AGENDA
Meeting of the Environmental Committee
May 14 th 2015 at 8.00am Fisheries Conference Room Secretariat
Distribution List:-
Hon. Mr Michael Poole, MLA Hon. Mrs Phyl Rendell, MLA Representative, Falkland Islands Tourist Board Representative, Rural Business Association Representative, Department of Agriculture Representative, Falkland Islands Fishing Companies Association Representative, Falklands Conservation Mr Tim Miller, Community member Mr Brian Summers, Community member
Environmental Officer Head of Environmental Planning Representative, South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute
HE The Governor Principal Crown Counsel
Environmental Committee
8.00am, May 14th 2015
Fisheries Conference Room, Department of Fisheries, Stanley
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 24 th September 2014
4. Matters Arising:
4.1 Cape Pembroke Road Verbal Update
4.2 Stanley Common Ordinance Verbal Update
4.3 Earth Day Verbal Update
5. Biodiversity Strategy Review Workshop Report Attached
6. Biological Control of European Earwigs Report Attached
7. BEST Funding Announcement Note Attached
8. Research Licence Guidance Review Report Attached
9. Invasives Plants Policy Paper Report Attached
10. Weed Control Work Programme Report Attached
11. Plastic Bag Initiative Paper Report Attached
12. Application for Permission to visit Beauchene Island Report Attached
13. Papers of interest (available on request from EO):
13.1 Rat eradication and the resistance and resilience of passerine bird assemblages in the Falkland Islands – Mickey Tabak
13.2 Eradication of invasive alien vertebrates in the UK Overseas Territories A prioritised framework for island restoration to enable the UK Overseas Territories' Biodiversity Strategy
14. Date of next meeting
TBC Note: There are no exempt minutes from the previous meeting nor exempt items from this meeting.
Biodiversity Strategy Review Workshop
18th May 2015
Chamber of Commerce
Agenda
Day 1
Time: Session: Facilitation: Format:
8.30 – 9.00 Arrival – tea and coffee - -
1. 9.00 – 9.15 Outline of review, and workshop Nick Rendell Presentations aims Andy Stanworth Maria Taylor
2. 9.15 – 10.00 FI Biodiversity Strategy Nick Rendell Presentation Summary and Discussion
3. 10.00 – 10.30 FI State of the Environment Report Nick Rendell Presentation Overview and Discussion
10.30 – 10.50 Smoko
4. 10.50 – 12.30 Biodiversity Strategy Nick Rendell Presentation Methodologies/Principles/ Andy Stanworth and Exercise Assumptions Maria Taylor
12.30 – 13.15 Lunch
5. 13.15 – 15.00 Biodiversity Action Planning Andy Stanworth Presentation and Exercise
15.00- 15.20 Wrap up
Day 2
Time: Session: Facilitation: Format:
8.30 – 9.00 Arrival – tea and coffee - -
9.00 – 9.10 Recap and days objectives Nick Presentation
1. 9.10 – 10.20 Threat Prioritisation Megan Tierney Presentation and Exercise 10.20 – 10.40 Smoko
2. 10.40 – 11.40 Funding Strategies Nick/Maria Presentation and Exercise
3. 11.40 -12.30 Convention on Biological Diversity Megan Presentation (CBD) Principles and Exercise
12.30 Lunch
Day 3
Time: Session: Facilitation: Format:
8.30 – 9.00 Arrival – tea and coffee - -
1. 9.00 – 9.30 Welcome + round table + BEST Maria Presentation objectives and background and Discussion
2. 9.45 – 10.20 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Maria Presentation methodology and Discussion
10.20 – 10.40 Smoko
3. 10.40 -11.30 KBA Continued Maria Exercise and Feedback
11.30 – 12.00 Report back
12.00 - 12.45 Lunch
4. 12.45 – 13.45 Species and habitat data collection - Maria Presentation and Exercise
5. 13.45 – 15.00 Funding Nick Presentation Maria and Discussion
6. 15.00 – 15.30 Next steps and workshop Nick Presentation evaluation/feedback Maria and Discussion
Session Content Outline:
Day 1
Session 1. Review workshop outline and context. Project contributions from Falklands Conservation (FC) and SAERI
Session 2. Summary of FI Biodiversity Strategy
Session 3. Methodologies/Principles/Assumptions of Biodiversity Strategy • Threat-based Strategy • Ecosystem Approach • Priority Species • Potential restructure of Strategy as ‘Biodiversity Framework’.
Session 4. State of the Environment Report.
• Headlines/Chapters. Run through on all sections.
Session 5. Key Biodiversity Areas methodology presentation, followed by structured discussion
Four approaches to Biodiversity Action Planning:
• Ecosystem / Large Areas • Site Management • Priority Species and Habitats • Thematic
Day 2
Session 1.
Threat Prioritisation:
• Exercise looking at threat-based system and current methodology
Session 2.
Funding Strategies
Session 3.
CBD Principles/Relevance. Exercise looking at Aitchi targets etc.
Day 3
BEST III
BEST III introduction and Ecosystem Profile (EP) overview: • Origins and purpose of BEST III • Aims and outputs from it • Description and breakdown of the EP
KBA methodology presentation and discussion with an exercise: • KBA breakdown, what they are, what they are not • Methodology used (to be discussed after), types of KBAs • Work done to date, introducing the data spreadsheet • After discussion, exercise to look at KBA methodology and feedback about its application to all species in the territory and potential suggested improvements.
Species and habitat data collection: • Progress so far • Demonstration of the data sheet and input needed from stakeholders – what is the quality and quantity of data available? • Exercise to list what is openly available and how to access it?
Threat evaluation exercise: • Perspective of threats to the Falklands biodiversity from local stakeholders and actors • Presentation and exercise
Funding: • Short term – BEST 2.0 o Details and selection criteria • Longer term – BEST III financing mechanism in brief
Next steps: • Additional data collection • KBA delineation – once this is complete, another consultation will be held to prioritise the sites against set criteria
Title of Report: Earwig Biological Control Release
Paper No: 6.0
Date: 14th May
Report of: Environmental Officer
1.0 Purpose
1.1 To outline the results of the awareness raising exercise on biological control of earwigs undertaken by CABI specialist Norbert Maczey in March.
2.0 Recommendations
2.1 That Committee recommends that Executive Committee agree to the release of biological agents to suppress earwigs in Stanley. Funding has been secured through a two year Darwin Plus Project already in place.
3.0 Additional Budgetary Implications
3.1 None.
4.0 Background
4.1 Environmental Committee approved funding towards an awareness raising exercise on the potential use of biological control of earwigs. Dr Norbert Maczey visited the Falklands in March to run workshops and public events to inform the community on the potential use of biological control to suppress earwigs.
4.2 Funding has been successfully sought from the Darwin Initiative to run a two year programme using Biological Control to suppress earwigs in the Falkland Islands. This project is led by CABI with FIG support and funding is available from April 2015.
5.0 Results of the Awareness Raising in March
5.1 The following activities were conducted between the 3rd and 12th of March:
• Presentations: o at the Chamber of Commerce, 4th of March, o at the Chamber of Commerce, 5th of March, o at the community hall in Goose Green, 11th of March, o at Mt Pleasant Airport with MPC conservation group, 12th of Mar
• Stall at Jetty Visor Centre; Sunday the 8th March during opening hours (10am and 4pm).
• Meetings with 11 stakeholder groups, including; MLAs, relevant FIG departments, Conservation groups, Earwig control operatives, landowners and other interested parties.
5.2 Relatively few people attended the public consultations and the lack of requests to provide further details indicated that biological control in general and of earwigs specifically are not of priority concern for the vast majority of Falkland Island residents.
5.2 The general feedback most people gave whether in public discussions or during separate stakeholder meetings was that of cautious optimism and being in favour of biological control, provided it is safe. It was also important for most people to have the insurance that biological control does not lead to the introduction of a species, which could become problematic in itself.
5.3 CABI believe that through in depth discussions regarding the ecology of both control agents and the earwigs themselves, generally any worries and concerns could be dispelled and there was never an open opposition to this programme voiced openly.
5.4 In summary, people seem to be prepared and willing to trial a release of both control agents hoping that this will provide the anticipated long term solution to the earwig problem, whilst being fully aware that there remains a risk of failure (flies either not establishing or not exerting the desired degree of control).
5.5 One of the main drivers for an altogether wide support of the biological control project is currently not so much an unbearable level of earwigs but more increasing concerns in part of society about risks and side-effects associated with the current spraying activities. Most people are also aware that spraying is a short term solution with a need for indefinite continuation.
5.6 A number of people have directly linked low earwig number during 2014/2015 to high levels of pesticide usage over recent years although this is not proven and may be down to natural density fluctuations. However, it seem to be clear to most people that if there is a causal connection that earwig numbers can be expected to spring up again when spraying ceases.
5.7 Within the scientific community concerns are widespread regarding the prospect of earwigs becoming increasingly resistant against Demand® CS with the need for either higher dosages or novel product combinations likely to arise in the near future.
5.8 It was generally positively received that funding to see the biological control programme through is mostly secured through Darwin Plus. From an academic point of view it was repeatedly pointed out that if the control programme is going to go ahead it would be also desirable to seek additional funding to accompany the release with in depth research (e.g. PhD) as the unique setup would provide a god opportunity for this.
5.9 The full report of the awareness-raising visit is included in annex 1.
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE EUROPEAN EARWIG ON THE FALKLAND ISLANDS Awareness raising and stakeholder concerns Project report April 2015
Norbert Maczey, Dave Moore, Steve Edgington & Nick Rendell email: [email protected]
www.cabi.org KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE EUROPEAN EARWIG ON THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
Awareness raising and stakeholder concerns
Executive Summary
Over recent years annual outbreaks of the European earwig in Port Stanley and settlements in camp have caused considerable problems ranging from yield losses in horticulture to health and safety issues and threats to the indigenous ecosystems. In 2012 it was decided to investigate the scope biological control (BC) can offer to better regulate this invasive pest species and, if promising control agents are available, to conduct the required safety testing. Results of this work were forwarded to the Falkland Island Government in a report in 2014, which included the recommendation to release two parasitoid fly species on the Falklands with the aim to rebalance the population of earwigs on the Falklands to levels similar to those in Europe where this species is mostly regarded as beneficial. Because this would be the first introduction of non-native species for the control of an invasive species in The Falkland Islands, a certain level of concern about biological control from residents, both expert stakeholders and the general public, was anticipated. It was therefore decided to conduct a number of awareness raising activities and to consult and debate any issues raised through direct engagement with residents before a final decision is made whether to go ahead with the release as planned. This report details the events and discussions held with a wide range of stakeholders during a visit by CABI scientist Norbert Maczey to Stanley between the 2nd and 13th of March 2015 including a summary of the feedback received during these activities.
Background
The European Earwig, Forficula auricularia (order Dermaptera) was recently introduced to the Falkland Islands and has since become locally common in the Port Stanley and a number of settlements in camp. More recently there are also records from one location at Mount Pleasant Airport (MPA). On the other hand there are now worrying observations of earwigs away from settlements (e.g. Saunders Island) indicating a considerable threat to the composition of native invertebrate communities. The exact date when earwigs were first introduced is unknown but early records stem from as far back as 1997 and earwigs have become a real nuisance pest since the mid-2000s.
2
There was consensus during a workshop in Port Stanley in March 2012, on the feasibility of biological control of invasive non-native species on the South Atlantic UK OTs, that the European earwig is a well suited target for classical biological control on the Falklands. Experts working on invasive species on the Islands and also members of the general public saw an urgent need for a sustainable control of this species. Equally, the Government of South Georgia remains very supportive of any control efforts, which would reduce the risk of future introductions of earwigs to South Georgia. The Falkland Island Government (FIG) therefore decided to commission a host range testing programme to assess the safety and suitability of two parasitoid flies believed to be host specific to the European earwig for introduction into the Falklands. No native earwig species inhabit the Falkland Islands, therefore host range tests were conducted during 2013 and 2014 on insects species (crickets and cockroaches) representing insects orders which are closely related to earwigs and in case of crickets are presented on the Falklands with one native species, the camel cricket (Parudenus falklandicus). The results showed that there was no indication that either of the two assessed fly species (Ocytata pallipes and Triarthria setipennis) can develop or otherwise impact on the vitality of any of the test species, even when artificially forced to ingest parasitoid eggs or inoculated with fly larvae, which would rarely happen under natural conditions. The tests confirmed our opinion that there would be no risks to non-target species if one or both of these highly earwig- specific tachinid fly species were released on the Falkland Islands. Testing of more closely related earwig species was not conducted, therefore both species cannot at this stage be recommended for release in countries with native Dermaptera, such as Chile and Argentina. It needs to be pointed out that there is a risk, albeit small, that parasitoids released on the Falklands could eventually reach mainland South America, for example by introduction with infected earwigs. So far neither of the parasitoids has been accidently introduced from Europe or from North America – where T. setipennis has been established for a number of decades – despite intensive trade between these continents. Considering that it will require the release of several thousand of flies over a short time period of only a few weeks to increase the likelihood of establishment in Stanley, the risk of accidental establishment in mainland South America through the escape of low numbers of infected earwigs transported from the Falklands seems negligible. A natural colonisation from the Falklands via wind drift can also be excluded, the distance to the mainland in combination with the prevailing westerly winds eliminates any chance of survival. This is supported by the fact that even much stronger flyers such as green bottles and blue bottles did not manage to colonise the Falklands unaided by human transport coming the other way from South America despite favourable wind directions. From a biosecurity point of view both fly species can now safely be recommended for release in Stanley and funding for two consecutive release trials has been secured from the Darwin
3
Initiative (Darwin+) provided FIG give the go-ahead for the release in the first half of 2015. More details on the host range testing and its conclusions are given in the previous report to FIG from 2014. Up until now stakeholder acceptance for the introduction of a new species into the Falkland Islands had not been assessed and the Environmental Planning Department (EPD) of FIG on behalf of the Environmental Committee (EC) decided to conduct a range of awareness raising activities to encourage residents to voice their concerns and engage in open discussion on the safety and scope of BC of earwigs. CABI was commissioned to conduct these activities through public consultations and direct discussions with stakeholders during the first half of March 2015 and this report presents the results and feedback as perceived during the discussions and meetings.
At the core of all consultations with stakeholders were four major assumptions:
• The release of the control agents is safe and does not pose any risks for native species, human health or food production; in contrast to the current use of large quantities of a highly toxic pesticide. • Costs for release will largely be covered through secured funding from Defra (Darwin Initiative). • Although we currently see no major hurdles for a successful establishment of both fly species, establishment can never be guaranteed and this can be a reason for failure. • Equally, if successful establishment has taken place, the amount of control exerted by the released agents is difficult to predict. Although we believe the likelihood for a good control is high, particularly in the absence of hyperparasitoids, which could impact negatively on the fly populations, this is something which cannot be predicted with absolute certainty.
4
Methods
We wanted to engage with the residents of the Falkland Islands as much as possible to get a feeling whether biological control in general and the release of two parasitoid fly species in particular was of any concern or is largely welcomed by the general public and/or experts and scientists working in conservation or agriculture on the Falkland Islands.
Awareness raising activities regarding the biological control of earwigs focused on three main steps: • Providing initial background information • Advertising opportunities to get more detailed information, to ask any specific questions or to voice any concerns • Present CABI’s work on earwig control and engage with the public through a string of events during a visit by Norbert Maczey between 2nd and 13th of March 2015
Providing initial background information Information explaining the principles of biological control, our previous work on earwigs, and the safety testing of the proposed control agents was made available on the website of the EPD. This was supported by a ‘frequently answered questions’ (FAQ) section with the aim to cover the main pressing concerns people might have with regards to biological control, its safety and the ecology of the proposed control agents. Simultaneously, a two page flyer providing information on our work was distributed throughout Stanley during the weeks prior to CABI’s. Website text, FAQ and a copy of the flyer are attached as annex 1 and 2.
Advertising opportunities to get more detailed information and voice any concerns Both the website text and the flyer announced the dates for presentations and open discussion on the subject given on two consecutive days in the first week of March; one in the morning of the 4th, the second in the evening after working hours on the 5th. It also announced the opportunity to talk to Norbert Maczey during Sunday the 8th at the Jetty Visitor Centre between 10am and 4pm and gave contact e-mail addresses to arrange meetings or discussions outside these hours or to voice any concerns via e-mail. An invitation to add to the FAQ was also given on the website. All three events plus an additional presentation at the community hall in Goose Green on the 11th of March were broadcasted by FIRS the day before the first presentation and the events were also announced in the Penguin News a week
5 before. FITV was recording the second presentation at the Chambers of Commerce, which as well included an invitation to forward any questions or concerns to Norbert Maczey (CABI) or Nick Rendell (EPD).
Present CABI’s work on earwig control and engage with the public In addition to the widely advertised events more presentations and meetings with individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups were arranged during the visit. Altogether the following activities were conducted between the 3rd and 12th of March:
Presentations: • at the Chambers of Commerce, 4th of March, between 9:30 and 12:30 • at the Chambers of Commerce, 5th of March, between 17:30 and 20:00 • at the community hall in Goose Green, 11th of March, between 13:30 and 15:00 • at Mt Pleasant Airport with MPC conservation group, 12th of Mar, 19:30-21:00
All events started with a PowerPoint presentation covering an introduction to CABI, background information on invasive species and biological control, and safety and scope of biological control of earwigs on the Falklands. Towards the end two video clips showing larvae of one of the parasitoid fly species (T. setipennis) and how these enter earwigs were shown. This was followed by an open discussion and an appeal to participants to join a small volunteer earwig monitoring programme. Demonstration material passed around included some pinned samples of both parasitoid fly species and a number of empty pupal cases of both species. In addition, examples of living control agents already in use in Stanley for plant protection in poly-tunnels were shown and instruction leaflets for the planned voluntary earwig monitoring plus earwig traps (flowerpots and pieces of hose pipe) were distributed.
Stall at Jetty Visor Centre The same demonstration material as shown during the presentations were displayed at a table in the visitor centre on Sunday the 8th during the normal opening hours between 10am and 4pm, on a day when no cruise ships were in Stanley harbour and deliberately placed on a Sunday to give as many people as chance to pay a visit as possible. In addition, pictures and movie clips showing the control agents ‘in action’ were presented on a laptop screen.
6
Meetings with other stakeholder groups: • two separate meetings with people involved in current spraying activities (Mike McLeod, Brian Summers) • two meetings with Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) resulting in discussions with altogether five MLAs (Phyl Rendell, Barry Elsby, Gavin Short, Jan Cheek, Michael Poole) • meeting with scientists of the Department of Agriculture (DoA), (Ian Campbell, senior agriculture advisor; Steve Pointing, senior veterinary officer; Ross James, biosecurity officer) • meeting with Keiron Fraser and Martin Collins of South Georgia Government to discuss continued threat of accidental introduction of earwigs to SG • meeting with the invasive species specialist from Falkland Conservation (Andrew Stanworth) • meeting with SAERI (Paul Brickle, director) • meeting with science teachers of Falkland Islands Community School in Stanley • meeting with Tim Miller from Stanley Growers looking into the potential use of his facilities for release • meeting with Jeremy Poncet looking into the potential use of Government House gardens for release • meeting with farmers Richard and Toni Stevens at Port Sussex to look into growing infestation of Calafate and to discuss the release of flies from the perspective of sheep farmers potentially dealing with flies as problem pests • several meetings at the Environmental Planning Department
Results of consultations and feedback
Public presentation and consultation The four presentations were altogether attended by 27 people, whereas on a very quiet day at the Jetty Visitor Centre only 3 people (all residents of Stanley) were interested in any information on earwigs. Compared to the amount of advertisement preceding these events the overall turnout was with less than 1% of the population of the Falklands relatively low (although one might consider drawing in 1,000 attendees in four events in a large town of 100,000 a very good turnout). In stark contrast to the public consultations there was no
7 response to the invitation to get directly in contact with the EPD or CABI directly via e-mail until the 23rd of March. Direct response after the presentations centred mainly on questions about the safety of BC. One frequent question was whether the release control agents could possible replace one nuisance species with a second one. Related to this were questions asking what the flies would feed on once earwigs go down in numbers. Although these are all concerns of some gravity our impression was, that within the attending audience such worries were dispelled relatively straightforward by explaining that the control agents - through their host specificity - are completely linked to the population levels of earwigs as their only host. As soon as earwig densities fall so will the population of controlling flies until equilibrium is reached at a level, which we expect to be below a threshold where earwigs are perceived as a pest species. In this context it was also pointed out to the audience that reaching this balance will also prevent both the earwigs and the flies from becoming completely eradicated. Frequently, people were considerably relieved when seeing the small size of the parasitoid flies having expected something on the scale of green or blue bottles. Furthermore, worries about flies invading buildings could be dispelled by pointing out that these species will not actively be attracted to houses like house flies or green bottles, which actively search for various food items. The parasitoid tachinid flies are specialised to feed as adults on flowers in outside habitats, even so occasional encounters in houses cannot be excluded altogether. Surprisingly frequent comments were made on the possible impact the current use of pesticides may have on the establishment and efficacy of the control agents. The answer to this was that we believe within the climatic conditions prevailing on the Falklands the majority of earwigs will overwinter outside and only earwigs trying to seek shelter in buildings are currently impacted on by chemical treatment. This is mostly done in autumn at a time when the lifecycle of one of the two fly species is already completed, with dormant pupae overwintering equally outside. However, at this time spraying may still have some impact on the second species, which overwinters as larva inside living earwigs. Altogether we are not too concerned about the continuation of spraying activities except for the areas immediate adjacent to release sites. We expect that as the flies begin to establish and gradually start to control the population of earwigs in all parts of Stanley the need for spraying will go down considerably in return impacting less on both earwigs and flies. One enquiry was made whether similar biological control methods are available for the control of blue bottle flies to which the short answer was yes, but currently not very effective (more details in previous feasibility study from 2013). Recurrently, concerns about the continued use of heavy pesticides and the unknown risks involved with this were also voiced. We pointed out that this may be indeed a problem, possible confounded in the future by the build-up of resistance, which could lead to the use of
8 ever higher dosages or the need to apply new combinations of several pesticides. A possible overall control effect of continued spraying on earwig populations is likely but will only be tangible as long as the spraying continues. The overall abundance of earwigs, if indeed influenced by spraying, can be expected to bounce back soon after cessation or decrease of this control method. We also pointed out that the use of pesticides may have a detrimental impact on native insect species and several times the decline in native ‘black beetles’ was pointed out by members of the audience. The loss of black beetles was mostly regretted but as expected on occasion the intrusion of insects of any kind into buildings was seen as undesirable.
Frequently people shared own observations relating to earwigs such as: • this year levels of earwig infestation are comparably low and this may be related to frequent spraying • currently there is an abundance of centipedes, which may have contributed to a decline in earwigs • owners of chickens seem to have less a problem with earwigs • earwigs themselves may have acted positively as control agents and their abundance may have something to do with an observed decline in blue bottles
All of these anecdotal observations can neither be proven nor dismissed completely, but it needs to be pointed out that most insect species undergo substantial annual fluctuations, which are often simply related to weather pattern during the previous seasons. At MPA it was pointed out that contrary to our previous believe earwigs seem not to have become established in the area as yet, but that if they would do huge problems were to be envisaged. Worries concern particularly the structural setup of the base including many ducts and pipes, which would provide amply shelter for earwigs and could not easily be treated. Traps put in place to monitor the occurrence of earwigs after the meeting, subsequently recorded numerous earwigs near the sewage treatment facility. As yet it is however not known how widespread earwigs are at MPA already. Repeatedly, the use of baits within traps used for the planned monitoring activities such as oil, milk and beer was suggested. Baits will most likely increase numbers of trapped earwigs to a certain degree, but we would still advice against it within the suggested monitoring programme to keep procedures as simple as possible and also to minimise the impact from other predators such as rodents or birds on bait and earwigs. A few people worried that eggs or larvae of the biological control flies would end up on vegetables. However, this could be dispelled easily by pointing out that these flies will deposit
9 eggs and larvae only on items already smelling strongly of earwigs. In case of food items these would be already heavily damaged crops such as decaying carrots or lettuce most likely beyond consideration for human consumption. Some people suspected that earwigs possibly impact already on native species. Observations were made that no or few camel crickets or black beetles were present in places with earwigs and vice versa. Generally, the audience was also keen to reconstruct the history of introduction with various speculations on time and entry points being discussed. Repeatedly it was suggested that introduction took place entry with building material through a previous shipping link via Fox Bay. There was general consensus that at the time of the visit earwig densities were generally low. There were still numerous observations shared about previous unpleasant encounters including some occurring just shortly before or at the time of the visit. Despite currently relatively low numbers, personal observations outside buildings certainly confirmed that at least in some places (for example compost heaps) densities are still considerably higher compared to similar habitats in Europe.
Meetings with residents involved in commercial pest control (Mike McLeod, Brian Summers) Due to their long experience in controlling earwigs, Mike McLeod and Brian Summers have accumulated probably the most profound knowledge concerning the spread and dynamics of earwig populations on the Falklands. Mike was able to pin point his first observation of earwigs to 1997 considerably earlier than most people in Stanley who started to notice them generally from the mid-2000s. In addition, Brian Summers has been in contact with a retired naturalist who had apparently collected one specimen on East Falkland as far back as 1966. At present the question whether this was a single specimen not leading to the establishment of a population or if indeed a small population has already been present in Stanley for a very long time cannot be answered with certainty. Currently, it seems most likely that earwigs were introduced with building material shipped from the UK during the 1990s. It seems feasible that they have come into the new residential development in east Stanley in 1997/98 with gravel substrate imported from UK at that time. Later a movement to western part of the town was possibly facilitated by transport of roofing material (corrugated sheets). Mike McLeod and Brian Summers both expressed that they support the release of biological control agents, mainly because spraying - although being a source of additional income - is taking up a lot of time outside their normal working hours. Spraying is done using Demand® CS a pesticide usually applied for the control of cockroaches and a wide range of other nuisance pests. In Stanley, spraying takes place all year round, often
10 individual buildings need treatment twice annually, with peak times in summer (January/February) and autumn (March/April) when lower temperature seems to drive earwigs into buildings for hibernation. Spraying of single buildings can often result in several thousand killed earwigs. Brian Summers suggested the establishment of spray free zones during the release of the parasitoid flies, but at this stage we believe a restriction around the immediate release sites will be sufficient (see also more detailed explanation above). Mike McLeod has gathered detailed data on spraying activities over the years, which may be useful to reconstruct population dynamics before a release of biological control agents. Both Brian and Mike pointed out that there was a noticeable decrease in demand for spraying over the last summer. Again, it remains unclear whether this is due to natural fluctuations or is a direct result of the spraying activities.
SAERI – Paul Brickle Paul Brickle is generally in support of the proposed biological control of earwigs on the Falklands but pointed out the benefits of additional scientific research. He sees this as a good opportunity to monitor the impact of the control agents through the implementation of accompanying experiments providing statistically sound data, which can be published in peer- reviewed journals. This is something which had been neglected during previous releases in the USA and Canada and a release on the Falklands would provide a good opportunity to finally assess the efficacy of both fly species and to what degree native invertebrate communities recover when population levels of the European earwig decrease. Paul suggested to jointly explore the possibility of applying for a funded PhD either through one of the universities in the UK or in Chile to which SAERI and CABI have already collaborations established. In case a decision for the release of the parasitoids is made later this year it would still be early enough to accompany the release activities with according academic research. Even if first monitoring activities and data collection coincided with the release and are not conducted earlier, the initial data collected would still represent a pre-release situation as the control agents will need time to become stablished and build up their impact on earwig populations in Stanley and other infected sites in camp. Paul pointed out that crowd-sourced data alone, similar to the monitoring now started by volunteers, often provides insufficient data for conclusive results.
Department of Agriculture (Ian Campbell, Steve Pointing, Ross James) The DoA welcomes the use of biological control provided adequate assessments have confirmed its safety. Although the conducted host range testing has established that the use
11 of both fly species for the Falkland Island is safe, there are still knowledge gaps (testing of South American earwigs) prohibiting currently a recommendation for release on mainland South America. In this context we discussed the risk of accidental introduction of the parasitic flies into mainland into Chile or Argentina, which we believe to be very low (for more details see background section above). Generally, biological control fits well within the recent promotion of IPM by the DoA. Particularly a reduction of the currently heavy use of pesticides as a direct result of a successful biological control programme would be welcomed as the DoA is concerned about the potential health as well as environmental risks associated with pesticides. In particular the threat of increasing resistance of earwigs to the used pesticide Demand® CS was discussed. In principle, the DoA is currently not seeking an active involvement in the proposed biological control programme other than been regularly kept informed on any developments. One exception is a more direct involvement in biosecurity aspects. The secured Darwin+ funding will include the development of a Pest-Risk-Analysis (PRA) template tailored to the needs of the Falklands and initially using the European earwig as a case study. Ross James as the current biosecurity officer at the Doa is interested to be directly involved in this work package. A tried and tested PRA suitable for application on the Falklands will become in particular useful to process future applications for the release of biological control agents whether for the control of invasive species or for pest control in vegetable production. Similar to Paul Brickle from SAERI the DoA is equally supporting the conduct of accompanying scientific surveys.
South Georgia Government (Keiron Fraser, Martin Collins) SGG remains very supportive of the biological control approach to control earwigs on the Falklands, hoping that earwig control will reduce risk of introduction of this species to South Georgia. In the past, several individual earwigs have been found at the research station already, but it seems that these have always been successfully dispatched preventing a permanent establishment so far.
Falkland Conservation (Andrew Stanworth) There is a general support of the idea using biological control against earwigs through the introduction of host specific agents, provided tests have proven its safety. CABI suggested that a biological control programme for earwigs could support Falkland Conservation’s ongoing efforts to raise awareness for the threat caused by invasive species in general. We agreed that conservation in general has problems to raise awareness for non-iconic inconspicuous species such as insect native to the Falklands. The earwig control project may therefore be able to flag
12 up the need for the protection of such conservation targets. In this context we discussed the possible threat earwigs may pose to native species such as the camel cricket.
Science teachers A discussion was held with a group of two science teachers and a teacher’s assistant from the Falkland Islands Community School in Stanley. They support the idea of using an ongoing biological control project in Stanley to get interested pupils involved in monitoring current and future earwig levels in the school grounds. They committed to setup a small monitoring project based on our instruction leaflet and using the provided traps. A small problem for the continuation of the monitoring activities, which require identical or at least very similar setups between years, may be the change of staff in the near future.
MLAs An update of recent activities was discussed with altogether five MLAs during two meetings. It was generally welcomed that the proposed release of the two control agents is based on a scientific testing, the results of which have confirmed that they will be safe to be used on the Falklands. The - in our opinion negligible - risk of accidental introduction to mainland South America was also discussed. There was general agreement that the biological control will support a reduction in demand for chemical treatment both reducing costs and risks for human health and the environment (current annual costs for pesticide treatment in excess of £10,000). There were also slight concerns that spraying may have reduced earwigs to a level where people are not concerned with biological control anymore, which could result in diminished support from the public compared with periods when population levels are high. However, we believe that many people are aware of natural fluctuations and also that supressing earwig numbers with chemical spraying is only a short term solution involving risks to human health and the environment. Questions were raised concerning the availability of flowers providing pollen and nectar for adult flies. We believe this is not a problem because there seems to be a good supply of flowers available during the time period when adult flies occur during late spring and summer. Aside from a variety of ornamental species within the urban habitats of Stanley there are a number of native (boxwoods) but also introduced weeds such as Catsear (Hypochoeris radicatum) and Orange Hawkweed (Pilosella aurantiacum), abundant enough to provide a sufficient food source for adult flies and comparable with most places in north- western parts of Europe.
13
Potential release sites for tachinid control agents within Stanley Strong wind over prolonged time periods is a characteristic feature of Stanley and the Falklands in general and there were repeated concerns over the capability of the proposed control agents to adapt to the local climate. As both species are generally strong flyers and other fly species of various shapes and sizes can commonly be observed in Stanley this should generally not be a hindrance for their establishment. On the other hand high levels of wind cannot be completely dismissed as a factor potentially impeding their establishment after release either. We therefore looked for potential release sites, which aside from a sufficient amount of earwigs and flowers providing the necessary food resources for all life stages would also allow adults to access these primary resources in an environment as sheltered as possible. We believe that this will aid the proper establishment of a small localised but permanent population, which then will become the nucleus for a further spread initially into all earwig infested areas in Stanley, but later also spreading to remoter settlements in camp. Two suitable release sites were inspected during the visit, Government House Gardens and Stanley Growers. Both sites were found to provide all required sources with Government House Gardens possible comprising a slightly better arrangement with all necessary resources and structures assembled over a smaller area. This site would also allow a better setup of release facilities such as netted cages within the greenhouse facilities. At this moment no decision has been made for the precise method of release, something which ultimately depends on the availability and numbers of fly pupae, which need to be collected in the UK. Depending on the amount of pupae obtained a simultaneous release at both sides may be the best way forward. If numbers are insufficient to support a release at two separate sites a set up at Government House Gardens would be preferable for a number of additional reasons. Flies established at this site would easier spread in the general wind direction over most parts of Stanley whereas flies established at Stanley Growers are at a higher risk to be blown away from the current earwig infestations. Through Jeremy Poncet there would also be a continuous supervision for the controlled release in place. In addition, the expansion of large netted cages for fruit production to provide wind shelter but still letting rain water in, which is planned to be set in place for next growing season by Jeremy Poncet, will also increase the amount of sheltered areas available for released flies. The greenhouse at Government House Gardens will be sprayed with Demand® CS in March/April 2015 after the removal of any plants, but as this pesticide decays readily after only a few days without residuals becoming problematic at a later stage, this should not interfere with setting up the release of the control agents at this place.
14
Background information on Demand® CS Currently, the only used pesticide for the control of earwigs in Stanley is Demand® CS. The active ingredient of this is lambda-cyhalothrin a synthetic pyrethroid, which is closely related to some pesticides naturally produced by plants as a defence against herbivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyhalothrin; http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Lambda-Cyhalothrin). Due to its high toxicity Demand® CS kills insect species indiscriminately, both earwigs and beneficial species alike, and is also highly toxic to fish and pollinating bees. It cannot be used near food, pets and livestock and is unsuitable to be used on crops for human consumptions and not recommended for use in public buildings or in rooms with frequent human presence (see attached Syngenta label in annex 3). There is a risk that the use of Demand® CS may inadvertently control other introduced invertebrates as well as charismatic natives such as camel crickets and green spiders (Araneus cinnabarinus). The Syngenta label lists both crickets and spiders as target organism for its use and there are anecdotal stories that green spiders have reduced (Nick Rendell pers. comment). Whereas risks for water contamination are deemed low and lambda- cyhalothrin decays relatively quickly there is the real threat of increasing resistance of earwigs against this pesticide. Recent studies have already demonstrated increased resistance against lambda-cyhalothrin by other insects such as ladybirds, house flies, fruit flies and mites (Kumral et al. 2009; Rodrigues et al. 2013, Abbas et al. 2014; Arouri et al. 2014). We regard the likelihood that continued frequent spraying will also induce resistance within earwigs as high.
Conclusions Comparably few people attending the public consultations and the lack of direct messages to provided online contacts indicate that biological control in general and of earwigs specifically are not of priority concern for the vast majority of Falkland Island residents. The general feedback most people gave whether in public discussions or during separate stakeholder meetings was that of cautious optimism and being in favour for biological control provided it is safe. It was also important for most people to have the insurance that biological control and does not lead to the introduction of a species, which could become problematic by itself. We believe that through in depth discussions regarding the ecology of both control agents and the earwigs themselves generally any worries and concerns could be dispelled and there was never an open opposition to this programme voiced openly. It is of course still possible that some people harbour considerable concerns and for whatever reason have not engaged with us during the discussions. However, we are not aware that this is the case. Questions about the risk of accidently introducing one of the control agents to mainland South America came only up within the scientific community itself, but this was generally not seen as a major cause for concern, specifically after explaining that, in reality, this risk is very low.
15
In summary, people seem to be prepared and willing to trial a release of both control agents hoping that this will provide the anticipated long term solution to the earwig problem, whilst being fully aware that there remains a certain risk of failure (flies either not establishing or not exerting the desired degree of control). One of the main drivers for an altogether wide support of the biological control project is currently not so much an unbearable level of earwigs but more increasing concerns in part of the society about risks and side-effects associated with the current spraying activities. Most people are also aware that spraying is a short term solution with a need for indefinite continuation. A number of people have directly linked low earwig number during 2014/2015 to high levels of pesticide usage over recent years although this is not proven and may be down to natural density fluctuations. However, it seem to be clear to most people that if there is a causal connection that earwig numbers can be expected to spring up again when spraying ceases. Within the scientific community concerns are widespread regarding the prospect of earwigs becoming increasingly resistant against Demand® CS with the need for either higher dosages or novel product combinations likely to arise in the near future. It was generally positively received that funding to see the biological control programme through is mostly secured through Darwin+. From an academic point of view it was repeatedly pointed out that if the control programme is going to go ahead it would be also desirable to seek additional funding to accompany the release with in depth research (e.g. PhD) as the unique setup would provide a god opportunity for this.
References
Abbas, N., Khan, H.A., Shad, S.A. 2014 Resistance of the house fly Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to lambda-cyhalothrin: mode of inheritance, realized heritability, and cross- resistance to other insecticides. – Ecotoxicology, 23 (5): 791-801. Arouri, R., Le Goff, G., Hemden, H., Navarro-Llopis, V., M'saad, M., Castañera, P., Feyereisen, R., Hernández-Crespo, P., Ortego, F. 2014 Resistance to lambda-cyhalothrin in Spanish field populations of Ceratitis capitata and metabolic resistance mediated by P450 in a resistant strain. - Pest Management Science, Article first published online: 4 DEC 2014, DOI: 10.1002/ps.3924 Kumral, N.A., Susurluk, H., Gençer, N.S., Gürkan, M.O. 2009 Resistance to chlorpyrifos and lambda-cyhalothrin along with detoxifying enzyme activities in field-collected female populations of European red mite. – Phytoparasitica, 37 (1): 7-15. Rodrigues, A.R.S., Torres, J.B., Siqueira, H.A.A., Lacerda, D.P.A. 2013 Inheritance of lambda- cyhalothrin resistance in the predator lady beetle Eriopis connexa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). - Biological Control, 64 (3): 217–224.
16
BEST 2.0 - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in EU Overseas Countries and Territories The European Commission has announced that in order to address the need for facilitated access to funding in the European Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), it is allocating new resources for concrete projects in the OCTs through a 5 year programme: BEST 2.0. This will mean a new source of funding that can be accessed for environmental projects within the South Atlantic Overseas Territories (OTs). Available Funding
Small grants (SG) for projects ≤ 100 000 € Medium grants (MG) for projects ≤ 400 000 € Call for Proposals Calls will not target all the regions at the same time, but few of them each time No SG and MG calls at the same time for any one region Each region will benefit at least one SG and one MG call for proposals Capacity building ensured by regional teams Independent Regional review of the proposals to be validated by the Board Provisional Agenda: The exact dates for the opening of the calls are still to be confirmed, but for the South Atlantic OTs are anticipated to be June 2015 and May 2016.
Small Grant 2015 Medium Grant 2015 Small Grant 2016 Medium Grant 2016 South Atlantic hub Polar & Sub-Polar hub Polar & Sub-Polar hub South Atlantic hub Indian Ocean hub Caribbean hub Caribbean hub Indian Ocean hub Pacific hub Pacific hub South Atlantic hub includes: Ascension Island, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and the Falkland Islands
Eligibility Territories within the five of the existing BEST III knowledge hubs (Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific, Polar & Sub-Polar and South Atlantic) are eligible to apply for BEST 2.0 funding. Applicant eligibility / Type of Grant Small Grant Medium Grant Local civil society organisations, non-profit * organisations Small socio-professional organisations, small profit * organisations (5-10 permanent staff, annual balance or turnover < EUR 2 million) Municipalities, cities of a Territory *
Territorial government and services **
European Member State bodies***
Regional bodies***
International bodies***
* In partnership with other organisations ** Exceptionally (see below conditions) ** In these cases an eligibility condition will have to be satisfied regarding the existence of a partnership with the local government and/or local civil society and socio-professional actors and the implementation of capacity building activities
** An exceptional access to local government to small grants will be allowed regarding the social specificities of some territories, when:
• There is no permanent population or small population And • Restricted local capacity with too few civil society organisations or when the majority of NGO stakeholders that operate in the territory are primarily external.
In such a case the local governments will be able to submit project proposal with the following eligible conditions: • They lead the project or are part of a consortium with external organisations and other territories within the region And • The project put a strong emphasis in the territories on collaboration between local communities and local government and outside organisations including capacity building.
Decision making on Project Applications
Budget Principles Priority will be given to small grant applications and regional differences will be taken into consideration. In order to avoid reserve project lists, as happened in BEST I and II calls, there will be a small amount of budget reserved for projects that fall into this category. If in addition to this there is still money left over then there will be an extra small grants call in 2017. Objectives and Criteria
The objectives and criteria are split into three categories based on existing lessons learned from previous projects, plus an additional category based on the ongoing work of BEST III.
The first set of objectives are from the initial BEST 2011 & 2012 calls for proposals for projects in the EU OTs. The second group of objectives are based on the BEST Business Case, which is the summarised output of the project BEST 2011-23: Building Partnerships and Awareness of Biodiversity and Climate Change in Europe Overseas for the future of BEST. It documented a preliminary draft design for a funding facility dedicated to biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories and Outermost Regions, which is being carried further through BEST III and 2.0. Thirdly, the objectives of the Overseas Association Decision, Article 16 which is part of the Journal of European Union published in December 2013.
The further additional criteria category is based upon the outcomes of the Ecosystem Profiles created through the BEST III initiative, the importance of regional cooperation and the support local needs.
BEST 2011 & 2012 objectives:
(a) promote the establishment and effective management of marine and terrestrial protected areas (PAs) in the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories, also taking into account already existing PAs;
(b) implement sustainable management of marine and terrestrial resources, which contribute to protecting important species, habitats and ecosystem functions outside PAs;
(c) strengthen conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories by : - addressing the wider ecosystem challenge of climate change by maintaining healthy, resilient ecosystems and fostering green infrastructure and ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation which often bring multiple benefits;
- strengthening capacities at a local and regional scale, including the neighbouring countries, by promoting exchange of information and best practice amongst all stakeholders including local administration, landowners, private sector, researchers and civil societies etc… ;
- strengthening existing nature conservation programmes and related efforts within and outside conservation areas;
- broadening the knowledge base and filling the knowledge gaps, including quantifying the value of ecosystem functions and services;
(d) encourage and facilitate transboundary working; addressing issues such as invasive alien species, the impacts of climate change and the implementation of international conventions in particular CITES and the three Rio Conventions ;
(e) develop mechanisms to lever resources including ‘payments for ecosystem-services’ (PES).
BEST Business case objectives: As stated for the BEST Preparatory Action, the objectives of the facility should be: • Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in OR and OCTs; • Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in ORs and OCTs; • Development and use of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation; • Networking, capacity building, building of new and strengthening of existing partnerships; • Promote regional cooperation including with developing countries.
The facility should approach regional collaboration and linkages in the following manner: • policy on and approach to regional integration should be spelled out and reflected in investment policy and funding guidelines; • the focus should remain on OCTs and ORs, responding in priority to the existing needs, and avoiding the dispersion and dilution of efforts; • joint activities between ORs and/or OCTs and neighbouring countries should be encouraged, even if funding provided by the facility primarily targets OCTs and ORs; • the facility should encourage and support the participation of ORs and OCTs in the regional institutions and processes that are relevant to them and in which they are currently unable to participate fully, if at all; • the facility should seek to improve coherence and create synergies between European initiatives in OCTs and/or ORs and those in neighbouring territories, countries, sub-regions and regions; • sub-regional approaches should therefore be supported, based on geographic, institutional and other realities and commonalities; • while these regional and sub-regional approaches and collaborations should be encouraged, they should not be imposed.
Overseas Association Decision, Art. 16, from the Official Journal of the European Union, 19th December 2013:
Sustainable management and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services: In the context of the association, cooperation in the field of sustainable management and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services may concern: (a) the promotion of the establishment and effective management of marine and terrestrial protected areas and improved management of existing protected areas; (b) the encouragement of sustainable management of marine and terrestrial resources, which contribute to protecting species, habitats and ecosystem functions outside protected areas, in particular, endangered, vulnerable and rare species; (c) the strengthening of conservation and sustainable use of marine and terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems by: (i) addressing the wider ecosystem challenge of climate change by maintaining healthy, resilient ecosystems and fostering green infrastructure and ecosystem- based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation which often bring multiple benefits; (ii) strengthening capacities at a local, regional and/or international scale, by promoting exchange of information, knowledge and best practice amongst all stakeholders including public authorities, landowners, private sector, researchers and civil society; (iii) strengthening existing nature conservation programmes and related efforts within and outside conservation areas; (iv) broadening the knowledge base and filling the knowledge gaps, including quantifying the value of ecosystem functions and services;
(d) the encouragement and facilitation of regional cooperation in order to address issues such as invasive alien species or the impacts of climate change; (e) the development of mechanisms to lever resources including payments for ecosystem services.
Additional Criteria
BEST investment strategies developed with local actors to insure that the investment strategies and fund-raising actions will address the needs on the ground. BEST 2.0 Criteria: Project relevance regarding regional Ecosystem Profile and Investment strategy when existing project objectives target or address at least one identified priorities Support local strategy implementation & OCT Environmental profiles Geographical representativeness Bonus criteria : Foster regional cooperation with match funding o Project involving or benefitting to more than one OCT will be encouraged o Project fostering regional cooperation: o Possibility match funding for actions with Overseas Regions, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries
Application Platform The final information for BEST 2.0 and the portal for applications will be hosted on the European Commission website and will be available shortly - http://ec.europa.eu/best/ FALKLAND ISLANDS RESEARCH LICENCE AGREEMENT POLICY
A GUIDE FOR RESEARCHERS
2015
FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT Environmental Planning Department
SOUTH ATLANTIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SAERI) Information Management System and GIS data centre
CONTENTS
Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 1 The application process………………………………………………….……… 1
Guidance Notes…………………………………………………………………… 3
Capacity building, data sharing and knowledge transfer………………… 6 Data Access and Management………………………………………………… 7 Practical Aspects ………………………………………………….……………... 8
Local logistical support………………………………………………………….10 Contact ………………………………………………………………………………11
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
INTRODUCTION
To meet Falkland Islands Government (FIG) priorities and to offer sound data to support the decision making process, research projects should be coordinated locally.
The Research Licence Agreement embraces all research projects on natural and physical environmental science carried out onshore and at sea within the Falkland Islands’ 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The agreement works as a policy framework for managing the relationship between researchers and the government or local organisations.
This guide is for researchers and it outlines the process for applying for a research permit, as well as it advising on some practical aspects of conducting environmental research on the Falkland Islands.
Activities such as prospecting or bioprospecting are not covered by the research licence agreement. Any researcher wishing to undertake bioprospecting must contact Environmental Planning Department well in advance and must be prepared to enter into a formal legal agreement over access and benefit sharing. Bioprospectors may though still need a licence to take protected species, but this will be secondary to the main agreement with FIG.
THE APPLICATION PROCESS
Researchers wishing to undertake scientific studies on physical and natural environmental science or make collections for educational purposes in the Falkland Islands must obtain a Research Permit before travelling to the Falkland Islands. Researchers whose activities involve capturing and handling animal and plant species protected by national legislation1 require a research permit to work on wild animal and plants in the Falkland Islands. The application form is available at the Falkland Islands Environmental Planning Department (EPD) and at the IMS-GIS data centre websites (add links). Alternatively it can be requested by emailing the FIG Environmental Officer (Nick Rendell mail).
Researchers are asked to complete all sections of the research licence form, sign and date it and send it to the FIG Environmental Planning Department at the address given. Electronic submission is preferred and the form and any associated required documents should be submitted in word format only. For postal applications, researchers should allow at least four weeks for the application to be received.
Research applications for environmental studies which do not affect nationally protected animal and plant species can be processed within a five days by EPD. Applications that impact on protected wildlife research are considered by Environmental Committee, which meets every two months. Some applications may be considered outside of formal meetings of Committee by email to speed up the review process. This may add considerable time to
1 The Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance, 1999; the Marine Mammals Ordinance, 1992; and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Ordinance, 1998.
the determination of the application and while effort is made to speed the process, applications that are novel and/or contentious may require debate in committee before determination. This emphasises the need for early contact, usually when the project is being planned. This is particularly relevant to projects being undertaken by researchers based outside of the Falkland Islands.
EPD or the Environment Committee may approve, request amendments to, or decline the research proposal stated in the application form and will explain the reasons for its decision to the applicants. It is recommended that researchers contact EPD in the early stages of research planning to ensure that there will not be problems later on while writing the official application form.
The research permit will be then issued and requested by Customs on the day of the arrival in the Falkland Islands.
PROCESS FOR APPLYING – WORK FLOW:
1. Contact EPD to discuss proposed research.
2. Submit Research Permit application
to EPD.
Application for general Application for environmental permit environmental research with protected wildlife is processed by permit is processed by EPD. Environment Committee
(Less than 1 week) (Up to 2 Months)
3. Decision returned to applicant. If
approved a Research Permit will be issued and sent to Applicant.
4. Submit Entry Permit application to the
Customs office with approved Research Permit attached.
GUIDANCE NOTES FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORM
The licence form has boxes, which can be expanded. Researchers should include sufficient details that set out what, how, where and when they intend to do during the period they stay in the islands. The rationale for the research project, including significance at a local, regional and global level, should be explained. This is especially important where the research may be novel, invasive or involve a rare or endangered species. Applicants should be aware that provision of sufficient information at an early stage will speed the process and reduce the likelihood of the Environmental Planning Department seeking further information.
Section 1-2: Applicant details
The title of the research project is requested. The application should be in the name of the principal worker. Affiliation, position, address, phone and mail should be added. In addition, name surname and affiliation of all the field assistants should be listed. Furthermore, state if any locally-based fieldworker(s) or scientist(s) has been engaged in the research activity. If so, please provide the personal details.
Notice that it is essential that the licence is carried at all times by those engaged in the work, as evidence that the work being carried out is legitimate.
Section 3: Local organisation partner/contact
Please provide the detail of the local partner(s) that are involved during the field works.
Section 4: Purpose of research
Please provide enough background to explain why the research is needed and what questions will be addressed plus the main key and characteristic points, outlining how innovative or beneficial to the Falkland Islands the research would be. The government recognises that some research may contribute to broader environmental research goals and global datasets. Such research studies are encouraged provided that they are not to the detriment of the Islands. Applicants should flag up any practical ways in which the outcomes of their proposed research can benefit the local environment.
Any person wishing to carry out scientific research that involves handling protected species (see appendix 1) is required to obtain a Protected Wildlife Research License. For ease, this license is incorporated into the general environmental research application process. Researchers should consider the following legislations to check whether their proposed research plan requires the protected wildlife research license.
Legislation
The main legislative provisions which regulate what can and cannot be undertaken are:
The Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance, 1999 and all subsequent Amendments and Orders;
This legislation provides protection for all species of birds (with some exceptions), marine mammals, some other animals (e.g. all butterflies) and a list of specially protected plants. Section 9 of the legislation allows for the granting of licences, effectively allowing applicants derogation from the provisions within the earlier sections which limit what can be done to protected species. A list of currently protected species is given below. A licence is needed to undertake any work on these species.
Under the ordinance, licences are only issued for purposes of scientific research and education.
The Marine Mammals Ordinance, 1992
All marine mammals are protected which essentially means all resident and migratory cetaceans and seals. A licence is needed (under The Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance, 1999) to undertake work on marine mammals.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Ordinance, 1998
This legislation enacts the UK Animals Scientific Procedures Act into Falkland Islands legislation. In essence if the work that you wish to undertake may cause pain, injury or suffering however temporary, then you may need a separate licence under this piece of legislation. Procedures for granting of such licences are currently under review, and applicants are urged to discuss their work with the Environmental Planning Department.
If the Protected wildlife research permit is required please tick the box saying “Protected wildlife research permit” and fill in relevant information in section 11.
Ultimately, notice that proposals that duplicate previous work are unlikely to be approved, particularly where the proposed activities involve handling with protected wildlife or habitats.
Section 5: Research procedure
Please describe the methodology that will be used. Include copies of any ethics permits issued for the project by your institution or professional body for this project. Note also that applications are assessed based on not only scientific relevance but also potential environmental impact.
The government will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed research, based on the details supplied. Applicants should use this section to explain what mitigation measures they plan to put in place to minimise any adverse impacts of their research on the local environment. The policy is to minimise potential impacts to the environment by working with the visiting researchers during the planning process, rather than to screen applications. It is important that applicants do not underestimate the potential environmental risks of their work. Misleading statements about proposed methods may result in future applications being rejected.
Section 6: CVs of all participants to the research project
Please attach to the application form the CVs of all participants to the research project and any relevant wildlife handling/capture licences held in other countries. CVs should not be longer than a page.
Section 7: Dates of field works Please provide the dates of arrival and departure from the Falkland Islands. Research Permit may be provided for multiple field seasons and visits only where the methodology and fieldwork remains ion line with the original application. Where the aims and methodology of research change a new research licence will be required.
Section 8: Location of the field works
To avoid delays and disappointments, applicants should provide a full list of locations where they intend to work so that access can be cleared with relevant authorities and landowners. Due to the remoteness of some research locations and the limited road network it is extremely important to know where research will be undertaken. It is recommended to use satellite phones if the field activity lasts for several days in remote locations far away from the nearest settlements. It is preferable and suggested to let the landowner know about your whereabouts during the period of the field work as he is the person who will provide help if necessary.
Section 9: Landowner Permission
Please explain whether or not you have obtained permission from the landowner of the field work locations. Much of the land in the Falkland Islands is privately owned. A map with farm boundaries, telephone numbers and email addresses is available online at EPD and IMS- GIS data centre webpages. A research application form is considered valid and will be processed only if the landowner application form is attached to it.
The Falkland Islands have nature reserves, national parks and nature sanctuaries with restrictions on the activities that can take place within them. Further detail s on these areas are available from the EPD.
Section 10: Insurance
Please state whether all individuals or the entire group has any of the following types of insurance: medical, personal accident, public liability, professional indemnity, and travel.
All people entering the Falkland Islands must have medical insurance that covers medical evacuation.
Section 11: Protected wildlife research licence
The Protected Wildlife Research Licence aims to ensure that the harm and stress caused by researchers working on protected animal and plant species (see appendix 1) is minimised. Under Article 4 of the Wildlife Protection Ordinance, Protected Wildlife Research Licences are issued with the agreement of the Environment Committee which will consider whether or not the purpose of the proposed research is to enhance the conservation of the protected species. Applications to carry out research that is excessively invasive and purely academic in nature (i.e. has no applied benefits for species conservation) are unlikely to be approved.
11.1 Purpose of research Applicants should describe in detail any invasive procedures that will be applied to protected species, including capture techniques, sampling procedures and indicate the number of individuals that will be affected. Applicants are required to justify the use of any invasive or destructive methods, both in terms of potential outcomes and lack of non-invasive alternatives, and keep sample sizes to the minimum needed to achieve the stated aims of the research.
11.2 Principal workers Applicants should name the individuals who will be responsible for carrying out the invasive procedures described in section 11.1 and outline their level of competency.
11.3 Precautions and mitigations Applicants should demonstrate that all reasonable precautions to minimise disturbance, harm or suffering to protected species have been taken in the study design, both at an individual and population level.
CAPACITY BUILDING, BENEFITS SHARING AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
The policy of FIG is to ensure that researchers, local authorities and local community benefit from scientific research projects carried out in the Islands. Benefits to the researcher and their institutions include academic recognition, career advancement, increased popularity and more funding. Benefits to local organisations and individuals potentially include training opportunities and sound evidence to support local decision making; benefits to the local community might be exposure to scientific research and a better understanding of the environment.
Not all research projects will present opportunities for local capacity building. Visiting researchers are encouraged to consider ways in which local people can be engaged to develop skills and experience or enhance their knowledge on their environment. Researchers are encouraged to communicate results from their work to the local community and non-specialist audiences, for example delivering a public talk at the end of the field work season, or posting a blog to the website of one organisation partner, or writing an article on the local newspaper.
In addition, the research licence is issued with a condition that:
• A report is sent to the Environmental Planning Department at the end of the fieldwork. This report should detail fieldwork activities, sampling undertaken, samples collected, catalogue numbers assigned to samples etc.
• The metadata form is filled in completely before the researcher departs the Islands. The metadata form is available online at EPD and IMS-GIS data centre webpages. Any questions about the metadata form should be directed to the data manager at the IMS-GIS data centre.
• Any subsequent scientific papers and reports should be sent to the Environmental Planning Department in a timely manner. These should be in English and ideally in electronic format. It is important that results of research are made available and that the implications of the work (if there are any) are considered and if necessary, acted upon. All published material will be archived as resource for the Government, the local community and other researchers.
• Copies of the original data collected during the field works are sent to the IMS-GIS data centre within a period that will be established between the researcher and EPD at the moment of accepting the research proposal. More details in the following section.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Access to data is a sensitive issue as researchers’ funding depends on the number and quality of the publications generated from the outcomes of the data analyses. In addition, researchers want to see their intellectual property rights protected. Both points are fully understood by the Falkland Islands Government, however, access to raw datasets and to datasets that have been processed and used by the researchers in the final publications are also essential to ensure that local stakeholders benefit fully from research carried out on the Island, as well as avoiding data duplication and making potential collaborations.
Datasets that are gathered and never published, or which are published in a heavily summarised form are effectively lost from the Island. Indeed, a clear data management policy and a transparent data licence agreement are necessary to reassure the researcher about the way their data will be accessed and reused.
At the Falkland Islands-based South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI), the IMS-GIS data centre act as a hub for archiving and managing environmental data collected within the South Atlantic UK Overseas Territories (SAOTs). One of the responsibilities of the IMS-GIS data centre was to develop a data strategy and data management policy that could be shared and adopted by the SAUKOTs. People, data and systems are the three components of the strategy and details are available online.
Concisely, the data management focus on: harvesting metadata, storing datasets within a central repository, regulating the access to the data through data request forms and online webGIS applications (this only for open access data). Each territory with the exception of South Georgia, will have a central data repository for environmental data collected on the territory which is advantageous to all stakeholders, revealing potential synergies between projects and enabling multidisciplinary studies that is beyond the scope of individual projects.
Environmental data will be stored on a secure server, while the metadata records will be regularly published through the metadata catalogue online http://www.south-atlantic- research.org/metadata-catalogue. As mentioned in the previous section is available online and will be sent by mail to the applicant. The reasons for collecting metadata are numerous, for instance they create longevity for data, they allow understanding and re-using the data and help to make them searchable so that duplication is avoided and time is saved. Furthermore, metadata enable the sharing of reliable information since they put data owners in the situation of checking for the quality of their data. The metadata standard in use in the South Atlantic UKOTs is the ISO 19115. Any further request for information or clarification on the metadata form should be submitted to the data manager at the IMS-GIS data centre.
While metadata are published online allowing potential data users to view the range of environmental data that have been collected and directing enquiries to the data owner and custodian, datasets deposited by researchers will never be published (either in full or summarised form) or released to third parties. It is recognised that some datasets may also need post-processing to contextualise them. Researchers should agree terms and a timeline for depositing datasets with EPD before leaving the Island. Failure to honour any reasonable requests for data may result in future environmental research permits being declined.
Access to restricted datasets secured on the IMS central data repository will be regulated through a data request form. The data centre acts as custodian of the environmental data and will receive the data request. This will be sent to the data owner who will or will not give consent for releasing the data. It is on the data owners to decide if they want to be notified every time of the data request or if they authorise the data custodian (the IMS-GIS data centre) to proceed with all data request on its behalf.
Data owners will be the owners of the data also after depositing the data to the local central repository.
Open access data and data sharing are promoted in the SAUKOTs. In the future all open access data will be available online through webGIS service without the requirement of a data request form.
PRACTICAL ASPECTS TO BE CONSIDERED
Import & Export of Biological Material, Equipment and Chemicals Like most countries, the Falkland Islands are conscious of biosecurity issues. The level of disease among farm animals and wildlife (fauna and flora) is relatively low and FIG wishes to keep it that way.
Importation of biological and mineral material is possible but must be declared before entry. Passengers arriving on planes and via ship are required to fill out a Prohibited/Restricted Good Declaration and certain products (most meat, dairy products, plant material etc.) can only be brought in with an import permit. More information is available at www.fig.gov.fk/agriculture/index.php/services/biosecurity and queries can be sent by email to [email protected]. All equipment brought in must be cleaned before importation, especially if it has been used in the field elsewhere. Contaminated equipment (and clothing) is a major entry route for pathogens and non-native species.
Many carriers have restrictions on what chemicals can be brought in, and advice should be sought on what can and cannot be imported. It may be possible to source chemicals locally but researchers should not rely on this, unless the work is being carried out in conjunction with a local department. If chemicals are obtained then it is usual for a charge to be made.
Similarly, biological and mineral samples, equipment and chemicals may be exported but researchers should be aware of procedures adopted by the relevant importing country.
Mineral samples (including rocks, fossils and sediment cores) that are to be exported from the Falkland Islands should be cleared through the Falkland Islands Government Department of Mineral Resources (DMR). Attempting to export samples without a valid permit is a violation of the research agreement and may result in future research being denied. Please contact DMR if you require an export permit or have any queries ([email protected]).
The Falkland Islands are signatory to various international Conventions and Agreements including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP). Some species are also protected by local legislation. All intended exports should be declared to Falkland Islands Government Customs & Immigration Service (C&IS) who will provide advice on permit requirements and supporting documentation ([email protected]). The C&IS liaises closely with the Falkland Islands Government Environmental Officer to ensure compliance.
Non-native species Non-native species which live in the wild are not in principle exempt from the licensing regime. Other species are covered by provisions within The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Ordinance, 1998. Advice from Environmental Planning Department should be sought.
Bird Ringing and Marking It is important that marking schemes used by researchers are lodged with Environmental Planning Department so that birds found or seen subsequent to the work being carried out can be readily identified. It is also important that marking schemes do not conflict with other work being undertaken on the same species. Researchers will be aware that some species are very long lived and that some marks and rings remain on animals for many years.
Use of metal rings or bands is permitted but there is no formal Falkland Island ringing scheme. FIG would prefer that all researchers use rings supplied by the British Trust for Ornithology so that data on all Falkland Island recoveries can be held centrally. The BTO operate a well-developed permit system for those research workers using their rings and applicants may need to obtain the necessary licence to use BTO rings. Many schemes operate to complementary standards, so this should not pose any difficulties for experienced ringers. Researchers using BTO bands should be aware that for many species of bird here, there are no standards for ring sizes to be used and some extrapolation may be needed from known (e.g. UK) species of similar size or tarsus dimensions.
Where birds are to be ringed, ringing licence from the researcher’s country should be supplied with the completed form. Use of special nets and capture techniques should be specified in the research procedure (see section5).
LOCAL LOGISTICAL SUPPORT
Researchers can generally find logistic support from local partners and contact organisations. Advanced planning is suggested and arrangements with local partners in the preliminary phase of the research plan should be made. Accommodation, rental cars and internet access can all be arranged through the local partner as well as advice on appropriate timings and locations for research and study design can be obtained if requested. It is worth mentioning that logistical support in terms of vehicles or use of office space not always is possible as resources on the Islands are limited. Government accommodation and vehicles will not be available to visiting researchers, unless with specific prior agreement. CONTACTS
The principal point of contact over research licencing is:
Environmental Planning Department PO Box 611 Stanley Falkland Islands FIQQ 1ZZ
Tel.: + 500 28480
E-mail: [email protected] Team Clerk: [email protected]
The principal point of contact over data management is:
SAERI PO Box 609 Stanley Falkland Islands FIQQ 1ZZ
Tel.: + 500 28480 E-mail: [email protected] APPENDIX 1
Protected Species under the Conservation of Wildlife & Nature Ordinance (1999)
Species Scientific Name Comment
Birds All birds are protected except upland goose, domestic (feral) goose & mallard
Yellow billed teal Anas flavirostris Protected only in close season (1st July – 31st March)
Patagonian crested duck Anas speculariodes Protected only in close season (1st July – 31st March)
Other animals
All butterfly species Lepidoptera One known breeder, but 5-6 vagrant species with one that may breed (the Falkland ‘blue’ butterfly)
Trout (sea or brown) Salmo trutta Brown & sea trout are the same species. Six/day, Sep 1st to Apr 30th, with special regs for Murrell River
Zebra trout Aplochiton zebra Still widespread but declining
Plants
Adders tongue Ophioglossum A small fern, rare crotalophoroides
Antarctic cudweed Gamochaeta antarctica Rare
Chilean maidenhair fern Adiantum chilense Records from Saunders Island only
Chilean tall fern Blechnum cordatum Records from Saunders Island only
Comb fern Shizea fistulosa Never known to occur in Falklands
Dusen’s moonwort Botrychium dusenii A small fern, rare
Falkland pondweed Potamogeton linguatus Rare
Falkland rock cress Phlebolobium maclovianum Uncommon & very local
Falklands false plantain Nastanthus falklandicus Very rare, Port Stephens area
Felton’s flower Calandrinia feltonii No longer considered endemic, new species yet to identified
Fir clubmoss Huperzia fuegiana Very rare
Fuegian saxifrage Saxifraga magellanica May be extinct in wild in Falklands
Fuegian violet Viola magellanica Known only from Sea Lion Island
Fuegian whitlow grass Draba magellanica Very rare, possibly extinct
Gaudichaud’s orchid Chloraea gaudichaudii Widespread but scarce
Hairy daisy Erigeron incertus Uncommon but widespread
Leathery shield fern Rumohra adiantiformis Very rare
Moore’s plantain Plantago moorei Very rare, Port Stephens area
Mudwort Limosella australis Rare
Pale yellow orchid Gavilea australis Very rare
Patagonian hawkweed Hieracium patagonicum Very rare
Shrubby seablite Suaeda argentinensis Known only from Saunders Island
Skullcap Scutellaria nummulariifolia Very rare, possibly extinct
Spider flower Arachnitis quetrihuensis Very rare, known only from Stanley area
Tassel weed Ruppia filifolia Rare but abundant
Yellow ladies slipper Calceolaria biflora Very rare
Yellow orchid Gavilea littoralis Scarce
Yellow pale maiden Sisyrinchium chilense Mainly confined to West Falkland
Yellow violet Viola maculata Common – protection arises as it probably supports larvae of butterfly species
Protected Marine Mammals under the Marine Mammals Ordinance (1992)
Species Scientific Name Comment
Whales & dolphins All Cetacea All species
Seals Pinnipeda All seals, including elephant, fur and sealion (and uncommon visitors)
Fuegian sea otter Lontra felina Introduced, very rare but recent records suggest that a small population remains.
Note: It is an offence to import or export any marine mammal or part of any marine mammal living or dead except under licence. Under the Conservation of Wildlife & Nature Ordinance (1999) it is an offence to knowingly keep, sell, transport or exchange any marine mammal or any part derived from a marine mammal, except under licence. It is also an offence to deliberately disturb or damage a breeding or resting place used by a marine mammal.
APPENDIX 2
Standards for data collection
Researchers should adopt the following standards when recording their data:
1. DATE as YYYY/MM/DD
2. Coordinates: if LAT/LONG (WGS84) is used please record the coordinates in Decimal Degrees with more than 5 decimal places.
3. Any blank cell should be avoided. It is preferable state if the value was 0, or not applicable, or unknown.
4. Use meaningful headers for the fields of the attribute table. Do not abuse of shortcuts otherwise interpreting the meaning of each field becomes a guess work. Use upper and lower cases to separate the words, or alternatively the underscore symbol. Do not leave spaces in the names.
5. If you are planning to have frequent updates of the same dataset then please consider versioning each copy, for example “habitat_restoration_2014_02” and the following file is “habitat_restoration_2014_08”. Notice that for the date the format YYYY/MM/DD is always adopted. If your data is a word document, e.g. a report, you can also think of choosing the style such as “nameofthefile.v01”.
6. Keep always a single copy of the master file, your current file, and store the old files in an archive folder. Be careful in deciding the frequency of the versioning: try to define properly what changes determine a “new” file. It is best practice to keep a version control table for recording all the versions and the changes occurred every time.
7. Use meaningful names for the datasets but try to keep them not too long. Once again avoid spaces and utilise underscore or a mix of lower and upper cases to separate the words.
8. If you are filling a column with numeric values do not add text. For example if your column refers to area in square metres it is not necessary to add 23m² as this value is not anymore considered as numeric but text. Add the units to the column header.
9. If you are referring to species names, please consider to have two columns, one for the Latin names AND one for the common names. Avoid using colloquial names, if essential ensure that you have Latin and English names as well.
10. If you have already a list of attributes then you may create a drop down box so that typos in recording the name of locations or species is minimised. Similarly, try to be systematic when recording your data: if you use capital letter for the initial of the names please stick to it, as well as if you use spaces between words.
11. Avoid recording two names in the same cell. Each record in your table should be unique. You can have a list of names in a cell, but remember that you will not able to query the column and retrieve information from the column easily.
12. Use codes for each record in the attribute table. Codes must be individual and unique. They can be a mix between letters and numbers, but once again something meaningful, for example, TimeA_site1_recordaa.
13. Add a field for your notes and comments as it is likely that during the survey you are unable to assess everything. Hence, writing down (free text) your comments is useful once back to the office to make sure you have as many usable records as possible.
Standards for formatting
All digital information is designed to be interpreted by computer programs and is by mature software dependent. Therefore, in order to make digital data open to all and not dependant on proprietary software, it is best practice to convert and save the final datasets in standard formats that most software are capable to read and that are suitable for data sharing, reuse and preservation.
Notice that the conversion from a format to another may generate changes in the data itself. Thus, it is best practice to check the data for errors after the conversion. Since researchers are the people that best know their data, they should decide on the format which insures more integrity during the conversion process.
Standards for quality control and assurance
Quality control of data is an integral part of every job and it takes place at various stages: during data collection, data entry and digitisation, and data checking. During data collection the researchers must ensure that the data recorded reflects the actual events and observations. Thus, quality control measures during the data collection may include:
1. Calibration of the instruments in order to ensure the precision and the accuracy of the measurement. 2. Taking multiple samples, observations and measurements. 3. Being consistent while capturing data using standardised methods and follow the same instructions. 4. Check with an expert if the data recorded are realistic.
During the data digitisation in a spreadsheet the researchers can avoid errors by setting up validation rules and forms (e.g. forms created in access database); by using drop down menu that refers to controlled vocabularies, code and choice lists; by labelling the variables and record names to avoid confusion.
Data acquire more value if researchers keep their minds open and consider including additional variables and parameters that widen the possible applications of the dataset; in fact data can be reused as they can be useful for other analyses and provide also new avenue for research.
Standards for data anonymisation
Researchers should also consider anonymising personal or commercially and environmentally sensitive data in order to make them more accessible (data sharing) but still secured. Anonymising data can be time consuming and costly, if this is not planned ahead, however if this is part of the data collection strategy it needs not to take time and the data can become part of a wider scientific resource. Here below some suggestions that researchers may be interested in:
• Retain the original version of the data for preservation and for use within the research project • Write down all the replacements, aggregations or removal made in order to anonymise the data. Save the file with the original version • Try to keep spatial reference intact and think of a way of aggregating them, perhaps moving from point coordinates to areas (polygons) • Removing direct identifiers and introduce indirect ID if necessary • Restrict the upper and lower ranges of a variable to hide outliers or calculate and provide averages
Reference:
Van Den Eynden V., Corti l., Woollard M., Bishop L., Horton L., Managing and Sharing data. Best practice for researchers, May 2011, UK Data Archive, Colchester – Essex, UK
ITEM
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
To: Agricultural Advisory Committee Environment Committee
From: Senior Agricultural Advisor Environmental Officer
Title of Report: Weed and Non-native Invasive Species legislation and definition of responsibility
Date: May
1 Purpose
1.1 To discuss the need to introduce tighter regulations relating to non-native invasive species (including weeds and insects) control and clearly define responsibilities for different Departmental and non Departmental organisations, land owners, and other interested parties.
2 Recommendation
2.1 That clear definitions of roles be recognised so that appropriate legislation can in time be better developed, and funding and/or enforcement issues be easier to facilitate. The trend towards DoA being responsible for prevention through Biosecurity, and EPD being responsible for control or eradication of invasive species should be formalised.
2.2 The lead Department will then need budgets for control and eradication of invasive species if problems are too large for affected individuals to reasonably deal with themselves. Learning from infestations that have occurred in the past there is a need to implement a better process to prevent spread of possible new invasive species in the future. This would entail monitoring possible infestations, and to start future eradication programs much sooner after the initial detection of a problem. Such budgets, for control and eradication would already be quite substantial but will only grow the longer the problem is left.
2.3 Designation of noxious weeds and powers/regulations through legislation regarding treatment of noxious weeds may need to be considered as a method of preventing possible future infestations of invasive species growing out of control.
3 Background
3.1 There are a number of invasive species issues where the collaboration is good between all parties; however the role of FIG does not appear to be clearly defined, with no clear framework for responsibility, budget management and long-term strategies. Agricultural Advisory Committee
Page 1 of 2 ITEM
3.2 Parties currently involved in invasive species control include FIG through DoA, the Environmental Planning Department and Public Works Department, Falklands Conservation, landowners, CABI and locally based ‘pest control’ operators including the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) at Mount Pleasant Complex.
3.2 Garden enthusiasts may also have an interest as some ornamental plant species may also be potential invasive species unless kept in a controlled garden situation.
3.3 DoA through Biosecurity has the role to prevent non-native invasive species from entering the country. However, for those species which are already established, FIG management control plans and action responsibilities are blurred. The Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy references the control/eradication of invasive species, with the lead department in FIG identified as the EPD.
3.4 In the past, much of the funding for non-native species research, control and eradication programmes has come from various overseas initiatives and funding sources, eg the Darwin Initiative, the RSPB South Atlantic Invasive Species Programme (EU-funded) and the Overseas Territories Environment Programme, and much control work has been done by willing land owners and volunteers. This approach, while saving local expenditure of private and FIG funds and providing research-based reports, has not resulted in effective control/eradication measures for serious problem species like calafate, thistles and mouse-eared hawkweed.
3.5 FIG has often contributed part-funding to some of these initiatives, but each time this has been on a case by case basis, with some funding going through EPD (eg thistles) and other though DoA (eg earwigs), and without the benefit of a clearly defined long-term invasive species strategy.
3.4 Timeliness is important, being central to the framework required to deal with biosecurity threats. Typically invasive species go through a fairly flat growth period as they establish. Then they enter a period of exponential growth as subsequent generations of plants reach maturity etc. Treatment and eradication costs follow the same pattern.
3.5 Invasive plant infestations on agricultural land primarily impact on the landowner or farm in question, but some have grown beyond the financial ability of that land owner to deal with, such as calafate which now covers over 700 hectares of farmed land on two farms.
3.7 Other weeds such as thistles and hawkweed, are becoming equally as difficult an issue and timeliness in their treatment is important now.
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Page 2 of 2 To: Environment Committee
From: Environmental Officer
Title of Report: Weed control strategy and budget
Date: May 14 2015
1. Purpose
1.1. To review the need to develop and implement a co-ordinated work plan for weed control in the Falkland Islands.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee gives its support to a sustainable long-term weed control programme.
2.2 That the Committee supports a proposed interim basic work plan and budget for 2015 included in this paper.
21. Background
3.1 A sustainable long-term management programme requires the involvement and support of FIG (EPD, DoA, PWD), landowners and farmers with pest weeds on their land, and people from the wider community with an interest in weed control (including the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) at Mount Pleasant Complex, local self-employed ‘weed control’ operators, Falklands Conservation, KEW, Stanley Growers).
3.2 Current weed control efforts (e.g. thistle bashing on Saunders Island, spraying of weeds around Stanley) has been carried out on an ad hoc basis for several years. Those involved recognise that a more structured approach in the form of a long-term annual weed management programme is required.
3.3 They also recognise that there is an urgent need to identify and empower a government agency to take an overall lead on invasive plant issues; and that
3.4 The FIG budget (£4,000) currently available for weed control through the EPD is insufficient to cover the costs of a basic weed control programme. For this reason, it is important for all involved to work to an agreed annual work plan which ensures that available funds are used as effectively as possible.
3.5 A work plan and budget for 2015 is required as an interim measure while awaiting adequate funding and development of a long-term weed management strategy and biosecurity policy from FIG.
1
Draft Work Plan proposed for the period April 2015 - April 2016
1. Draft a budget and work plan for 2015-16 and source additional funding if required. 2. Review and centralise weed control data including reports, papers, spatial data and photos and information from discussions with landowners currently carrying out their own weed control programmes. 3. Produce a map of the treatment sites targeted for weed control in 2015-16, and a chart of time commitments for the project components for the year. 4. Set up a spatial monitoring framework for recording weed control efforts and progress. 5. Carry out an inventory of all weed control equipment and herbicides that are currently held/managed by DoA, FC and EPD. 6. Carry out maintenance on EPD equipment if necessary, order more herbicides etc if required. 7. Carry out a limited programme of weed control fieldwork for several locations, including Saunders Island and the Port Sussex and Stanley areas, and for any other locations as requested by the landowner, during the period November 2015 – March 2016.
Resources required • One/two persons to co-ordinate and/or implement actions 1-6 in conjunction with EPD, DoA and other parties, to be completed by November 2015. • two persons for weed control on Saunders and around Sussex in November-December 2015 and at other locations as requested by landowners; • a Falklands Conservation volunteer group for follow-up work on Saunders in February 2016; • one person for on-going weed control in the Stanley area during the period November 2015-March 2016. • herbicides, spray equipment, flights, shipping.
2
Title of Report: Voluntary Code of Conduct for Introducing a 5p Charge for Plastic Bags
Paper Number: 11.0
Date of Meeting: May 2015
Report of: Waste Management Co-ordinator Head of Environmental Planning
1. Purpose
1.1 To ask for Committee to recommend that Executive Council endorse a voluntary code of conduct for private sector retailers to sign up to, this would provide the necessary structure for retailers to introduce a 5p charge for the issuing of plastic bags in retail outlets.
2. Recommendation
2.1 Honourable Members are invited to:
a) Note the environmental impact of plastic waste, and plastic bags in particular, and acknowledge that FIG has a leadership role in promoting the reduction of their usage.
b) Endorse the Code of Conduct attached at Appendix A to this paper.
c) Direct the Environmental Planning Department to work with retailers in the Islands to get a critical mass to sign up to that the code so that it can be meaningfully implemented, and to run in conjunction with the FIG PR team an awareness campaign on the importance of waste reduction.
3. Additional Budgetary Implications
3.1 None
4. Introduction
4.1 The issue of waste management in the Islands has been the subject of two recent papers to Executive Council (papers 96/14 and 165/14). The Environmental Mainstreaming Group has also considered this issue over recent months. It is hoped that a Waste Management Coordinator will begin work for FIG in the
1
near future. Part of their role will be to coordinate a longer-term strategy for waste management over the coming years. A key tenet of that strategy is likely to be waste reduction and prevention. This paper looks at one isolated issue in that respect, but it potentially helps to set a theme for work to come in the future.
4.2 There have been a range of efforts over recent years to reduce the number of plastic bags imported and used in the Islands. These have been driven by voluntary retailer efforts and have often been initiated or supported by local environmental groups. This has had some success but has not achieved the levels of reduction required.
4.3 In November 2014 there have been discussions within the Chamber of Commerce and Falklands Conservation about how best to approach the issue of the environmental impact of plastic bags.
5. Background
5.1 It is estimated that somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 plastic bags are imported to the Islands annually, with the vast majority of these ending (eventually) in landfill or being blown around the Islands or out to sea. There is clear evidence on minefield and other fences that plastic bags make up a large proportion of the rubbish of the Islands.
5.2 A number of towns, cities and countries around the world have implemented measures to reduce the number of plastic bags being used in their region. These efforts have ranged from voluntary, consumer-led reductions and education campaigns; through to legislation banning the importation of such products.
6. Why are plastic bags a concern?
6.1 Plastic bags have a significant environmental impact around the globe and on the Falkland Islands, this includes (Source: The Guardian Newspaper and Planet Ark):
6.1.1 Every square mile of ocean, including the FI EEZ, is estimated to have 46,000 items of plastic in it, a lot of that is from plastic bags.
6.1.2 Plastic bags form one of the most common elements of general litter, which was demonstrated by recent beach cleans and the national tidy-up day.
6.1.3 Bags entangle seabirds, fish and marine mammals. If ingested, they can prevent animals from digesting anything further and/or submerging.
2
6.1.4 Traditional plastic bags do not biodegrade, they just break down into smaller and smaller bits which can contaminate water, soil and oceans and also enter the food chain when eaten by animals such as our abundant birdlife.
6.1.5 Biodegradable and degradable plastic bags go some way to alleviating the problem, but can take between 6 months and 5 years to degrade – by this time they may already have caused litter and wider environmental impact. They also produce methane whilst degrading.
7. What can be done?
7.1 There are a range of options available to try and address the issue of plastic bag waste. These were discussed with representatives from the retail sector in late November 2014. The representatives included FIC, Seafish Chandlery, Kelper Stores, The Market Garden and Lifestyles. Other retailers had been invited to the discussion but were not able to attend on the day.
7.2 The ideas discussed included:
7.2.1 A blanket ban on the importation of plastic bags. This approach was dismissed as it was thought to be too restrictive and it would also fail to recognise that a lot of people already recycle plastic bags for other purposes, and that the tourist-related retail sector would always likely have a need for some plastic bag usage.
7.2.2 General awareness-raising to encourage use of reusable bags. This would appear to be the best option initially and it is planned that this will form part of the recommended solution. However, in and of itself it is not believed that this is sufficient to deal with the problem as an awareness-raising campaign run by Falklands Conservation/Seafish Chandlery occurred in 2009, and whilst some change in consumer behaviour was seen in the short-term, no lasting change occurred. Other countries have found similar outcomes from awareness raising – it helps in the short-term but the benefit tails off once promotion has stopped. This is despite research having shown that an average re-usable cloth bag will save each person from using 1,000 plastic bags during its life.
7.2.3 The provision of reusable bags to all households, alongside an awareness-raising campaign. Again, this is would be seen as a part of the ultimate solution to the problem of plastic bag waste. However, these have been given away freely in the past by local companies and are also available for purchase currently, and retailers report that whilst there is some take-up, their use has not become widespread.
3
7.2.4 Encouraging retailers to use paper bags instead. Whilst it appears as if paper bags can be safer for the environment, the evidence is far from conclusive. Such bags also do not remove the issue of bags being blown around and causing litter.
7.2.5 The introduction of legislation mandating a charge for plastic bags. This was discussed, however was quickly dismissed as it is unlikely to be seen by Honourable Members as a legislative priority in an already busy drafting list.
7.2.6 The introduction of a voluntary nominal charge (proposed at 5p) for plastic bags. This is the solution preferred by those retailers present at the discussion in November. Evidence from elsewhere in the world demonstrates that the introduction of such a charge for plastic bags when taking them from a store reduces plastic bag usage very quickly by 90%. The retailers suggested a system whereby a critical mass of retailers agrees to such a charge and an implementation date (so as to avoid any competitive disadvantage from introducing it). They also proposed that any funds raised from the sale of plastic bags be pooled annually and donated to a local charity of their collective choosing. The level of the charge is ultimately arbitrary, but 5p has been proposed as a starting point and is in line with what has occurred in a number of UK cities.
8. Why is the introduction of a 5p charge the recommended option?
8.1 Reducing our use of plastic bags is an important step in the march towards a sustainable future and would reinforce the Islands image as a clean and green environment.
8.2 However, plastic bags are currently an established part of the shopping environment in the Islands. Many people also reuse bags for home purposes (e.g. in bins, storage, reuse at shops etc). Therefore an outright ban is unlikely to be practical or required. Saying that, a goal to look at reducing importation to almost zero appears potentially achievable, especially considering the community has already shown a willingness to adopt re-usable bags and to try to reduce our waste. It is believed that a charge of 5p per bag would help to achieve this goal.
8.3 It would also have economic benefits to the Islands in that it would reduce expenditure on the importation of plastic bags be retailers. The exact figure of this is difficult to estimate, but is thought to be tens of thousands of pounds annually. This would be offset up-front by some expenditure on reusable bags to fill that gap, but these are much longer-lasting and it is hoped that a sponsor company would be found to bulk-purchase these and provide them to local households.
8.4 This initiative would appear to be best achieved via a voluntary scheme agreed amongst relevant retailers and importers of plastic bags. It would require a viable, more environmentally friendly alternative and that is where the
4
suggestion of a sponsor company for the issuance of reusable bags comes in. It is hoped that a company would take this option up as an element of their Corporate Social Responsibility programme and as a PR tool. Some interest has been shown in this option already.
9. How would this work?
9.1 If Honourable Members support it, this paper proposes the following staged approach to this issue:
No. Item Lead(s) Timeframe Organise a promotion campaign EPD & highlighting the environmental impact of May 2015 – June 1 Falklands plastic bag usage (and plastic more 2015 Conservation widely) Source and appoint a private sector partner who would be interested in May 2015 – June 2 EPD sponsoring the distribution of reusable 2015 bags to local households. Organise for reusable bags to be Sponsor 2 distributed to all households in the August 2015 Company Islands May – December 3 Monitor reduction in plastic bag usage Retailers 2015 If reduction in usage is not sufficient, EPD / then look to have retailers sign up to a Chamber of December 2015 4 charge for plastic bags as per attached Commerce / for start in Jan-16 Code of Practice (Appendix A) to be Retailers implemented on the 1st January 2016.
10. Why does FIG need to be involved at all?
10.1 Due to the fact that local retail sector has a number of different companies involved, they have indicated that they would feel more comfortable with FIG proposing this concept for the following reasons:
10.1.1 Whilst voluntary, this proposed solution introduces an independent arbitrator (FIG) to the code of practice and means that retailers do not have to look to strike out alone on this and potentially harm themselves commercially.
10.1.2 They believe it is an environmental issue that FIG should naturally lead on.
10.1.3 It provides them the reassurance that Elected Members are behind such a charge and gives them cover from a customer perspective.
10.2 It has been suggested that an NGO, such as Falklands Conservation, could propose and arbitrate this code of practice instead of FIG. Falklands Conservation has been very helpful in this process and has been engaged in
5
discussions throughout. They would also be keen to be involved but see this as an item that FIG should take a lead on as it is of national importance.
11. Financial Implications
11.1 There are no material financial implications to FIG arising from this report.
11.2 Over a 5-year period it is forecast that this would result in a lesser spend by retailers on plastic bags. It is hoped (but not guaranteed) that this reduced external expenditure would allow prices to be lowered on retail products.
11.3 The suggested option of introducing a charge would also result in funds being given to charity by the retail sector.
12. Legal Implications
12.1 There are no legal implications arising from this paper.
12.2 As mentioned earlier in the paper, the issue of a legislative basis for such a charge was discussed briefly and quickly dismissed as not being a legislative priority and it would be deemed to be far too onerous.
13. Human Resource Implications
13.1 None, this finite piece of work can be incorporated within EPD’s existing capacity.
References http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/17/microplastic-deposits-found-deep-in- worlds-oceans-and-seas
6
Appendix A
REDUCING PLASTIC USAGE – CODE OF PRACTICE Retailer Name:
I, the undersigned, agree that my retail outlet shall:
• From the 1st January 2016 implement a charge of 5p per bag for any and all new plastic bags that I issue to my customers.
• That any and all funds raised from charging for plastic bags in a calendar year will be donated to the agreed charity for that year.
• The annual selected charity will be chosen by majority vote of the signatories to this code of practice.
• I shall do all that I reasonably can to ensure that the use and sale of plastic bags is minimised on my retail premises e.g. by making available reusable bags if available to me.
• That the charge imposed for plastic bags will be reviewed at least annually in partnership with all signatories to this code to ensure that it is still relevant and at the correct level.
• I agree that I shall not change the level of charge imposed within a calendar year.
• I recognise that I can leave this code of practice at any time, but accept that this is likely to undermine the value of the code and may result in others doing the same.
Signature Date
7
Falkland Islands Government
The Environmental Planning Department P.O. Box 611 Stanley Falkland Islands
APPLICATION FOR VISITOR PERMIT TO VISIT ISLANDS IN FALKLAND ISLAND GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP
Name of Island you wish to visit: Beauchêne Island
Number of people in your party: Two
Name of Group Leader: Alastair Baylis
Contact Address: Deakin University Po Box 423 Warrnambool, Victoria, 3280, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Reason for visiting island: Request permission to collect peat cores from Beauchêne Island in winter 2015, for the purpose of sampling fur seal (Arctocephalus australis) hair.
Beauchêne Island is historically one of the archipelagos’ largest fur seal breeding colonies and provides a unique opportunity to establish historical baselines for the Falklands fur seal. Specifically I will collect fur seal hair retained in peat cores for DNA and stable isotope analysis.
We intend to follow the protocol described in Lewis and Prince (1985). Specifically, we will sample peat from an ~11m eroded peat bank in the southern end of the island, taking peat cores at ~1m intervals.
Prior to landing on Beauchêne, footwear and the peat corer will be scrubbed with Virkon disinfectant. While it is not our intention to spend more than 1 day on Beauchêne, the short winter day length may necessitate an overnight trip.
Lewis Smith RI, Prince PA (1985) The natural history of Beauchêne Island. Biol J Linn Soc 233–283.
Date(s) of visit: May/June (exact date to be confirmed)
Overnight stay? Yes
Method of getting to Island: Charter boat
Will you be accompanied by a local guide: No
If yes, Local Guide’s name:
Your signature: Date: 13/10/2014
Your name: Alastair Baylis Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Remote Area and Island Conduct 1
Group Details: SOP No. 1 st Falklands Islands field work Date of Issue: 25 March 2010 Last Revision: 23 Jan 2013 Revision By: A. Baylis
Stages of work being carried out. Hazards/ Risks for each stage. Key Points. Protective How each stage is to be completed. Equipment 1) Pre-trip arrangements. • Arrange predetermined daily scheduled contact times as per field trip form. N/A • Ensure that sufficient food and water supplies are taken N/A on field trip. − Take food and water for additional 6 days, in case of unscheduled extension to duration of field trip. • Ensure equipment check is undertaken prior to departure. − If applicable, contact land owner to ascertain radio frequency monitored. − Communications (ie. satellite phone, VHF). − First aid supplies (appropriate to nature of field trip). − Suitable clothing for fieldwork to be conducted. − Suitable camping equipment or accommodation. • Seek approval to access field sites from relevant land owner/s. • Ensure research undertaken is covered by EPD permits. • Volunteers must have current basic first aid training. • Staff must have current advanced first aid.
2) Biosecurity • Introduction of rodents via • The operator of any vessels being used should be asked equipment, transportation prior to departure about recent hull scrubbing and an • Introduction of noxious plant assessment of marine invasive risk from the vessel should seeds be made. • Disease • Bags and equipment will be thoroughly checked for • Introduction of invasive rodents before arrival on the Island invertebrates • If appropriate, rodent traps will be placed on-board the vessel.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Remote Area and Island Conduct 2 • Introduction of invasive marine • Stores should be kept pest-free, and records should be species kept of the actions taken for pest control. • All foodstuffs should be stored in see-through sealed plastic boxes to minimise the chance of rodents hitchhiking to islands. • If boxes are used, they should be well taped up (ie all holes >5mm and openings sealed). • Boots will be washed prior to shore in a biocide; in this case it will be Virkon. • All clothing will be inspected prior to shore paying particular attention to Velcro, footwear, gaiters, trouser turn-ups and jacket hoods. • No fresh meat, vegetables, fruit or dairy products, especially poultry products and eggs, will be brought ashore. • The zodiac will be thoroughly inspected for pests and organic material before each shore deployment. • If any invasive species, especially rodents, are accidentally introduced to the island, every effort should be made to capture or kill it. If this is not possible the incident will be reported to FC/EPD in Stanley for response. 3) Camping on Islands • Rubbish and waste • All rubbish will be taken off the island at the end of the trip • All rubbish will be stored in sealed containers • No materials, (with the exception of biodegradable toilet paper) will be deposited at the site. • A full risk assessment will be conducted shortly after arriving to identify the most suitable camp site / cooking site and toilet site taking into account the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the island and associated fire risks. • It is preferable that a toilet be designated where there is suitable access to the sea. • When this is not possible, a toilet will be earmarked at a suitable location (away from all water sources and wildlife). A latrine will be dug, and filled in at the end of the trip. 4) Cooking with fuel stoves, use of • Explosion • No open fires, no smoking • Training generators, plus storage of all • Fire • All fuel stoves and generators must be in good
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Remote Area and Island Conduct 3 hazardous chemicals. operational order and meet international safety standards. • When in operation, fuel stoves and generators must not be left unattended. • Power leads must be inspected for physical damage before use and must be tagged. • When not in use, fuel and fuel stoves must be stored appropriately. • Cooking will be kept to a minimum (i.e. using package food that only requires heating and not cooking). Staff have extensive experience of cooking and operating field stoves in remote conditions. • Fuel must be stored in containers that meet international safety standards. • MSDS documentation to accompany all hazardous chemicals and should be stored and transported appropriately. 5) General conduct in field. • Exposure • All staff to read and understand code of conduct • Protective • Falling • All remote fieldwork to be conducted by two or more clothing • Drowning persons. − Exposure • Seal and bird bites • Appropriate safety equipment and emergency food and − Footwear water supplies should be carried when working away − Physical from the main camp site. protection • All groups planning excursions away from main campsite • Training must inform those remaining at camp of their intentions • Sunscreen (ie. trip route, plus expected duration and ETA). • All persons must take due care to actively avoid hazards, such as: − Cliff edges, slippery surfaces, waves along the coast and harmful animals/plants. − Do not approach dangerous animals.
6) Accident response. • Where appropriate accidents are to be dealt with • Protective according First Aid training, clothing N/A • In cases other than those requiring minor first aid − Exposure
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Remote Area and Island Conduct 4 treatment, the following response should be undertaken: − Biting − Non-life threatening: arrange for evacuation of − Physical injured person (ie. by vessel or air) to appropriate protection medical facility. − Training − Life threatening: call emergency services via appropriate communication method (ie. satellite phone). If applicable EPIRB may also be activated.