The following is taken from a report just published entitled “Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories – Environmental Audit Committee” under the subtitle  “Re Cayman Islands”

Annex 1 Visit to Cayman Islands

On 17 April 2013, the Committee resolved to send two Members as Rapporteurs to examine how sustainable development is practised in the Cayman Islands. We are grateful to the Government of the Cayman Islands, former Governor Taylor, Cayman Islands National Trust and the Cayman Islands Department of Environment for facilitating our visit, which took place in June 2013. The Committee’s two Rapporteurs were Joan Walley MP (Chair) and Dr Matthew Offord MP.

Programme

Monday 17 June

08:30-10:30  Mastic forest guided tour.

10:30-13:00  Visit to Botanic Park, including Blue Iguana Recovery Programme. Meeting with Programme Director, Mr Fred Burton.

14:00-16:30  Meeting with Cayman Islands National Trust. Executive Director Christina McTaggart; Programmes Director Mr Paul Watler; Field Officer Mr Stuart Mailer.

16:30-18:30  Tour of East End via Queen’s Highway. Tour included Dr Shetty hospital, proposed Bodden Town waste management facility, Collier’s wilderness reserve and less developed areas of Grand Cayman.

Tuesday 18 June

09:00-13:00   Visit to Cayman Islands Department of Environment coral reef management and marine research programmes, including North Sound and Little Sound environmental zone, central mangrove wetland and Rum Point channel.

14:00-17:00  Meetings with Cayman Islands Department of Environment Director Ms Gina Ebanks-Petrie and Deputy Director Mr Tim Austin.

Wednesday 19 June

09:00-10:00  West Side marine park tour and examination of development issues in the Seven Mile Beach corridor.

10:00-12:00  Tour of Cayman Turtle Farm.

14:00-16:00  Tour of Seven Mile Beach corridor examining road closures and wetland/marina/hotel redevelopment.

18:00-20:00   Reception at Government House hosted by Governor Taylor. Guests included Premier McLaughlin, other Members of the Cayman Government and civil society.

Thursday 20 June

06:00-19:00  Visit to Little Cayman and Cayman Brac.

On Little Cayman, visits to the National Trust booby pond Ramsar site, Department of Environment facilities, proposed development sites, Bloody Bay marine park, Southern Cross low impact resort, iguana nesting habitat, tarpon pond and waste management facility.

On Cayman Brac, visits to south-side wetlands, the Sister Islands rock iguana habitat, lighthouse nature trail, Brac booby nesting site, Brac parrot reserve and waste management facility.

Friday 21 June

9.00-10.00  Meeting with Department for Environmental Health Director Mr Roydell Carter to discuss proposed new waste management facility.

10.00-12.00  Tour of existing waste management facility.

14.00-15:00  Meeting with Governor Duncan Taylor and Mr Tim Colley, Deputy Director of Overseas Territories, FCO.

15.00-16:00  Meeting with Cayman Islands Government, including Premier Alden McLaughlin.

16.00-17:00  Meeting with Cayman Islands Minister for Environment, Mr Wayne Panton.

Observations

The Environmental Audit Committee is a Select Committee of the House of Commons. As such, we scrutinise and make recommendations to the UK Government. We have no remit to make direct recommendations to UKOTs Governments. That said, we were impressed by the new Cayman Islands Government’s aspiration to protect the environment and therefore have a number of observations following our visit.

LEGISLATION

The National Conservation Bill, which was designed to address gaps in environmental governance in the Cayman Islands, was first proposed in 2000. This legislation will protect the Cayman Islands’ most threatened wildlife. The Bill was reintroduced in 2007, but despite its enactment having been a stated aim of successive Governments, it was stalled in the political process until 2013. When we visited in June 2013, the new Cayman Islands Government expressed its determination to enact that legislation. The Cayman Islands Government translated that aspiration into reality in December 2013, when the Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly voted unanimously to enact the National Conservation Bill. We congratulate the Cayman Islands Government on that historic achievement.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION FUND

An Environment Protection Fund, which is currently worth more than £40 million, has been collected by levying an environmental tax on visitors to the Cayman Islands. To date, almost none of this has been used for environmental protection and the vast majority of the fund remains unspent. The National Conservation Bill includes spending guidelines for this fund. We regret the lack of action by the UK Government to persuade the Cayman Islands Government to use this fund for its intended purpose. If the fund were used for its intended purpose, it would allow UK funding for environmental protection, such as Darwin Plus, to be directed to other UKOTs which have more limited resources than the Cayman Islands and which do not have access to their own environment funds.

CAYMAN TURTLE FARM

We visited not only the turtle-based theme park, but the behind-the-scenes turtle breeding tanks at Cayman Turtle Farm. We heard that this state-run facility currently attracts an annual subsidy from the Cayman Islands Government that is four times greater than the annual budget of the Cayman Islands Department of Environment and 20 times greater than funding for the Cayman Islands National Trust. Cayman Turtle Farm does not farm wild turtles; it breeds ‘domestic’ turtles for consumption by Caymanians and release into the sea. It currently holds 9,000 turtles. In the past year, 750 turtles were slaughtered for human consumption and 158 were released into the wild. In August 2012, some 300 green turtles were found dead after a leak from a seawater pipe left them to dry out in a holding container.[85] We observed large turtles attempting to swim from the sea up the sewage outflow channel from the farm. It is conceivable that those were female turtles which had been released from the farm and which were following their natural instinct to return to where they were hatched to lay their eggs. While turtle was apparently a traditional cuisine in the Cayman Islands, there remains some dispute whether the Cayman Turtle Farm is creating an artificial market in the tourist industry by encouraging visitors to eat a meat that the majority of indigenous people now shun. We heard that if ‘domestic’ turtles were not farmed, wild turtles would be poached. However, the Cayman Turtle Farm introduced a 25% price decrease on 1 September 2013 for turtle meat, contradicting that assertion.[86] The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) expressed its concerns about this facility.[87] We heard that the Cayman Islands Government will engage in dialogue with WSPA in January 2014, which we welcome.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

We were concerned about waste management practices in the Cayman Islands. We saw old refrigerators being crushed with no regard to CFCs and recycling that ranged from minimal to non-existent. The waste management site on Grand Cayman appeared to be inadequately lined and waste may be seeping into the water table.[88] The facilities on Cayman Brac and Little Cayman were even less convincing. The facility on Little Cayman was lined, but the lining had been fractured by the unregulated burning of rubbish. The facility on Cayman Brac was unlined and waste appeared to be seeping into a nearby lake.[89] Local authorities in the UK have the expertise to address those issues. Cayman Islands Government and the UK Government might wish to consider developing a partnership with a UK local authority to share best practice.

EUROPEAN UNION FUNDING

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

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

Other excerpts from the Report

8.  Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) must empower its staff to visit the UKOTs to meet elected representatives and civil servants and to examine environmental issues in person in order effectively to discharge their responsibilities. (Paragraph 9)

9.  The FCO must prioritise greater involvement by representatives from the UKOTs in setting the agenda at future [Joint Ministerial Councils]. (Paragraph 10)

10.  The UK must fulfil its core environmental obligations to the UN under the CBD in order to maintain its international reputation as an environmentally responsible nation state. The FCO must agree a timetable to extend ratification of the CBD with all inhabited UKOTs where this has not yet taken place. That may entail preparations in the UKOTs, which must be clearly timetabled. The FCO must immediately extend ratification of the CBD to all uninhabited UKOTs. (Paragraph 19)

11.  The UK Fifth National Report to the CBD, which must be submitted by 31 May 2014, must include comprehensive entries on biodiversity protection in those UKOTs to which the CBD has been extended—British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. (Paragraph 21)

12.  The FCO must immediately contact the UNECE to ascertain whether the UNECE believes that the UK has extended ratification of the Aarhus Convention to all the UKOTs. We recommend that the FCO reviews its standard procedure for excluding the UKOTs from the stipulations of international treaties under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention and consider introducing a more transparent procedure. (Paragraph 25)

13.  In light of the FCO Minister’s commitment to enhanced transparency and the inadequacy of the planning regimes in many UKOTs , the FCO must agree with UKOTs Governments a timetable to extend ratification of the Aarhus Convention. (Paragraph 25)

14.  Defra must restate its commitment to Environment Charters and use them to deliver its CBD commitments in the UKOTs. Darwin Plus funding should be linked to compliance with the terms of Environment Charters. (Paragraph 27)

15.  In addition to agreeing a timetable with all UKOTs Governments to ratify the CBD, Defra must draw together UKOTs Governments, NGOs such as the RSPB, civil society and research institutions to agree a comprehensive research programme to catalogue the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Paragraph 31)

16.  Defra must work with UKOTs Governments on developing planning regimes which value and protect natural capital and which promote sustainable tourism industries and economies. Accordingly, the FCO must direct its Governors strongly to advocate the introduction of effective development controls. In particular, the Governors in Anguilla and Montserrat must prioritise the passage of stalled environmental legislation which, if enacted, would at least provide baseline standards on development control. (Paragraph 38)

17.  Defra has increased spending on protecting biodiversity in the UKOTs since 2007-08, but a further step change in Darwin Plus funding is required adequately to address the scale of the UK’s international responsibilities to protect biodiversity. (Paragraph 39)

18.  The FCO must advance the proposition in negotiations in the European Council that LIFE+ funding should be extended to schemes that protect biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Paragraph 40)

19.  The FCO must press the European Commission to build on the pilot and implement a permanent BEST scheme. (Paragraph 41)

Protecting biodiversity

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

The UKOTs support a diverse range of unique ecosystems and habitats, sustaining a large number of rare and threatened species. It is estimated that over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is located in its Overseas Territories, with more priority ecosystem types (including mangrove, coral, sea-grass beds, peatlands etc) occurring in the UKOTs than in the metropolitan UK.[46]

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

Monitoring

30. It is impossible accurately to calculate the number of globally threatened species in the UKOTs, due to the lack of basic survey data. Data are usually available at a population level for vertebrate species, such as sea birds, but presence or absence surveys are often the only available data for plant and invertebrate species. The available data on marine biodiversity are less developed than those for terrestrial biodiversity.[48] The RSPB pointed out that many groups of taxa, especially terrestrial invertebrates, lower plants, and marine species have not been well researched or been subject to international threat classification. It is therefore impossible to make an assessment of the status of much of the biodiversity of the Territories. At present, threatened species in the UKOTs may be in danger of global extinction without awareness in the UK or internationally. The St. Helena Olive Tree’s (Nesiota eliptica) extinction in 2003 provides a clear example of the impact of this lack of knowledge.[49]

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

Threats

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

On Pitcairn Islands, a total of 466 species have been recorded . Of these, 146 have been assessed against the Red List criteria, and 41 of these are globally threatened: this is almost a third of those species assessed. Of the 15 endemic species assessed, all were found to be globally threatened. Only half of St Helena’s endemic plants, and only 2 of its 400+ endemic invertebrate species, have ever had their threat status assessed, so many of these could be on the brink of disappearing for ever.[51]

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

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

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

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

By ensuring that the natural environment and the ecosystem services it provides are intrinsically valued by Territory Governments we can ensure that development and growth in the UKOTs is sustainable, green and beneficial for their inhabitants.[55]

Sustainable development is especially important in those UKOTs that rely on tourism, which depends on the maintenance of natural capital. The 2012 White Paper recognised that tourism is a major part of the economy of most Territories. It is important to develop this industry but also to consider carefully the environmental impact of proposed development so that the coasts, seas and wildlife that attract tourists are not damaged.[56]

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

35. Managed sustainable development is contingent on the maintenance of an effective planning regime. A recent assessment of development controls in the UKOTs by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development and the RSPB observed that five Territories have no legal requirement to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before permitting major development proposals. Three of the more populous Territories are also lacking strategic development plans to identify respective areas for building and conservation and prevent uncontrolled development from spreading across their most valuable landscapes, coastlines and habitats.[58]

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

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

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

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

Environmental funding

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

EUROPEAN UNION FUNDING

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

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

The whole report can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/332/33202.htm