity including around commitment, support, responsibilities and expectations from the UK and OTs (21%), greater communication between stakeholders (15%) and greater OT government and stakeholder involvement in development of the strategy.

Respondents suggested monitoring and evaluation processes could be improved via review processes (36%), OT government and stakeholder involvement in the development of the strategy (21%), recognising local capacity and minimising the burden on OT governments (12%), or digitalising the process (6%).

Further suggestions for improving the OT biodiversity strategy included ensuring it is relevant to all stakeholders, targets are agreed with the OTs, knowledge-sharing between OT departments, stakeholders, and the UK government, and the need for more funding.

Some answers referenced other strategies, laws and policies should be considered, including programmes on climate change, pollution, and marine policy. Other answers mentioned research development, models, technology, and examples of other strategies that could provide useful templates.

Summary of responses by question

Questions 1 to 5 asked respondents about their background in biodiversity in Overseas Territories (OTs). Questions asked respondents about their location, representation, and involvement.

Question 1 asked whether the respondents wanted their responses to be confidential. All 33 (100%) respondents submitted a response of ‘no’ to this question.

Question 2 asked who respondents were representing. All 33 respondents submitted a response to this question.

22 (67%) reported that they represented an ‘organisation’ or ‘non-governmental organisation.’

4 (12%) reported that they represented an ‘Overseas Territory government’.

4 (12%) reported that they were from ‘academia or education’.

There were 6 other responses that fell in the ‘individual or member of public’, ‘private sector’, ‘UK government department or arms-length body’ or ‘other’ categories.

Question 3 asked where respondents were based. All 33 respondents submitted an answer to this question.

21 (64%) reported that they were based in the ‘UK’.

10 (30%) reported that they were based in a ‘UK OT’ and 2 (6%) answered ‘other’.

Question 4 asked respondents based in a UK OT which territory they reside in.

11 respondents answered this question, 22 did not.

In question 3 only 10 respondents reported that they were based in a UK OT, this difference is because one respondent answered ‘other’ to question 3 but then selected a specific OT in question 4.

3 (9%) reported their territory as the ‘Falkland Islands’.

2 (6%) reported their territory as ‘Bermuda’.

There was 1 (3%) respondent for each of; ‘Ascension Island’, ‘Anguilla’, ‘Bermuda’, ‘Gibraltar’, ‘Montserrat’, ‘St Helena Island’ and ‘Turks and Caicos Islands’.

Question 5 asked respondents how they were involved with biodiversity conservation in the OTs. The question was an open-ended question, so responses were inductively coded. All respondents answered the question (33, 100%), some respondents gave answers that fell into multiple coded themes.

15 (46%) gave a response that fell into the ‘work with government organisation or department’ coded theme, these responses referred to working alongside the government without direct employment.

6 (18%) were directly employed by a ‘government organisation or department’.

12 (36%) reported that they were involved in ‘research and development’ and 12 (36%) were involved in ‘project management or consultancy’.

6 (18%) were coded as being involved in ‘education’ and 6 (18%) were coded as having an interest in biodiversity through their ‘academic institution or museum’.

5 (15%) submitted a response that mentioned involvement in a ‘non-governmental organisation’, 8 (24%) submitted responses that mentioned any form of ‘environmental group’ that did not fit in with the other coded themes.

9 (27%) mentioned involvement with any form of ‘trust or foundation or society’ in their response.

Other responses related to ‘public interest’, land management (‘manage land or area’), marine conservation (‘marine’) and terrestrial conservation (‘terrestrial’).

Questions 6 to 9 asked respondents about the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy.

Question 6 asked respondents if they were familiar with the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy prior to the call for evidence. All respondents answered the question.

25 (75%) submitted an answer of ‘yes’ to the question, meaning they were familiar with the strategy.

7 (21%) submitted an answer of ‘no’ to the question, meaning they were not familiar with the strategy.

1 (3%) was unsure.

Question 7 asked if respondents had used or referred to the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy before. All respondents answered the question.

17 (52%) answered ‘yes’, they had used or referred to the strategy before.

14 (42%) responded ‘no’ and 2 (6%) were unsure.

Question 8 asked respondents how they have used the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy.

18 respondents answered and 15 respondents gave no answer. The question was an open-ended question and so responses have been inductively coded, some answers fit into multiple coded themes.

12 (36%) responses reported that the strategy had been used as a reference document for work.

5 (15%) answered that the strategy was used as an aid in delivery.

4 (12%) used the strategy to aid in the process of applying to Darwin Plus.

The remaining responses used the strategy in either education, consultation or report writing. There was one answer that was coded as not applicable because the answer provided was not relevant to the question.

Question 9 presented respondents with the 5 strategic priorities of the 2009 OT biodiversity strategy and asked them which they thought were still relevant to biodiversity conservation in the OTs.

Respondents selected the priorities they agreed were still relevant, respondents could choose all priorities if applicable. All respondents answered this question.

33 (100%) thought that ‘obtaining data on the location and status of biodiversity interests and the human activities affecting biodiversity to inform the preparation of policies and management plans (including baseline survey and subsequent monitoring)’ is still important.

32 (97%) think that ‘preventing the establishment of invasive alien species and eradicating or controlling species that have already become established’, is still important.

31 (94%) think that ‘developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation that are consistent with the principles of sustainable development’, is still important.

26 (79%) think that ‘developing tools to value ecosystem services to inform sustainable development policies and practices’, is still important.

29 (88%) think that ‘developing ecosystem-based initiatives for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment’, is still important.

Questions 10 to 13 asked respondents about the development of the new biodiversity strategy, questions asked about what should be included and how to make the strategy more effective.

Question 10 asked respondents if there were any high-level priorities that they think should be included in the new OT biodiversity strategy. 30 respondents gave a response to the question. The question was open-ended, and responses were inductively coded, some respondents gave answers that fell into multiple coded themes.

14 (42%) mentioned that restoration, protection, conservation, or resilience was important or should be considered in the new strategy.

8 (24%) referred to building capacity and or capability, responses referred to building capacity via increased funding, training, opportunities, resources and more.

9 (27%) referred to modelling or technology in their response, answers referred to the potential use of new modelling and technology to further understanding or knowledge.

9 (27%) referred to the importance of climate change impacts or mitigation and 8 (24%) included reference to invasive species or diseases.

8 (24%) made specific reference to marine, ocean or deep-sea issues and initiatives and 6 (18%) made specific reference to land or terrestrial issues and initiatives.

6 (18%) referenced the need to include stakeholders and OT governments more in the development of the new biodiversity strategy.

6 (18%) referenced another relevant policy, programme, law, or act in their answer, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, key biodiversity areas and obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Question 11 asked respondents what they thought the limitations of the 2009 biodiversity strategy were. The question is open-ended and therefore responses have been inductively coded, some respondents gave answers that fell into multiple coded categories. All 33 (100%) respondents answered the question.

14 (42%) referred to limitations in the focus and or content of the strategy such as a lack of realistic goals, targets, specificity and timelines, or failure to consider regional differences relating to international agreements and socio-economic dimensions.

14 (42%) mentioned issues surrounding delivery, specific answers included a lack of guidance on how to deliver work and meet deadlines or milestones.

10 (30%) mentioned limitations surrounding a lack of stakeholder and OT involvement, noting a consequent disconnect from the delivery mechanisms located in territories.

6 (18%) mentioned funding or a lack of funding as a limitation, 5 (15%) mentioned a lack of ambition as a limitation and 5 (15%) answered that the current strategy is outdated.

Other responses also mentioned limitations including a lack of clarity, hard to understand language and a lack of inclusivity. Issues with format were raised as well as unclear and misplaced responsibility.

Questions 12a to d asked respondents what they thought would make the new biodiversity strategy more effective, the questions are open ended and have been inductively coded.

Question 12a asked respondents about how the structure and format could be made more effective in the new strategy.

26 respondents answered the question.

12 (36%) suggested that stakeholders and OT governments need to be more involved in the development of the new strategy, for example through co-design and ensuring it considers the specific needs of each territory (for example, supporting and aligning with local strategies) alongside ambitions for the territories as a whole.

9 (27%) responded that delivery needed to be a focus, responses referenced the need for timelines, milestones, and action or implementation plans, as well as clear delineation of where responsibilities lie.

6 (18%) suggested that a new structure needs to be followed for the new strategy, some respondents suggested specific structures, such as aligning, where relevant, with the Kunming-Montreal priority areas and the post 2020 targets and making it SMART as well as adaptive.

4 (12%) referenced the need to improve clarity, language, or inclusivity in the new strategy, to ensure it is locally accessible to a wide range of stakeholders and society.

Other responses did not specifically answer the question, gave no comment, or suggested more data, evidence or research should be used in the new strategy (with some specific examples provided).

Question 12b asked respondents about how government support could be made more effective in the new strategy. 28 respondents answered the question. 14 (42%) referenced the need for more funding, more sustainable and long-term funding, or a clearer funding structure.

7 (21%) referenced the need for more clarity, for example around commitments, support, roles, responsibilities and expectations from the UK and the OTs.

5 (15%) referenced the desire to have greater communication between stakeholders, 5 (15%) wanted greater stakeholder and OT government involvement in the strategy development.

Other answers referenced the Blue Belt programme (for example, emphasising how this work should be continued long term, and that long term funding commitments are ensured), asked for more general support from the UK government, suggested that more data, research and evidence would improve the strategy or suggested a new structure for the strategy.

Question 12c asked respondents how the monitoring and evaluation process could be made more effective.

27 respondents answered the question. 12 (36%) suggested a process to review progress should be put in place, the timescales suggested differed.

7 (21%) suggested stakeholders and OT departments should be more involved in the development of the strategy.

4 (12%) suggested the burden on OT governments should be minimised in the new strategy (for example, around reporting, therefore recognising local capacity), 2 (6%) suggested this could be done by digitalizing the process.

Other answers referenced the need for clarity, a new structure, capacity building and the need to share knowledge.

Question 12d asked respondents to provide any other comments on how to make the new strategy more effective. 25 respondents answered the question.

7 (21%) called for more clarity and inclusivity in the new strategy, for example ensuring that it is relevant to all stakeholders and that any targets are agreed with the OTs.

7 (21%) suggested knowledge should be shared between stakeholders, OT departments, and the UK Government, for example with more emphasis on education, communication and participation, cross-territory learning and sharing of best practice.

7 (21%) suggested a new tool or idea that could benefit the new strategy, for example, developing a communications plan for the strategy and using ambassadors, and 6 (18%) wanted greater stakeholder and OT involvement in its development.

Other answers referenced the need for more funding or suggested other strategies, laws and policies that should be considered, including programmes on climate change, pollution, or the existing Blue Belt programme. One answer referenced the Blue Belt programme noting that annual spending should be published and circulated.

Question 13 asked respondents to provide any further comments or suggestions relating to the OT biodiversity strategy. The question was open-ended and so responses have been inductively coded, some answers fit into multiple coded categories. 24 respondents answered the question.

9 (27%) encouraged increased stakeholder and OT engagement.

8 (24%) suggested the priorities need further development and more specificity, or that ambition should be raised.

5 (15%) gave a response that mentioned research development, models, technology, or evidence.

5 (15%) referred to the need for capacity building or funding.

3 (9%) mentioned that they felt positive about the new strategy or were committed to its development.

3 (9%) referred to the importance of the Blue Belt Programme and marine protection.

Other responses included examples of other strategies that could provide useful templates and referenced the need to be more inclusive.