The Bermuda National Trust has launched a scathing attack on a far-reaching report by a renowned world conservation lobby.

They are angry that they were snubbed in the preparation of the report by the World Wildlife Fund on the state of environment in all British overseas territories, including Bermuda.

They are expected to send a stern response to the UK-based lobby, along with the Environment Ministry, which is also annoyed that it was not consulted during the research.

And as a result senior Government Environment officials are concerned the report -- which was compiled by returned questionnaires from territories and contact with selected conservation bodies -- does not present a true picture of the state of the Island's ecosystem.

National Trust director Amanda Outerbridge said: "We are disappointed not to have had any input into this report.

"The National Trust, Bermuda Biological Station for Research, Aquarium and Zoo Society have been working for the Island's environmental protection for years.

"And yet the first we heard of this questionnaire was in *ERROR: Undefined Command: char54 (char54) The Royal Gazette .'' The report, "Overlooking Britain's greatest biodiversity'' looks at the Island's ecosystem and what is being done to protect it. It lists areas where the Island is lacking in safeguards and criticises conservation efforts.

It is understood a three-page response from the Environment Ministry is being sent to the UK, to point out what officials say are "glaring misconceptions in a "very shallow document''.

Although the report questionnaire was never destined for Government departments, Bermuda Environment department staff believe many of the disparaging comments should have been included in the correct context.

And they are keen to point out that the report appeared to rely too heavily on a few sources for information and failed to include much of the good environmental work being done on the Island.

The National Trust points out the report is more a compilation of responses without analysis.

"It gives some interesting feedback. But no one should be under the illusion that it is a comprehensive study of any kind.'' Ms Outerbridge said some of the accusations levelled at the Government were warranted, but also said there was a need for the public to take urgent heed of the warnings on the fragile nature of the biodiversity.

National Trust slams lack of consultation Bermuda had not planned properly for future development and the Trust had urged the Government to plan on many important issues, she said.

"We certainly agree with the general concerns expressed about Bermuda,'' she said. "Which add up to a lack of general concern for Bermuda's environment.'' An indication of this was the omission of Bermuda as an Overseas Territory as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which did include Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, she said.

"We can only assume that there was no one in Bermuda's Government who felt this was important.'' There was also important to trumpet the good work being done on the Island, particularly in the area of fisheries management and ocean research via the Bermuda Biological Station for Research, she said.

The World Wildlife Fund hit back at the accusations, saying the document was intended to raise the issues for discussions.

It was always designed to be compiled from information supplied by non-Governmental organisations, and thus the Bermuda Environment Ministry were intentionally not asked to contribute.

But the organisation could not answer why the Bermuda National Trust were excluded from the process.

Speaking from London, WWF international conservation officer, Sally Nicholson, said: "This was never meant to be the final word, it was meant to be provocative, to get people talking about it.

"It aimed to raise issues, we have done that and we are very happy to hear comments from people.'' Ms Nicholson declined to say if there would be a follow-up document, including comments and corrections from territories, to rectify initial mistakes, but said there was a corresponding report by the British Government due on the same subject.

She defended the method of information gathering, saying they had to rely upon those organisations who they had had previous contact with, and did not have the resources to visit each country.