AGENDA
Meeting of the Environmental Committee
Wednesday 19th October 2016 at 8.30am
Liberation Room, Secretariat
Distribution List:-
Hon. Mr Michael Poole, MLA Hon. Mrs Jan Cheek, MLA Representative, Falkland Islands Tourist Board Representative, Rural Business Association Representative, Department of Agriculture Representative, Falkland Islands Fishing Companies Association Representative, Falklands Conservation Mr Mike Evans, Community Representative Mr Sam Cockwell, Community Representative Miss Emily Hancox, Community Representative
Environmental Officer Head of Environmental Planning Representative, South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute
HE The Governor Principal Crown Counsel
Environmental Committee
8.30am, October 19th 2016
Liberation Room, Stanley
Part I (Open)
1.0 Apologies for Absence
2.0 Declarations of Interest
3.0 Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 18th August 2016
4.0 Matters Arising:
4.1 Funding Applications Update; Darwin Plus and EU BEST Verbal Update
4.2 Invasive Plant control Verbal Update
4.3 Calafate Open Day – Port Sussex DoA Invite
4.4 Environmental Studies Budget application Earwig Monitoring Proposal to follow
4.5 Biological Control Update Report Attached
5.0 Marine Spatial Planning for the Falkland Islands Report Attached
6.0 Climate Change Project Recommendations Report Attached
7.0 BEST III Conclusions Presentation by Maria Taylor
8.0 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference Report Attached
9.0 Research Licence Applications:
9.1 Using unmanned aerial vehicles for environmental Application Attached monitoring at Sea Lion Island
9.2 Genetic Structure of Southern Rockhopper Penguins Application Attached in the SW Atlantic
10.0 Papers of interest (available on request from EO):
Report to FIG on attendance at:-1.5 Degrees – Meeting the challenge of the Paris Agreement, University of Oxford, September 2016
Report of Activities, Research License R05/2016 The termination of the last ice age in the Falkland Islands, Brenda Hall and Thomas Lowell, University of Maine
Use of local ecological knowledge to investigate endangered baleen whale recovery in the Falkland Islands, Veronica F. Frans ⁎, Amélie A. Augé 11 .0 Date of next meeting
TBC
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
Minutes
08.30am, August 18th 2016
Liberation Room, Stanley
Present: MLA Michael Poole Chair MLA Jan Cheek MLA Cheek Nick Rendell (EPD) NR Ian Campbell (DOA) IC Jackie Cotter (FIFCA) AP Kyle Biggs (FITB) KB Andy Stanworth (FC) AS David Blockley (SAERI) DB Sam Cockwell (Com Rep) SC Emily Hancox (Com Rep) EH
Press and Public Attending: 0
Part I (Open)
1.0 Apologies for Absence
Apologies were received from Nick Pitaluga (RBA Rep) and Mike Evans (Community Rep).
2.0 Declarations of Interest
JC for any items relating to Falklands Conservation EH for SAERI bids DB for SAERI bids
3.0 Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 18th May 2016
Approved with no amendments.
4.0 Matters Arising:
4.1 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
NR noted that CBD had now been extended to FIG from the UK and this was welcomed by Committee. NR noted the procedure had been quick and now needed to be followed by implementation through the Biodiversity Framework.
4.2 External Funding Bids Summary
NR noted several rounds of external funding which will be available to the Overseas Territories, including Darwin Plus and EU BEST medium size bids. AS noted FC are submitting one project to the medium-size funding EU BEST round. 1
4.3 Building efficiency in the Building Regulations 2016/17
4.4 Chair thanked the Building Advisor for providing this summary.
4.5 Marine Spatial Planning
Chair noted a further year’s funding has been awarded to the Fisheries Dept and SAERI to continue the project with details to follow.
4.6 Climate Change Quarter Theme
Chair thanked everyone involved in the climate change quarter and noted the Power and Electrical Dept will have a further Open Day at the wind turbines later in year.
Chair noted National Tidy Up Day is taking Place on 8th October; details to be circulated. He also noted a Malta Environmental Department skype call happening in October; any interested Committee members are welcome to attend.
JC noted she had questioned low sulphur fuel imports with Stanley Services who reported they currently have little choice over fuel supplies. She said they would bear it in mind in future.
4.7 Ecosystem Services Assessment
Chair noted he has chased this work again with Strategic Oil Group.
5.0 Environmental Studies Budget Allocation
Committee considered the bids summary with priorities and recommendations provided on the agenda.
EH felt that Climate Change priority should be higher. It was agreed increase to a mid-way score of 8. Members felt education and awareness should be given more detail in the ESB application on what is required. AS requested invasives higher priority and committee agreed to revise the score to 15.
Action: NR
EH questioned the invertebrate monitoring project in the absence of a detailed application. It was agreed to hold on approval until detailed application reviewed. Committee agreed with recommendations and approved funding bids in line with the agenda.
Committee members agreed to support the projects identified for support in the recommendations, with the exception of the invertebrate monitoring project for which further details are required.
6.0 BEST III Conclusions
Cancelled due to absence of Project Officer. To be presented at October meeting.
7.0 Kew Gardens TEFRA Climate Falklands Change Project Chair welcomed the initiative and the final reports on Climate Change in the 2
Falklands, noting the recommendations paper circulated. AS questioned how the CC risk assessment and recommendations work fits with the Biodiversity Framework and where additional Climate Change work fits. Chair suggested the report and recommendations should be presented to ExCo in a stand-alone document with detail on actions and lead departments provided. AS noted that the actions identified vary from small scale to strategic and should be put in context. NR agreed to review the recommendations and bring a revised detailed report back to Committee in October. Action: NR
8.0 Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme Report
AS summarised the annual seabird counts undertaken by FC last season. On the whole he noted a good start and bad finish to the breeding season, culminating in some chick and adult mortalities in penguin species reported in the North and West of the Falklands. He noted the 27 year data set which is now in place and that analysis of this long-term data set is underway with publications to follow.
9.0 Invasive Plant control
Chair and committee welcomed the 2 year plan presented which was largely the work of Sally Poncet who has led on invasive plant control last year. NR noted her good work as well as FC and DoA efforts. AS welcomed the plan and noted the need to formalise invasive plant priorities through the Biodiversity Framework and Species Action Plans. NR acknowledged this work is required and will be prioritised. Committee endorsed the plan. Action: NR
10.0 Energy Conservation Policy
Chair introduced this item. Committee agreed it was an excellent policy start. EH noted the need to audit the process and monitor results. Property & Municipals section of PWD will be closely involved.
11.0 Research Licence Applications: Application Forms Attached:
11.1 Demography, breeding success and communication of the Falkland skuas of Sea Lion Island
Agreed and supported by Committee.
Diving and feeding strategies of southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) of
Sea Lion Island
Agreed and supported by Committee.
Seabirds and wind - the consequences of extreme prey taxis in a changing climate
Agreed and supported. More detail on shearwater trapping timings and number of tag deployments requested. Action: NR 12.0 Papers of interest (available on request from EO):
3
Noted by Committee members.
20.0 Terms of Reference (considered in open part of meeting)
A draft revised Terms of Reference for the Environmental Committee which has been drafted by the Attorney General’s Chambers was considered. It was agreed SAERI should gain full voting rights.
Detailed comments are welcomed to NR prior to the next meeting of EC.
Action: NR 13.0 Date of next meeting
TBC – planned for late October
4
Impact of the invasive European earwig (Forficula auricularia) on the indigenous invertebrate communities of the Falkland Island Outline for a PhD project
Underlying rationale
Over recent years annual outbreaks of the European earwig in Port Stanley and other settlements within the Falkland Islands have caused considerable problems ranging from yield losses in horticulture to various health and safety issues. Unusual high and detrimental densities of earwigs can best be explained by the lack of natural enemies and to readdress this imbalance a biological control programme is currently underway to introduce two parasitoid flies. These flies have been tested for host specificity and are highly specialised to attack and infect later instars and adult earwig specimens.
However, there is also the threat that earwigs may impact negatively on native ecosystems either by predation on native species or by outcompeting species which occupy a similar niche. Subsequently, such direct effects may have significant consequences for the whole food web of the invaded systems. Little is known about the population dynamics of earwigs on the Falkland Islands outside settlements, particular their occurrence in native grasslands and heathlands as well as the dynamics of their spread over the islands. In many cases assessing the impact of an invasive species on entire food webs is very difficult due to a high species diversity within invaded habitats. However, the rather limited invertebrate diversity on the Falkland Island provides an ideal background for such an approach.
We propose to assess the threat of earwigs to indigenous ecosystem through a three year PhD project supervised by RHUL and CABI. An early start of the work, as early as 2017, is desirable for a number of reasons. The current release of the biological control agents is still ongoing and establishment and spread of these will take some time. This provides an opportunity to assess population dynamics of earwigs before the agents can exert a significant impact. On the other hand the current situation also allows investigating and monitoring establishment, spread and impact of these agents within the project.
Specific objectives and hypotheses to be tested
Objective 1: To determine the impact of earwigs on native invertebrate fauna
This will mainly look into the direct impact through predation, aspects of competition and other changes to the food web. In particular effects on the only native camel cricket (Parudenus falklandicus), which is of similar size of earwigs and may have a comparable diet will be assessed. There are anecdotal observations that earwigs impact on a range of other invertebrate within Stanley and have resulted in the decline of blue bottles and various native beetle species. In contrast, densities of centipedes seem to increase as a possible response to high earwig densities. This may increasingly provide some control to earwig population, but may have also significant impacts on other native species. Primarily, this objective will focus on the comparison of invaded and non-invaded areas (possibly including smaller islands with no records of earwigs). The following methods will be applied:
• Assessment of invertebrate diversity with various sampling techniques such as suction sampling, possibly complemented by pitfall traps (assessment of species richness, relative abundance and diversity to assess changes on the occurrence of individual species caused by the earwig invasion) • Developing DNA finger print database for invertebrates encountered at the sampling sites (this is possible due to the limited number of invertebrates within the assessed habitats and will provided the basis for the next step listed below) • Analysis of frass of earwigs (this will provide data on direct earwig predation) • Specific assessment of the impact on the native camel cricket by sampling all life stages of the camel cricket (suction sampling, pitfalls, hand-search) • Assessment of possible responses of the native/non-native invertebrate fauna to the invasion of earwigs (reports of increased densities of centipedes) and the impact on the food web • Assessment of the impact of earwigs on the vegetation (vegetation quadrates, measurements of sward heights)
Objective 2: To assess ongoing spread and population dynamics of earwigs
This objective will focus on changes occurring during the course of the project and can also include modelling of the future spread and impact of earwigs within the Falkland Islands. This objective includes:
• Assessment of changes in earwig densities in newly invaded areas • Assessment of any shifts of population dynamics in anthropogenically altered habitats (we found many half grown nymphs in September in polytunnels, something completely out of sync with the normal lifecycle) • Assessing the reasons for the development of particular high density spots ‘hotspots’ and if these shift over time
Objective 3: To assess the establishment of parasitoid tachinid flies and their effectiveness in controlling the European earwig
This objective will provide a post release monitoring of establishment and impact of Triarthria setipennis and Ocytata pallipes currently released in Stanley for the control of earwigs. In particular this will assess:
• The occurrence of fly pupae of both species within especially designed earwig traps (based on surveys conducted for this purpose in the USA). These traps will be positioned at selected sites within and as well outside Stanley to obtain data on spread and population increase.
• Assessment of earwig densities at monitoring stations will provide data about the initial impact of the control agent
Timing: Most of the project activities will be conducted by a RHUL PhD student. The candidate will need to be based for several weeks each year on the Falklands to conduct the work, in particular towards the end of the summer and during autumn, when earwigs become most prevalent and start to spread. Ideally work can begin mid-2017 and cover three field seasons.
Update activities for the Darwin plus project ‘Enhancing biosecurity and biological control capacity in the Falkland Islands’ October 2016
Difficulties in switching the lifecycle of the parasitoid flies to southern hemisphere seasons resulted in a failure to establish any of the two species in Stanley during 2015. However, based on the experience gained during this initial release trial an improved approach has been implemented during 2016 and has now resulted in the successful release of 1,000 earwigs exposed to fly eggs of Ocytata pallipes .
In 2016 the following milestones where achieved during 2016:
• Trapping of earwigs at 4 fruit orchards in Kent and Berkshire including an additional site at the organic ‘Target farm’ in Marden, Kent
• Collecting earwigs from traps in July, August and September. Overall earwig numbers were much lower compared to 2015; however, this was at least partially compensated by higher infestation rates through the control agents
• First shipment of ~220 O. pallipes pupae to Stanley on the 4 th of September 2016
• Second shipment of ~50 pupae to Stanley on the 27 th of September
• Hatching of flies took place in Government House gardens within the quarantine shed installed during 2015. Flies were then kept in a heated polytunnel where they started to lay eggs on the 28 th of September.
• In a next step pieces of carrots which contained fly eggs were feed to batches of 200 earwig specimens, and were ingested by feeding earwig (kept at raised temperature to increase metabolism and feeding activity)
• As soon as eggs were ingested by the earwigs these were release at two sheltered sites with the gardens. At the time of writing 1,000 earwigs have been exposed to fly eggs and released. The trial is still ongoing with more eggs currently being deposited and fed to further earwigs
• Pupae of Triarthria setipennis are currently collected within the CABI labs in Egham and stored under natural condition for hibernation. These are planned to be shipped to Stanley for hatching in January 2017
• The CABI team (Norbert Maczey, Pablo Gonzalez-Moreno) visited Stanley between the 27 th of September and 4 th of October and helped with the release of O. pallipes . During this visit and open day/afternoon was held at the Gardens (28 th ) to inform the public of any progress of the project; on the same day a presentation about classical biological control was given to students at the secondary school in Stanley
• On the 29 th and 30 th of September a workshop was held for biosecurity staff and other stakeholders on the Falklands, via video and pone link also including biosecurity officers from St Helena and South Georgia. Main focus was the
development of a PRA template suitable for the Falklands and we are currently developing a finalised version based on the discussions of the workshop.
Darwin Plus: Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund
Final Report Important note To be completed with reference to the Reporting Guidance Notes for Project Leaders: it is expected that this report will be a maximum of 20 pages in length, excluding annexes
Darwin Project Information
Project Ref Number DPLUS027 Project Title Marine Spatial Planning for the Falkland Islands Territory(ies) Falkland Islands Contract Holder Institution South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute Partner Institutions Falklands Conservation, BirdLife International, British Antarctic Survey, Grant Value £151,572 Start/end date of project 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2016 Project Leader Name Paul Brickle Project http://south-atlantic-research.org/research/current- website/Twitter/Blog etc. research/marine-spatial-planning Report author(s) and date Amélie Augé, 30 June 2016
1 Project Overview
The Falkland Islands is an archipelago situated off the East coast of the southern tip of South America (Figure 1). The Islands are a UK Overseas Territory, and include both the land mass and a large declared Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Falkland Islands marine area (EEZ) is extensive and covers 463,897 km2 from shallow coastal waters to deep-sea of more than 4,500m. The marine environment of the Falkland Islands was exploited for commercial whaling and sealing in the past and has now sustained commercial fisheries for several decades. It is, however, still a considerably untouched part of the world, including many areas that remain in close to pristine condition. This is recognised by Falkland Islanders and the international community. The marine environment is very important to the Falkland Islands and its inhabitants because the current main economic activities are marine-based (commercial fishing and tourism) and people are closely linked to it for cultural reasons. The economic activities entirely rely on a healthy marine environment where fish can reproduce and grow and where wildlife attracting the tourists can thrive. Therefore, there is an intimate connection between managing the marine environment and ensuring the Falklands’ economy is sustainable and people can enjoy their favourite coastal places, in the long-term future. With an increasing number and intensity of human activities occurring in the oceans around the Falkland Islands, in particular for oil exploration, but also for shipping traffic, commercial fishing, aquaculture, and tourism, the need to identify areas sensitive to risks and to manage sustainably the marine environment has been identified as a priority for the Falkland Islands Government. The Islands Plan 2014-18 described the key actions that the current elected Government will take during their time in the Legislative Assembly. The Plan includes an action to “Implement appropriate […] marine spatial planning frameworks to ensure the preservation and management of […] marine environments of the Falkland Islands”.
Figure 1. The Falkland Islands’ Exclusive Economic Zone, locally called Conservation Zone
The Project Outcome Statement was “Falkland Islands have no legal framework of marine protected areas or strategic approach to marine spatial planning. The project will, through review, analyses and consultation, provide this framework, enabling the Territory to plan and manage the sustainable development and conservation of the marine environment around the Falkland Islands”. There is currently no marine spatial planning (MSP) around the Falkland Islands with the exception of spatial management of commercial fishing through annual fishing licenses including seasonal fishing closure areas and the exclusion of industrial fishing within 3 nautical miles from a baseline convex polygon around the islands. The Falkland Islands’ EEZ is rich in marine biodiversity, including globally threatened seabirds and marine mammals. The need to identify and manage areas sensitive to risks of conflicts between different human uses and/or with marine wildlife and values has been identified as a priority for FIG. Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a tool used that can be used to identify and resolve these conflicts and ensure sustainable use of the marine environment, now and in the future.
The aims of the project were to initiate the process of MSP in the Falkland Islands with two main goals:
2 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Mapping and analytical goal: Identifying, analysing and mapping areas used by humans and wildlife, most important ecological areas and zones of conflicts. This goal involved gathering all available spatial data on the marine environment of the Falkland Islands and assessing the major data gaps for efficient planning. Data are mapped in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to work on spatial analyses for identification of overlap areas and areas of highest ecological significance. A sub-study of this goal was also to re-analyse together all satellite tracking and sighting data of seabirds and marine mammals available in order to identify the main data gaps for the management of this group of species. Another sub-study of this goal was to map the marine coastal cultural ecosystem services of the Falkland Islands in order to include these values in the MSP process framework.
Policy goal: Involving local and international stakeholders in the initial MSP process and data gathering, and producing a framework for FIG to facilitate further steps towards implementation of MSP and associated legislation. This goal involved a large component of public consultation, communication and engagement with the local population and stakeholders and reviews of best-practice via literature reviews and workshops with MSP experts and local stakeholders.
The project contributed towards integrated marine management for the Falkland Islands at the same time as providing local capacity building in MSP through stakeholder engagement and public communication. The project addressed the highest priority areas within the Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy (FIBioS), particularly coastal and marine species and ecosystems. The project also contributed towards potential ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by the Falkland Islands (this was officially announced on 29 June 2016) as it provides the means for FIG to identify potential Marine Managed Areas, including candidate marine reserves. The results of this project also provide guidance and act as a model for other UKOTs and small islands worldwide addressing MSP in the future.
Open-access computer programs (free and available for anyone to download from the internet and use) were used in this project to allow any interested stakeholders to look and access at the data and results. This also ensures that the data, references and information produced by this project can be available for use by anyone in the future, independently of access to expensive software.
2 Project Achievements
2.1 Outcome
This outcome was “Falkland Islands have no framework of marine protected areas or strategic approach to marine spatial planning. The project will, through review, analyses and consultation, provide this framework, enabling the Territory to plan and manage the sustainable development and conservation of the marine environment around the Falkland Islands“. This outcome set out in the original proposal was achieved (with a focus on MSP rather than MPA, from stakeholders’ direction). Evidence includes a range of documents (meeting minutes, workshop reports, databases, official public government papers etc.) all available to download from the MSP webpage. Descriptions of attendees to events are described in relevant reports.
3 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Outcome achievement indicators Baseline Change by 2016 Source of evidence Collation and There is currently no Marine data were http://south-atlantic- availability of facility in terms of data gathered from different research.org/research/current- research/marine-spatial- data storage that will allow departments and for the holistic organisations and planning#MSP%20GIS%20database analyses of these collated in one data. Currently data database. All new data Search the IMS-GIS data Centre for are held in multiple were also entered in “Marine Spatial Planning”: http://south- databases and spread the IMS-GIS Data atlantic-research.org/metadata- sheets. Centre (33 datasets). catalogue Stakeholder The current OTEP There were already http://south-atlantic- information on funded protected many reviews research.org/research/current- research/marine-spatial- potential areas project has available on MSP provided reviews best-practice which planning#Links%20of%20interest%20a approaches bout%20MSP relevant mainly to were gathered and terrestrial provided to Collie JS, Adamowicz WL, Beck MW, et al (2013) Marine spatial planning in practice. environments. The stakeholders (by Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science Shallow Marine emails and links on 117:1–11. Surveys Group webpage). Fletcher S, McKinley E, Buchan KC, et al conducted a review of Stakeholders attended (2013) Effective practice in marine spatial marine protected a presentation where planning: A participatory evaluation of experience in Southern England. Marine areas in 2010 but did the most relevant Policy 39:341–348. not review the models models to the Falkland highlighted in section Islands were Kelly C, Gray L, Shucksmith R, Tweddle JF (2014) Review and evaluation of 21. explained. marine spatial planning in the Shetland Islands. Marine Policy 46:152–160. Workshop for No workshops on MSP The workshop “Setting http://south-atlantic- setting or MPAs have taken the scene” took place research.org/research/current- research/marine-spatial- methodology place in the Falkland 24-25 Nov. 2014 in the Islands previously Falkland Islands with planning#Workshop%20#1%20%E2%8 0%98Setting%20the%20scene%E2%8 16 local stakeholders, 0%99%20%E2%80%93%20November government %202014 representatives and
scientists. GIS database A centralised GIS A Marine Spatial http://south-atlantic- platform does not exist Planning GIS research.org/research/current- for the Falkland database and related research/marine-spatial- Islands. metadata catalogue planning#MSP%20GIS%20database were created. The MSP GIS project is More on the webGIS also available online http://south-atlantic- publicly as a prototype research.org/research/current- webGIS. research/marine-spatial- planning#MSP%20Falklands%20webGI S%20- %20prototype%20coming%20soon%20 in%202016!! Mapping of Much work has been 60 tracking datasets http://south-atlantic- megafauna key conducted but only and 1 multi-year at-sea research.org/research/current- research/marine-spatial- areas reports at a sighting dataset of species/population seabirds and seals planning#Key%20areas%20for%20mari ne%20megafauna level. Studies were gathered. A investigating multiple workshop took place species, habitats and 13-14 April 2015 to their marine usage develop the simultaneously in methodology for order to examine analyses. Species marine usage do not density use layers exist for the Falkland were produced for 29 Islands species and analysed
4 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
to identify key areas for marine megafauna. Workshop for No workshops on MSP The workshop http://south-atlantic- developing or MPAs have taken “Developing the tools” research.org/research/current- research/marine-spatial- MSP tools place previously took place 16-17 April 2015 in Cambridge, planning#Workshop%20#2%20%E2%8 0%98Developing%20the%20tools%E2 UK, with 7 Falklands %80%99%20%E2%80%93%20April%2 government and 02015 stakeholder Workshop report available for download representatives and 15 on the above page UK-based MSP experts. Bio- This approach Data gathered were The webGIS provides public access to regionalisation covering the entire analysed, formatted the resulting mapping; several stakeholder, and requests for data and analyses marine environment and mapped for use in has not been MSP, in particular maps have already occurred. Maps of overlap were produced and provided to conducted for the shipping data, seabird some stakeholders for voluntary (eg. Falkland Islands and seal breeding Royal Navy gunnery exercises). colonies, whale
sightings, marine biosecurity risk areas, Maps depicting area also displayed in the various report provided to geomorphology stakeholders, highlighting in particular areas of between marine values and activities. Workshop for No workshops on MSP The workshop http://south-atlantic- framing the or MPAs have taken “Farming the process” research.org/research/current- research/marine-spatial- MSP process place in the Falkland took place 5-7 April Islands previously 2016 in the Falkland planning#Workshop%20#3%20%E2%8 0%98Framing%20MSP%E2%80%99% Islands, and was 20%E2%80%93%20upcoming%20201 attended by 25 local 6 marine stakeholders and government representatives, along with 3 international experts. MSP Despite the known rich The stakeholders The first Executive Council paper can framework levels of marine preferred a holistic be downloaded here: http://south- atlantic-research.org/research/current- proposed to biodiversity and known MSP approach; areas of high therefore efforts were research/marine-spatial- government planning#Government%20supports%20 conservation value, no made in developing a the%20creation%20of%20MSP%20pro marine areas have yet framework for MSP cess%20and%20Plan%20- been formally and ensuring political %20December%202015 designated and so are support for its in need of legal implementation. Two protection, in the papers were submitted Presentations given to: Falkland Islands. to the Governmental Environmental Committee (19/02/15; Committees and the 29/10/15) Executive Council, Fishery Committee (3/12/15) along with Selected members of the Executive presentations given. Council (12 and 13/11/15)
2.2 Long-term strategic outcome(s)
The Falkland Islands Government has already embedded MSP in its Island Plan 2014-18. This Darwin Plus project provided the foundation for implementing this commitment in the Falkland Islands. The project demonstrated the importance of MSP for sustainable development and for safeguarding of the natural marine environment of the Falkland Islands, which provide the islands with crucial ecosystem services. The long-term strategic outcomes were to create 5 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016 spatial resources for MSP and to provide an MSP framework recommendation to ensure that the government and stakeholders adhere to the need of implementing MSP in the Falkland Islands. As a result of this project, MSP is now a concept better understood by local stakeholders and the Government; with an official recognition by the Government of the importance of implementing MSP and commitment to creating the first Marine Spatial Plan.
The three main components demonstrating the project’s achievements are: 1. An established MSP GIS database and its metadata catalogue containing all baseline data and maps necessary for MSP, which also provided a mean to identify critical data gaps (all new datasets were entered and stored in the Falklands’ IMS-GIS Data Centre). These were designed to be easily managed for addition of new and updated datasets in the future, and include an online webGIS, displaying a set of maps, accessible to all stakeholders, regardless of their GIS skills or knowledge. 2. Local marine stakeholders have all been informed of the needs for and potential benefits of MSP, and provided with reviews and examples of successful MSP implementation, via public communication and workshops. This resulted in significant capacity building within the islands on this topic, and awareness of the need of co- ordinated marine management to ensure protection of the natural marine environment. 3. The FIG’s Executive Council agreed that MSP is important for marine sustainable development and have committed to the support of the MSP process and the creation of the first Marine Spatial Plan according to the framework produced during the project and submitted to the Council.
The project has, consequently, had significant impacts on the way local stakeholders and government perceive marine management and the need for an MSP approach towards ecosystem-based management, for sustainable development. The multiple workshops and numerous public communications provided many opportunities to educate stakeholders and the public on MSP and the importance of the marine environment for the Falklands’ people and economy. The regular steering committee meetings provided a platform for updates to the key stakeholders and directives from this group on the best way to move forward with implementation of MSP. The political engagement and discussion (via individual meetings with Member of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council papers) also demonstrated that the project influenced wider decision making and helped embed environmental issues at large into decision making in the contexts of an ecosystem-based management and of the importance of healthy marine habitats for cultural and economic values of the islands, now and in the future.
Due to the successful stakeholder and government engagement, the project has delivered results that are of high value for money. Stakeholders and government staff voluntarily attended meetings and workshops, read documents and provided feedbacks. This alone not only demonstrated their interest, but also constituted a large in-kind contribution to the project with at least 1,446 hrs spent on the project voluntarily across all stakeholder meetings. This was calculated from the steering committee meetings (2 hrs each with 8 people attending, 9 occurrences so 144 hrs), workshop #1 (2 days or 12 hrs with 19 people attending so 228 hrs), workshop #2 (2 x 1.5 days or 21 hrs with 22 people attending on average so 462 hrs), workshop #3 (3 days or 21 hrs with 25 people attending so 525 hrs), and individual meetings with steering committee members and local stakeholders (87 hrs). This is the equivalent of a minimum of approximately £25,000 of in-kind salary committed to the project from stakeholders and FIG for contact time alone, with likely at least half as much for reading and commenting on documents individually.
As part of output 5 ‘Data analyses’ of marine megafauna distribution, great effort was made to gather tracking and sighting data from previous studies conducted in the Falkland Islands, or elsewhere when animals came to the Falklands’ waters. The response to request of providing
6 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016 data for the analyses was very successful. It is hard to quantify the monetary value of such a dataset but it is likely over hundreds of thousands of pounds (due to the high-cost that data owners have incurred in obtaining the data). This therefore demonstrates a high value for money of the results and data now available for FIG to make decision for environmental management.
The IMS-GIS Data Centre (a project funded by the JNCC/Foreign Commonwealth Office) and the MSP Darwin Plus project complemented each other and provided added value for both projects. The MSP project provided funds to the IMS-GIS Data Centre to develop further the infrastructure of the Centre so they could provide a long-term data repository where stakeholders and other interested parties could request data produced as part of the MSP project. The IMS-GIS Data Centre developed a webGIS platform that can now be used for other projects; the MSP project provided data and the MSP-GIS project to use as the first trial to develop this tool. The IMS-GIS Data Centre was tasked to set up the MSP webGIS from these data and project which gave both projects a great innovative output. Staff on both projects also collaborated on a number of sub-projects where complimentary expertise provided added value (eg. preliminary marine biosecurity risk area analyses).
The Darwin Plus project provided assistance to, fed into and collaborated with a range of other UKOTs and European projects and initiatives. Examples within the Falkland Islands are: EU BEST III with marine Key Biodiversity Area designation – Spatial and species data were provided and advice given Gap project (Addressing priority gaps in understanding ecosystem functioning for the developing Falkland Islands offshore hydrocarbon industry) – Spatial data were provided, field expertise was contributed, workshop collaboration took place when possible JNCC/Foreign Commonwealth Office-funded project, the IMS-GIS Data Centre (see paragraph above) Examples outside of the Falkland Islands included: Ascension Island MPA development: Project staff attended the workshop and provided advice The two workshops conducted in Cambridge, UK, provided a venue to bring together an international group, in particular with UK expertise, that fostered collaborations Cross-island model for MSP with advice provided by an established successful MSP process, the Shetland Islands
Value for money is also proven in the above outputs and outcomes set out in the original proposal. Due to savings in workshop costs (by sharing cost with another project requiring inputs from the same participants, for instance) and the many extra hours from the dedicated project team, it was possible to conduct several small sub-projects that provided new critical datasets for MSP that were identified as data gaps for MSP though data review and the first two workshops. These sub-projects included mapping coastal cultural values, mapping coastal kelp beds, mapping recreational boating areas, identifying biosecurity risk areas, creating a spatially-explicit cetacean stranding database for FIG, and developing a research proposal to fill in a larger critical data gap on near-shore cetaceans for the next round of Darwin Plus. All these sub-projects were completed during the lifetime of the project and provided large added value to the project. All data produced are available for further studies and management.
A proposal to conduct a small study on baleen whale distribution to feed into MSP was also written as part of the project and submitted to the FIG Environmental Planning Department for an Environmental Studies Budget grant. The grant was successfully secured in February 2015
7 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
(£15,000 for 6 months) and a second small grant for complimentary work in September 2015 (£3,860 with matched funds from SAERI). This demonstrated further commitment to the project by FIG. A research assistant was employed for the period to conduct the study within the Darwin Plus project. Hotspots of whale sightings were mapped, along with distribution predictions based on Species Distribution Models.
All the sub-projects assisted in raising the profile of the project and the benefits that MSP could have for the islands, including within the local community. With trips to the remote settlements for the cultural coastal values and the baleen whale sub-projects, several public presentations, and numerous articles published in the local newspaper, for relatively small costs, the project was well disseminated.
2.3 Outputs
All outputs set out in the original application were completed before the end of the project, except the peer-review scientific publication on the key areas for marine megafauna. This publication is in progress and will require more time to complete due to the large number of co- authors involved and the peer-review process. The outputs included the provision of GIS tools for initiating MSP, and these have all been provided to the Falkland Islands Government. A framework was also completed and approved by stakeholders. Along with the paper submitted to FIG committees and Executive Council, it provides the way forward for implementation of MSP in the Falkland Islands.
Output Baseline Change recorded by Source of evidence Comments (if 2016 necessary) Output 1 Increased data availability. Indicator 1.1 No list and MSP metadata http://south-atlantic- More will be added descriptions of catalogue (Excel research.org/research/current- in the next months marine data useful file); 70 datasets research/marine-spatial- as sub-projects are for MSP planning#MSP%20GIS%20data completed base
Output 2 Best Practice Review Indicator 2.1 Stakeholder and 22 local http://south-atlantic- This was project partners not stakeholders research.org/research/current- conducted as informed on MSP informed on MSP research/marine-spatial- presentations with best practice examples and best- planning#Workshop%20#1%20 already existing practice %E2%80%98Setting%20the%2 reviews printed 0scene%E2%80%99%20%E2% and provided 80%93%20November%202014 (22 different stakeholders attended the public consultation and/or the workshop).
Output 3 Stakeholder workshop 1 Indicator 3.1 No MSP workshop MSP workshop #1 http://south-atlantic- Stakeholders in the Falkland report written, research.org/media/files/MSP% agreed to MSP Islands distributed and 20Workshop%231%20report%2 holistic approach published 0_Setting%20the%20scene_%2 024- 25%20November%202014.pdf Output 4 GIS platform Indicator 4.1 No MSP specific MSP GIS database See pages 5-6 in the report: More datasets will database (QGIS project) http://www.south-atlantic- be available in July
8 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
created; all 70 research.org/media/files/MSP_F and August as datasets mapped alkands_Framing-Workshop- sub-projects are report_5- completed 7_April_2016_FINAL.pdf Output 5 Data analyses Indicator 5.1 No holistic analysis Obtained 67 See list of tracking datasets The scientific of all existing data individual tracking pages 36-42, and methodology publication will be on seabirds and datasets, total described pages 19-21, on the submitted in seals 15,438 locations for workshop report http://south- August or Sept. 21 species; all atlantic- following co- seabird ones were research.org/media/files/MSP_F authors’ approval added to the BirdLife alklands_Megafauna_workshop- database through report_13- this work; and 1 at- 14_April_2015_FINAL.pdf sea sighting dataset, And page 8 (draft key areas) in total >160,000 report http://www.south-atlantic- points research.org/media/files/MSP_F alkands_Framing-Workshop- report_5- 7_April_2016_FINAL.pdf Output 6 Stakeholder workshop 2 Indicator 6.1 No MSP workshop MSP workshop #2 http://south-atlantic- This also provided in the Falkland report written, research.org/media/files/MSP_F 7 Falklands’ Islands distributed and alkands_Developing-the-tools- stakeholders with published Workshop-report_16- direct interactions 17_April_2015_FINAL.pdf with MSP experts as part of local capacity building Output 7 Data analyses 2 Indicator 7.1 No global maps for Series of maps See maps pages 36-49 in report bioregionalisation of produced for http://www.south-atlantic- the Falklands’ EEZ environmental, research.org/media/files/MSP_F human activities alkands_Framing-Workshop- data, and creation of report_5- a webGIS, open 7_April_2016_FINAL.pdf access. And the webGIS http://148.251.4.143/saeri_lm3b eta3/lizmap/www/index.php/view /map/?repository=saeri&project= webGIS20160318 Output 8 Stakeholder workshop 3 Indicator 8.1 No MSP workshop MSP workshop #3 http://www.south-atlantic- in the Falkland report written, research.org/media/files/MSP_F Islands distributed and alkands_Framing-Workshop- published report_5- 7_April_2016_FINAL.pdf Output 9 Strategy for MSP Indicator 9.1 No policies or long- Falkland Islands http://south-atlantic- Head and senior term coordinated Government research.org/research/current- Policy Department marine management acknowledged research/marine-spatial- staff were in the Falkland importance of MSP planning#Government%20supp contacted but felt Islands and agreed to create orts%20the%20creation%20of% that their first Marine Spatial 20MSP%20process%20and%20 department did not Plan in a next phase Plan%20- have to feed in the of MSP %20December%202015 current phase of Policy paper submitted to FIG MSP can be downloaded at the link above.
9 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
The project did not encounter major problems, anticipated or unexpected. There was only one identified risk (“Some of the collaborators are unable to make one or more workshops”), in the engagement of stakeholders that happened. Unfortunately, one of the major local stakeholders, the tourism industry, had difficulty engaging in the project due to the lack of staff and time. A representative sat on the steering committee but was unable to attend most meetings or workshops. This event led to a lower representation of tourism industry interests in the discussions but it did not affect the project or its outcomes. Other stakeholders and the project team (including individual meetings with tourism representatives) were able to ensure that the values of this group were taken into consideration.
A risk that emerged was the lack of interest or opposition to aspects of MSP by some stakeholder groups or the government (in particular regarding marine protected area). The proposal suggested that an MPA might be proposed by the end of the project. It became clear from the onset of the project that local stakeholders and FIG wanted marine management to focus on a holistic management approach and that an MPA itself should not be the aim of the initiation of MSP and the framework for it in the Falkland Islands. Instead, a best-practice MSP process, involving a wide range of stakeholders and identifying management issues and potential solutions through MSP was developed. This is a stakeholder-led process, with a focus on science based evidence for management. MPAs may emerge from MSP but this is only one of the management measures.
2.4 Sustainability and Legacy
This initiative has provided a legacy that will endure beyond the end of the project. For example, the database created and the webGIS were designed as long-term tools that can be used by government and stakeholders for decision making. These will be available beyond the end of the project, and SAERI has committed to their long-term upkeep. All the new data created are also made open-access so they can be used for decision making and further studies. All new data, or data gathered as part of the project, were entered in the IMS-GIS Data Centre, a long term data repository for the South Atlantic UKOTs. There have already been several data requests made by government staff, stakeholders, and researchers, and data were provided to them for improving EIA, decision making and ecological studies.
Several steps were taken to ensure the impact of the project would endure after the project finished. These included the numerous stakeholder and government engagement and education on MSP to provide local capacity building in the field. Submissions of several information and decision papers to FIG committees and Executive Council also contributed to consolidating political support for MSP and its implementation. The FIG Executive Council has agreed to support the MSP process and the creation of the first Falkland Islands Marine Spatial Plan. The MSP project has provided all necessary tools and a proposed framework to them, for implementation. Political engagement received much effort to ensure appropriate influence and clarification of the aims of MSP (versus solely establishing a Marine Protected Area as perceived at the start of the project by some stakeholders).
Efforts (made in the documents mentioned above) to demonstrate the importance to FIG of keeping the momentum provided by the Darwin project have resulted in FIG agreeing to provide £35,000 to continue the MSP process in the short-term. There are also early indications that further funding will be made available to support this process going forward. The resources (computer, camera, dictaphone, office equipment etc) purchased under this Darwin project will remain at SAERI for potential future work on MSP. The project manager’s employment will be extended for 5 months after the end of the Darwin project to continue to progress the MSP process.
10 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
A number of critical data gaps in knowledge for efficient MSP were identified during the project. Some were addressed during the lifetime of the project as added value (eg. historical whale study, coastal cultural value and kelp bed mapping) but others will require further funding for research. SAERI is working towards addressing some of these research gaps as part of its future research initiatives. For example, some remaining data gaps were related to near-shore cetacean distribution and coastal benthic mapping, and funding was sought. The project staff worked on a proposal for a new Darwin Plus project on coastal dolphin distribution (successful proposal), and also initiated and were then involved in providing guidance and advice in another successful proposal for coastal whale distribution (submitted to EU BEST scheme) that will be led by another UKOT-based organisation. Research partners have also taken on to work on potential projects covering benthic habitats (including through a PhD studentship).
3 Project Stakeholders/Partners
Stakeholders and guest delegates on board HMS Clyde during MSP workshop (Photo credit: Chris Locke)
Stakeholders were involved throughout the project. Several stakeholders were research partners on the project application and, therefore, participated in its original planning. All the research partners and representatives of other main local marine stakeholders were also invited to sit on the project’s steering committee. This committee was made of representatives of the following groups:
Falkland Islands Government: Fisheries Department Environmental Planning Department Mineral Resources Department
Industry: Falkland Islands Tourism Board Falkland Islands Fishing Companies Association Falkland Islands Petroleum Licenses Association
NGOs (local and international): BirdLife International Falklands Conservation Shallow Marine Surveys Group
Military: Royal Navy
International research organisation: British Antarctic Survey
The committee met every 3 months from the start of the project. A quarterly report was produced and sent to the committee members prior to each meeting, and meeting notes were also written and sent for feedbacks before being published via the project webpage. These quarterly meetings, along with individual meetings, provided opportunity to ensure the stakeholders were involved in planning and decision making of the project. 11 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Involving overseas stakeholders in the steering committee was challenging due to the limited internet on the islands, and the expensive teleconference facilities (not budgeted in the original proposal for steering committee meeting). Stakeholders based overseas joined the steering committee on skype. They, however, expressed the difficulties they had in following the discussions and recommended that future projects budget for use of the teleconference facilities for meetings. Stakeholder engagement throughout the project was, however, very successful and the workshops, in particular, provided in-person interactions between local Falkland Islands stakeholders, overseas stakeholders and MSP and scientific experts.
The project provided a successful platform to establish and develop long-term connections between small islands, notably the Shetland Islands and Ascension Island (representatives of both islands attended the third workshop in the Falkland Islands). These connections are now allowing for cross-island knowledge and skill sharing, in the long-term.
Stakeholder fatigue was another challenge that was mentioned by the local stakeholder representatives on several occasions. On the Falkland Islands, as on other small islands, the community are consulted regularly on a range of issues (not only environmental). It was recommended that projects should be co-ordinated within the islands to ensure the demand on representatives do not preclude them from being involved in important consultations and decisions.
4 Lessons learned
The management of this project did not present major issues, but some lessons and challenges emerged. The project management structure was generally suitable for this style of project; however, it would have benefited from separation of project management and project engagement functions in the steering committee. This steering committee should have been limited to a maximum of 4 selected members with focussed expertise in the topic and tasked with overseeing the project delivery. This would have been complimented with a local stakeholder steering group tasked with providing feedback and ensuring the project provided the right tools for the islands. It is, therefore, suggested that this type of projects (developing science-based management tools) should have a small steering committee (individuals that remain on the committee even if they change position or organisation) and a stakeholder committee (made up of organisations with representatives attending). This would require more time for organising, conducting and reporting on meetings but would make the project more efficient in terms of ensuring stakeholder support, as well as project steering and monitoring.
There was the right expertise employed on the project, including from research partners and collaborators, and for short research assistantships. The project was planned enough to be developed successfully and the problems were well identified, at the exception of stakeholder engagement and perception. Marine spatial planning is a stakeholder-led process and therefore a large part includes stakeholder education and engagement. It would be important for similar projects to ensure that time and resources are properly allocated in the budget and plan to have sufficient ability to meet with stakeholders and ensure that they are aware and supportive of the process (or give the means to convince them if they are not, as such project may encounter negativity). The timeframe of the project was partly unrealistic, in particular due to the lack of consideration of this stakeholder element in the proposal. Success of the project relied on many extra hours to ensure results and outcomes were fulfilled, but a more focused project application with clearer indicators and final outputs would have helped in reducing stress and provide a better work balance for the project team.
12 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Project staff had pivotal roles in the project, and therefore any changes to personal circumstances for the individual (in particular in the management role) will inevitably have an impact on the project. All potential unforeseen circumstances (including medical1) should be identified and mitigated in the project risk assessment. SAERI will be including this line in their risk assessments for future projects and indeed will explore with the Darwin Initiative what latitude there is for project extension and modification to accommodate cases of changes in personal circumstances.
4.1 Monitoring and evaluation
The project design was slightly changed following feedback from the steering committee early on in the project. It was recognised that MSP was about holistic management of the marine environment and that solely focusing on establishing an MPA at a pre-definite site should not be the sole aim of the project. Therefore, the framework of the project was slightly changed to work towards an issue / threat-based approach to MSP.
No online project management system was used (the use of new, additional programmes is not necessarily the best approach with local stakeholders). The use of emails to disseminate agenda, reports etc. and their publication on the project webpage was found to work well, and provided a useful platform for stakeholders to provide feedback.
The monitoring and evaluation was continuous with the high level of engagement with stakeholders and government representatives in the quarterly project reports, steering committee meetings, and the published notes from this meeting. All documents were submitted for comments to the steering committee and the workshop participants before being finalised. They were then made publicly available via the project webpage to ensure evaluation across the islands’ community.
Four scientific papers emerging from the project are under progress and have been or will be submitted for peer-review in international journals. These are: 1. A multi-species analyses to identify key areas for marine megafauna 2. Use of local ecological knowledge to investigate endangered baleen whale recovery in the Falkland Islands 3. Sub-polar isolated islands: Frontiers for ocean management? 4. Eliciting Cultural Coastal Values in a remote Archipelago: Participatory mapping in the Falkland Islands to inform Marine Spatial Planning
4.2 Actions taken in response to annual report reviews
All aspects mentioned by the reviewer of the annual report were addressed, explained or corrected. One of these aspects concerned the GIS platform used. The links provided in the outcomes and outputs evidence show that the GIS platforms were well under way by the first annual report (9 months from start of project) and were completed within datelines as per project application.
1 All future projects should have as risk “long-term medical leave is required by a project staff” with a low likelihood but a high impact, with steps to reduce risk being having a clear plan in this event to ensure both the project officer well-being and flexibility in the project to accommodate for the staff absence (at an outcome and institutional level).
13 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
It would be recommended that reviewer of annual reports for similar types of projects (e.g. when one output is to create a large complex database) take into consideration that the creation of a large spatial database is a tenuous and long process and that it may not be possible to fully provide evidence of its progress half-way through its establishment (at the default of spending many days of non-productive work on creating draft documents solely to show in the annual report).
As recommended by the reviewer of the annual report, time spent on the scientific publications was reduced and instead more time was spent on public and stakeholder communication. This led to successful and extensive public communication campaigns including talks, newspaper articles, TV, and radio interviews within the islands. Unfortunately, this meant that there was no time to complete scientific publications within the timeframe of the project though there is a commitment from project staff and research partners to complete at least three of them after the end of the project.
5 Darwin Identity
The project received significant publicity locally and internationally. The Darwin Initiative was clearly acknowledged at each event and in each publication, including with logo, and verbal acknowledgments. The Darwin project was communicated in:
7 articles written for the local newspaper (see list on this webpage section)
5 scientific presentations by project staff at international workshops, conferences, or at international organisations (see list and details on this webpage section)
1 community outreach effort to interview local residents (in person) and later disseminate results (by mail) of two MSP sub-projects throughout the islands (see the printed pamphlet distributed to potential interviewee at this link). Over 60 different local residents were interviewed.
Over 30 tweets were created and published on the @SAERI_FI twitter account, all linked to the Darwin_Defra account, and receiving in total over 200 hits
11 blog posts from project team (see list and links to posts on this webpage section)
6 public presentations from project staff and workshop guest speakers within the islands (examples of advertisement below).
14 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
The Darwin Initiative support was recognised as a distinct project with a clear identity as funding the Initiation Phase of MSP and providing the recommended framework, but was also put in the context of the long-term MSP process in the Falkland Islands and as the precursor to a potential future MSP research program at the host institution. The stakeholders involved in the project should now all have a good understanding of the Darwin Initiative, in particular of the UKOT’s Darwin Plus concept.
6 Finance and administration
6.1 Project expenditure
This is a preliminary budget as the project ended 30 June of June when this report is submitted and final costs such as for salary, transport (return flight), payment of annual leave not taken etc, will have to take place in the next month. Some costs to be incurred in the next month were, therefore, estimated. Project spend (indicative) 2015/16 2015/16 Variance Comments (please explain since last annual report Grant Total actual % significant variances) (£) Darwin Costs (£) Staff costs 44,283 45,422.26 +2.57 Consultancy costs 0 0 0 Overhead Costs 0 0 0 Travel and subsistence 25,042 21,533.98 -14.01 One UK-based workshop participant had to cancel his attendance last minute and the costs were no incurred Operating Costs 13,000 13,253 +1.95
Capital items 0 110 -110 External hard drive needed for storage Others 8,500 7371.32 -13.28 Lower costs for workshop mostly than expected due to contributions from stakeholders (eg. one day hosted on a ship free of charge, including food) TOTAL 90,825 87,690.62 -3.45
Project spend (indicative) 2016/17 2015617 Variance Comments (please explain since last annual report Grant Total actual % significant variances) (£) Darwin Costs (£) Staff costs 10,043 12,314.43 +22.62 Project manager was unable to take 23 days of annual leave before end of project and these are paid out at end of contract which increase costs for this line, Consultancy costs 0 0 0 Overhead Costs 0 0 0 Travel and subsistence 1,000 2,010 +101 The return flight was under estimated and some expenses were incurred for the UK trip in April to attend MPA workshop and promote
15 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
the project (these were originally planned for late March). Operating Costs 1,700 470.79 -72.31 There were less costs than expected for this last phase of the project as everything for the GIS database and webGSI had been set up earlier Capital items 0 110 +110 Extra external hard drive needed for storage after end of project Others 0 0 0
Audit fee 1,500 1,500 0
TOTAL 14,243 16,405.22 +15.18
Staff employed Cost 2015/16 Cost 2016/17 (Name and position) (£) (£) Amélie Augé (project manager) 35,450.51 12,314.43 Denise Herrera (research assistant cultural values) 1,971.75 0 Ben Lascelles and Maria Dias (BirdLife International data 8,000 0 specialists and tracking analysts) TOTAL 45,422.26 12,314.43
Consultancy – description of breakdown of costs Other items – cost (£)
TOTAL
Capital items – description Capital items – Capital items – 2015/16 cost (£) 2016/17 cost (£) External hard drives (1 or 2TB) 110 110
TOTAL 110 110
Other items – description Other items 2015/16 – cost (£) 2 days cover for supervision of research assistants’ fieldwork during project 200 manager hospitalisation
IMS-GIS Data Centre webGIS expertise, training and settings 3,500
Kelp bed mapping short assistantship 1,500
Logistical assistance for workshops #3 2,171.32 TOTAL 7,371.32
6.2 Additional funds or in-kind contributions secured
16 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Source of funding for project lifetime Total (£) Environmental Studies Budget (FIG) – mapping whale sightings for MSP 15,000 Environmental Studies Budget (FIG) – predicting whale habitat for MSP 3,860 SAERI in-kind - predicting whale habitat for MSP 3,860 TOTAL 22,720
Source of funding for additional work after project lifetime Total (£) FIG – Secured funding at the time of writing of this report 30,000 TOTAL 30,000
6.3 Value for Money
The project was high value for money. With the major costs of the project being the manager’s salary and the workshops, this project produced a large amount of outputs that, in total are likely to be valued in the hundreds of thousands (in particular in data now available for decision making and the next step of MSP, as explained for instance for the marine megafauna data in section 2.2 of this report). All workshops were conducted with cost savings, in particular the second workshop where costs were shared with another SAERI project that required similar attendees and therefore workshops for the two projects were co-ordinated and shared the costs of the transport, subsistence and venue (in total this saved approximately £3,000, re-allocated to the sub-project ‘Mapping cultural coastal value’).
Other aspects of value for money were detailed in section 2.2 of this report, and include in-kind time from project partners and stakeholders, free access to extensive expensive datasets for analyses and mapping, and successful proposals for future work towards MSP.
Shipping traffic data (crucial data for MSP) were unavailable before the project. The project has allowed for the first acquisition of shipping traffic. The quote from consultants for acquiring this type of data was over £5,000. The project provided these data for a small cost of a few days of salary for discussion and programming to obtain a 2-year dataset of shipping traffic in the Falklands’ waters (acquired from the start of the project). This is further evidence of great value for money provided by the project. The mapping of kelp beds all around the islands also showed evidence of high value for money. The use of freely available satellite imagery and manual mapping provided a map of coastal kelp beds that would have costed tens of thousands pounds if satellite imagery were bought for automatic mapping with image classification.
Rockhopper penguins and ships in Berkeley Sound (Photo credit Nathan McNally)
17 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Well attended public talk by Rachel Schucksmith on MSP in the Shetland Islands as part of the Marine Spatial Planning ‘Framing the process’ workshop in Stanley, Falkland Islands, in April 2016.
Commerson’s dolphins and the local delivery ship in Port Howard (Photo credit: Amélie Augé)
The coastline on West Falkland (Hill Cove) with islands in the background (Photo credit: Denise Herrera)
18 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Annex 1 Standard Measures
Code Description Totals (plus additional detail as required) Training Measures 1 Number of (i) students from the UKOTs; and (ii) other students to receive training (including PhD, masters and other training and receiving a qualification or certificate) 2 Number of (i) people in UKOTs; and (ii) other people receiving other forms of long-term (>1yr) training not leading to formal qualification 3a Number of (i) people in UKOTs; and (ii) other 7 people receiving other forms of short-term education/training (i.e. not categories 1-5 above) 3b Number of training weeks (i) in UKOTs; (ii) outside UKOTs not leading to formal qualification 4 Number of types of training materials produced. Were these materials made available for use by UKOTs? 5 Number of UKOT citizens who have increased 12 capacity to manage natural resources as a result of the project Research Measures 9 Number of species/habitat management plans/ strategies (or action plans) produced for/by Governments, public authorities or other implementing agencies in the UKOTs 10 Number of formal documents produced to assist work in UKOTs related to species identification, classification and recording. 11a Number of papers published or accepted for (i) 1 publication in peer reviewed journals written by (i) UKOT authors; and (ii) other authors 11b Number of papers published or accepted for publication elsewhere written by (i) UKOT authors; and (ii) other authors 12b Number of computer-based databases 1 - The MSP GSI database, enhanced (containing species/genetic available to the UKOT government information). Were these databases made and stakeholder available for use by UKOTs? 13a Number of species reference collections established. Were these collections handed over to UKOTs? 13b Number of species reference collections enhanced. Were these collections handed over
19 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Code Description Totals (plus additional detail as required) to UKOTs? Dissemination Measures 14a Number of 4 multi-day workshops (2 locally, 2 conferences/seminars/workshops/stakeholder in the UK) meetings organised to present/disseminate 3 seminars findings from UKOT’s Darwin project work 9 steering committee (stakeholder) meetings Over 50 individual meetings with stakeholders
14b Number of conferences/seminars/ 2 international workshops workshops/stakeholder meetings attended at 1 international conference which findings from the Darwin Plus project work will be presented/ disseminated Physical Measures 20 Estimated value (£s) of physical assets handed over to UKOT(s) 21 Number of permanent educational/training/research facilities or organisation established in UKOTs 22 Number of permanent field plots established in UKOTs 23 Value of resources raised from other sources £52,720 (e.g., in addition to Darwin funding) for project work
20 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Annex 2 Publications Type * Detail Nationality Nationality Gender Publishers Available from of lead of of lead (e.g. (title, author, year) (name, city) (e.g. weblink, contact address, author institution author journals, annex etc) of lead manual, author CDs) Workshop Marine Spatial Planning: Setting the scene, French Falkland Female South Atlantic http://south-atlantic- report Augé AA (2015) Islands Environmental research.org/media/files/MSP%20W Research orkshop%231%20report%20_Settin Institute, Stanley, g%20the%20scene_%2024- Falkland Islands 25%20November%202014.pdf Workshop Marine Spatial Planning: Developing the tools, French Falkland Female South Atlantic http://south-atlantic- report Augé AA (2015) Islands Environmental research.org/media/files/MSP_Falka Research nds_Developing-the-tools- Institute, Stanley, Workshop-report_16- Falkland Islands 17_April_2015_FINAL.pdf Workshop Marine Spatial Planning: Identification of key French Falkland Female South Atlantic http://south-atlantic- report area for marine megafauna, Augé AA, Islands Environmental research.org/media/files/MSP_Falkla Lascelles B, Dias M (2015) Research nds_Megafauna_workshop- Institute, Stanley, report_13-14_April_2015_FINAL.pdf Falkland Islands Workshop Marine Spatial Planning: Framing the process, French Falkland Female South Atlantic http://www.south-atlantic- report Augé AA (2016) Islands Environmental research.org/media/files/MSP_Falka Research nds_Framing-Workshop-report_5- Institute, Stanley, 7_April_2016_FINAL.pdf Falkland Islands Conference A whale of a tale: using local knowledge to American Falkland Female US-IALE 2016, http://www.usiale.org/asheville2016/ abstract predict baleen whale distribution around the Islands Ashville, North presentation-details/18414 Falkland Islands. Veronica F Frans, Amélie A Carolina, USA Augé, Jan O Engler and Hendrik Edelhoff (2016).
21 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Annex 3 Darwin Contacts
Ref No DPLUS027 Project Title Marine Spatial Planning for the Falkland Islands
Project Leader Details Name Paul Brickle Role within Darwin Project Project Leader, lead on political engagement Address SAERI Phone +500 53172 Fax/Skype Email [email protected] Project Manager Details Name Amélie Augé Role within Darwin Project Project Manager, lead on all other aspects of the project Address SAERI Phone +500 53172 Fax/Skype Email [email protected] Partner 1 Name Andy Stanworth Organisation Falklands Conservation Role within Darwin Project Steering committee, data provider Address Stanley, Falkland Islands Fax/Skype +500 22247 Email [email protected] Partner 2 Name Ben Lascelles Organisation BirdLife International Role within Darwin Project Steering committee, collaborator on megafauna analyses Address Cambridge, UK Fax/Skype +44 1223 279842 Email [email protected] Partner 3 Name Phil Trathan Organisation British Antarctic Survey Role within Darwin Project Steering committee Address Cambridge, UK
22 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Fax/Skype 00 44 1223 221400 Email [email protected] Partner 4 Name Chris Locke (in replacement of Malcolm Jamieson who left his position in 2015) Organisation FIG Fisheries Department Role within Darwin Project Steering committee Address Stanley, Falkland Islands Fax/Skype +500 27260 Email [email protected] Partner 5 Name Paul Brewin Organisation Shallow Marine Surveys Group Role within Darwin Project Steering committee Address Stanley, Falkland Islands Fax/Skype +500 55346 Email [email protected]
23 DPLUS027 Final report– July 2016
Title of Report: Marine Spatial Planning funding report
Paper No:
Date: 19 October 2016
Report of: Environmental Officer
1.0 Purpose
This is the end of project report that was submitted to the funding agency, DEFRA, for Darwin Plus reporting purposes (under their template), it does not contain details for MSP but rather summarises the actions, budget, outputs and project management observations specifically during the Darwin Plus project funding for the 2 years. TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Action Agriculture Advisory Committee Key categor Key evidence for Route to FIG Priority/ Notes No. stakeholder(s) y Brief summary of action recommendation implementation Policy 1 EPD Policy- Amend format of ExCo report so that all Climate change Environmental Completed level applications include details of any (CC) assessments Committee, ExCo potential climate change impacts 2 DoA, EPD Policy- Establishment of a National Soil Policy Soil erosion and Agricultural Medium DoA is assisting in the production of a soil level coastal Advisory map, and we currently have soil guidelines vulnerability Committee in our reseed recommendations such as Soil carbon content discouraging rotovation. We don’t really vulnerability have a policy as such CC assessment
3 DoA Policy- Update Farm Improvement Programme as Soil erosion and Agricultural Medium This is a major change to FIP, allowing level an Agri-Environment Scheme with a range coastal Advisory sound environmental outcomes to of ecosystem service deliverables vulnerability CC Committee, ExCo compare with the financial returns assessments currently required to access FIP. Reseeding clay pans, tussock planting and ring fencing erosion patches are examples of good environmental outcomes, but little financial return, certainly in the short term.
4 DoA, SMEs: Jim Policy- Amend agricultural reseed policy to Soil erosion and Agricultural High We are recommending less tillage and McAdam, level decrease erosion risks coastal Advisory more herbicides for weed control, and Rodney Burton vulnerability CC Committee, ExCo fallows for moisture retention, we want to assessments reduce the failure rate from a production point of view anyway.
5 DoA, SMEs: Jim Policy- Amend Agricultural Burning Code of Wildfire Agricultural High Has been tightened up over the years, McAdam, level Practice to decrease erosion risks assessment Advisory trash burning on reseeds is important for Rodney Burton Committee, ExCo establishment, however camp burning could be even further discouraged. TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
6 MoD Policy- Amendments to MOD code of conduct to Wildfire MOD High level reduce burning hazard of training and RR assessment travel 7 Biosecurity Legislatio Establish a Noxious Weed Act Invasive species Agricultural Medium Could put onus on landowners to have a Officer, DoA, n-level assessment Advisory (Biosecurity degree of responsibility to control declared EPD Committee, ExCo Strategy and weeds. May also mean some prohibited action plans to plants perhaps affecting other than those follow) in Camp. Some plants like gorse could be contentious.
8 Biosecurity Legislatio Establish a white list approach to non- Invasive species Agricultural High An essential part of action 7 and 9 anyway. Officer, DoA, n-level native species (with a black list as ‘second assessment Advisory (Biosecurity More accurately and clearly defines the EPD line of defence’) Committee, ExCo Strategy and current policy anyway. Development of a action plans to white list is quite an onerous task unless follow) we limit it to current common non native plants.
9 DoA, EPD, Policy Eradication of all Berberis species – costed Invasive species Biodiversity Medium Trials to determine the effective methods landowners Level Action Plan assessment Action Group, (control of Calafate control continue, the results Practical Environmental ongoing. Long can then be used in budgeting for action Committee term eradication (difficult) or control (more approach likely), reducing infestations to a subject to manageable level that may require ongoing results of trials) diligence and monitoring by farmers if (Biosecurity there is noxious weed legislation as well. Strategy and action plans to follow) 10 EPD Policy- Additions to the Falklands Biodiversity CC assessments Biodiversity Medium level Framework Action Group, Environmental Committee TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
11 FC and/ or Research Long term vegetation monitoring – Native flora CC Biodiversity Medium SAERI -level positioning of transects informed by CC impacts assessment Action Group, work Environmental Committee 12 EPD, FC Practical Updated Action Plans for threatened Native flora CC Biodiversity High action plants, taking climate change into account impacts assessment Action Group, Environmental Committee 13 FIG and/ or Practical Placement of further weather stations and CC assessments Biodiversity Low SAERI action clear policy on data gathering from these Action Group, Environmental Committee
The justification for the following recommendations comes from the risk assessment report:
No. 1: Amend format of ExCo reports so that all applications include details of any potential climate change impacts
Description of action: This action is intended to ‘climate-change proof’ FIG policy. Add a section 9.0 “Climate change implications” – this could be a section to describe both possible negative or positive impacts in relation to climate change mitigation, as well as any identified vulnerabilities to climate change.
Possible alternative: to include under a general addition of environmental considerations.
Next step: If approved this recommendation should be passed on to the EMG to take forward.
No. 2: Establishment of a National Soil Health Policy – to include improving resilience of coastland TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Description of action: To gain agreement for FIG to produce guidelines to achieve healthier soils/ sustainable use of soils through a defined set of consensus-based activities.
Possible key areas for National Soil Health Policy:
• A national strategic approach to manage future threats to the soil resource • Increasing research and development on soil health • Improving national soil related skills and knowledge • Improving information on soil and data management • Improving education and extension capacities to support practice change • Improving public awareness of critical soil management issues
There is a need to align national actions with the above needs – a starting point could be actions targeting:
• Peat management o “Responsible management practices are needed where peatlands are used as pastures. Raising the water table, regulating the number of grazing livestock, fencing pastures for rotational grazing and replanting or reseeding forage species, all help control soil erosion and reduce off-site water pollution” (Biancalani and Avagyan, 2014, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4029e.pdf ) • Agricultural practices - these should incorporate Code(s) of Practice of sustainable soil management • Monitoring of soil health including soil carbon • Soil erosion o Coastal areas are key target sites owing to the crucial role they play for both wildlife, controlled winter grazing and tourism
No.3 Update Farm Improvement Programme as an Agri-Environment Scheme with a range of ecosystem service deliverables
Description of action: Revise Farm Improvement Plan objectives to include ecosystem services delivery as the mainstay of the programme by creating an Agri-Environment (or Sustainable Farming) scheme. This would show recognition that if society expects farmers to deliver environmental or non-market “goods” this is usually at the expense of production or “market” goods and this therefore justifies a payment. TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
A starting point would be to take stock of all the current conservation activities that landowners carry out beyond their duty of care – acknowledge this huge personal contribution made by individuals.
A Falkland Islands Agri-Environment scheme (FIAE) would cover the following ecosystem services:
• Provisioning services o Sustainable livestock production would still be a fundamental element - evaluation criteria should include: maintaining adequate vegetation cover, avoidance of several key habitats with high nature value, seasonal grazing control on some sites • Regulating services o Should include building in climate change resilience • Supporting services o Should include soil conservation, maintaining soil health: e.g. soil carbon storage, erosion control, soil formation, peat deposition, nutrient cycling, moisture retention, retaining vegetation cover • Cultural services o Could include aesthetic appeal (landscape), tourism, maintenance of rural life (involves communications etc)
Next step: If approved this recommendation should be passed on to the EMG to take forward.
No. 4 Amend agricultural reseeding policy to decrease erosion risks
Brief background
To the best of our knowledge there is currently no formal guidance available for the positioning of agricultural reseeds. Reseeding on inappropriate sites represents an important erosion risk for the Falkland Islands so it is crucial that inappropriate sites are identified.
Description of action: Production of a checklist (see Appendix 1 for a draft site checklist and guidance on sites where reseeds should not occur) to assess whether the target site is appropriate for reseeds.
Possible format of action: The Environmental Committee should decide whether they favour an obligatory or voluntary approach
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Format Approved Pros Cons by Obligatory DoA • Greater incentive to carry • Capacity to deal with ever rules Agronomist out check increasing regulations is • The data is captured for limited monitoring purposes • Enforcement of more • In the UK, reseeding regulations may precipitate native grasslands is not a negative backlash from permitted without an EIA farming community and government approval Voluntary N/A • Enforcement of more • Uncertainty of whether a guidelines - regulations may precipitate complete picture of each Information a negative backlash from site will be obtained and leaflet from farming community learnt from DoA • The least intrusive initial • May not be a strong approach to offering enough action to change guidance behaviour
Next step: If approved this recommendation should be passed on to the EMG to take forward.
No. 5 Amend Agricultural Burning Code of Practice to decrease erosion risks
Brief background
At the moment, under the Grass Fires Ordinance 2002, farmers can burn without permission between 1 April and 15 September. TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
To the best of our knowledge the current guidance available relates solely to fire safety – this is clearly of first and foremost importance but it is important to also include information on areas where burning is particularly inappropriate from an environmental perspective. Burning on inappropriate sites should not be acceptable so it is crucial that the system put in place accurately identifies these sites.
Description of action: Production of a checklist to assess whether the target site is appropriate for burning (see Appendix 2 for a draft site checklist and guidance on sites where burning should not occur). In addition if land were in a sustainable farming scheme burning should be excluded.
Possible formats of checklist: As with action No. 4 the Environmental Committee should decide whether they favour an obligatory or voluntary approach:
Format Approved by Pros Cons Obligatory DoA OR EPD OR • Greater incentive • Capacity to deal with ever rules Falkland Islands Fire to carry out check increasing regulations is Service • The data is limited captured for • Enforcement of more monitoring regulations may purposes precipitate a negative backlash from farming community Voluntary N/A • Enforcement of • Uncertainty of whether a guidelines - more regulations complete picture of each Information may precipitate a fire will be obtained and leaflet from negative backlash learnt from DoA from farming • May not be a strong community enough action to change • The least intrusive behaviour initial approach
Next step: If approved this recommendation should be passed on to the EMG to take forward.
No. 6 Amendments to MOD code of conduct – to reduce burning hazard of training and RR travel TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
No response yet from an email enquiry to the Theatre Environmental Protection Officer at MPA, Mike Tor.
No. 7 Establish a Noxious Weed Act
Noxious weed legislation is needed as the backbone behind further action on black-listed species already present in the Falkland Islands in order that there are clear pathways in place to follow through with control and eradication work after any initial support is provided where appropriate. Several countries including UK, New Zealand and USA have well established legislation to deal with noxious weeds and could provide a model for the Falkland Islands.
The EU has been working towards the development of a comprehensive Strategy on Invasive Alien (Non-native) Species since 2008 and its new Strategy Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species entered into force on 1 January 2015. This Regulation seeks to address the problem of invasive alien species in a comprehensive manner so as to protect native biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as to minimize and mitigate the human health or economic impacts that these species can have. The Regulation foresees three types of interventions; prevention, early detection and rapid eradication, and management (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm).
No. 8 Establish a whitelist approach to non-native species (with a black list as ‘second line of defence’)
Ross James, Biosecurity Officer (FIG Department of Agriculture), is the lead on this area.
Additions to the Category 2 list/ black list have been suggested based on previous risk assessments; additions include the recommendation that the genus Berberis as a whole be included rather than individual species. All species on this list are banned from importation into the Falkland Islands.
White list approach: during a 2015 workshop in Ascension Island all the OT’s agreed in principle to adopt a White list approach to biosecurity; they agreed that it is a logical and precautionary approach (Ross James, pers. comm.). The key difficulty identified in terms of next steps is the requirement for risk assessments of all organisms before import (Ross James, pers. comm.). Issues of expertise and resources need to be overcome - increased political support is vital to achieve this. CABI will be running a risk assessment workshop later in 2016 and the hope is that this will offer a framework for designing the most appropriate format for the Falkland Islands (Ross James, pers. comm.). A discussion of methods currently used by other countries would help identify what TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016 would be most appropriate for the Falkland Islands. In general the most pragmatic approach would probably be to enlist the help of a group of experts at a set time each year in order to carry out a horizon scanning exercise (Roy et al. 2014) to review the most recent list of species where import has been requested. If this could be funded on an annual basis this may provide the best way of carrying out the task of producing a white list.
In addition a risk assessment process for not yet introduced plants was developed by Richard Lewis and Brian Bond. This still needs some development (e.g. inclusion of dispersal mechanism into traits table) but could form the basis of a method of assessment for use by the biosecurity officer. We await a reply for more detailed methodology in order to assess if this is something that could be used by FIG. Expert opinion would still need to be sought in addition to this type of traits-based analysis.
No. 9 Eradication of all Berberis species – costed Action Plan
A noxious weed act is needed for the full implementation of this recommendation so that there is a clear ‘exit’ strategy – see above
See Appendix 3 for an initial draft of a costed Action Plan. Herbicide trials are currently underway at Port Sussex and FIG Department of Agriculture are monitoring these. These will inform the treatment recommended.
No. 11 Long term vegetation monitoring – positioning of transects informed by CC work
Description of action: The aim is to set up a system for monitoring the vegetation that will track changes in the plant species cover across altitudinal gradients at undisturbed sites.
We would recommend a series of monitoring transects to be set up following the line-intercept method used by Upson (2011a) on New Island, Falkland Islands. This method is appropriate in part owing to the possibility of detecting movement of active boundaries between different plant communities in response to climate change, such as between Azorella selago -dominated cushion heath and Festuca -dominated grassland. In addition this method of monitoring is easily repeated and carried out by volunteers. Once the marker post at the start of each transect is located using a GPS, all other sites along that transect are easily re-monitored. TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Prior to positioning of transects, habitat maps equivalent to phase I habitat maps (see Upson 2011b) need to be produced for the target sites to allow random generation of transect start points.
Key target site for vegetation monitoring suggested from risk assessment:
• Mt. Usborne - to monitor changes across altitudinal gradient (further upland sites should be added depending on resources available)
A range of other sites would of course also be valuable for vegetation monitoring, however the above site is the most important starting point.
Next step: This recommendation should be passed on to the EMG to consider and hopefully take forward
No. 12 Update Action Plans for threatened plants, taking climate change into account
Description of action: Rebecca Upson has provided additional information to Falklands Conservation in order to integrate the results of climate change studies into species Action Plans.
No. 13 Placement of further weather stations and clear policy on data gathering from these
Description of action: It was a strong recommendation of the team of climatologists at UEA (led by Professor Phil Jones) that the Falkland Islands invest in further low cost automatic weather stations. The placement of more stations at a greater range of altitudes and distances from the coast would significantly improve the ability to model climate across the Islands. It is highly likely that Phil Jones would be available to advise on the optimal locations. These would have wider value than climate monitoring (e.g. communications strategy, renewable energy options mapping).
Next step: This recommendation should be passed on to the EMG to consider and hopefully take forward
References: TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Roy HR, Peyton J, Aldridge DC, Bantock T, Blackburn TM et al. (2014) Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Global Change Biology 20: 3859-3871.
Upson, R (2011a) Monitoring changes in plant community composition on New Island. Report to New Island Conservation Trust.
Upson, R (2011b) New Island Botanical Survey 2010/2011. Report to New Island Conservation Trust.
Appendix 1: Draft site checklist and list of sites that should not be used for reseeds.
Site checklist – general information prior and post reseed After reseed – photograph and habitat section to be completed once a year for 5 Category Prior to reseed years after reseed Reason for reseed GPS location Photo taken from Yes/ No Yes/ No edge of site Size of site Site aspect – dominant N S E W NE NW SE SW ALL (circle) Site aspect – range N S E W NE NW SE SW ALL N/A (circle all that apply) Site slope – dominant Site slope – range Habitat type – Use broad habitat classification - DoA/ FC dominant staff member could aid with this? TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Habitat type – range Use broad habitat classification - DoA/ FC staff member could aid with this? Soil depth in Simple, standardised method dominant habitat type Statement relating to the list of sensitive areas (see below) – stating that none are covered by proposed reseed: DoA agronomist would have access to help make a decision on whether to allow reseed to go ahead
RESEEDING AVOIDANCE CRITERA REASON 1 Steep slopes Erosion risk, soil stability 2 Shallow soils Erosion risk, fire risk, crop establishment, evapotranspiration 3 Habitat type Some habitats are rare and could be biodiversity hotspots, birdlife risk 4 Proximity to coast and freshwater Shedding geese flocks, fragile habitats, ponds usually windier near the coast, more evapotranspiration 5 Insufficient stock available. Fire risk, vegetation mat stability 6 Ridge/hill tops Soil generally shallow, evapotranspiration higher, erosion risk greater, fire risk greater.
Appendix 2: Draft site checklist and list of sites that should not be burnt.
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Site checklist – general information prior and post burning After burnt – to be completed Category Prior to burn only if there is a difference Reason for burn GPS location Photo taken from Yes/ No Yes/ No edge of site Size of site Site aspect – dominant N S E W NE NW SE SW ALL (circle) Site aspect – range N S E W NE NW SE SW ALL (circle all that apply) Site slope – dominant Site slope – range Habitat type – Use broad habitat classification - DoA/ FC dominant staff member could aid with this? Habitat type – range Use broad habitat classification - DoA/ FC staff member could aid with this? Soil depth in Simple, standardised method dominant habitat type Statement relating to the list of sensitive areas (see below) – stating that none are covered by proposed burn: DoA agronomist would have access to help make a decision on whether to allow burn to go ahead
Bearing in mind that in the Falkland Islands “burning of vegetation trash must be done with caution, if at all, as improvement of mineral nutrient levels by this method is doubtful” and that the “risk of uncontrollable fire and wind-blown ash are major dangers” (Cruickshank, 2001) a site should at least be assessed as not covering any of the following sensitive areas:
Areas where burning is likely to be damaging/ areas that should not be burnt – (Adapted from The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2011 “The Muirburn Code” and “Prescribed burning on moorland. Supplement to the Muirburn Code: A guide to best practice”) TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
No. Criteria Justification 1 Habitats on deep peat (more than 0.5 m deep) Conditions that permit good control of fires are – e.g. bogs on deep peat and Tussac on deep exacting and infrequent on peat ground – either peat much material is left unburnt or the effects are too intense and the underlying peat is exposed. In very dry conditions the fire may burn uncontrollably and lead to ignition of the peat. Once the peat ignites it may burn for months and is virtually impossible to put out. A fire that burns into the peat will cause considerable damage, which will be long lasting and could lead to serious peat erosion 2 Native scrub Should not be burnt 3 Introduced scrub Invasive introduced scrub would need a careful and supervised plan for control by burning. Unlikely to be used as a control 4 Wetland areas - including wet heathland. Sensitive sites where moss layer likely to be springs, flushes, raised valley bogs severely damaged by fire 5 Where soil is eroding – this includes peat hags Burning is likely to exacerbate erosion and there is and areas with exposed peat a much higher risk of ignition of the peat itself 6 Areas where soil is very thin – i.e. less than 5 Shallow soils are likely to be very dry and burning cm of soil overlying rock them may directly consume them, or damage them by removing the protective vegetation cover 7 Summits and ridges and other areas, such as For example includes areas where dwarf shrubs are coastal sites that are very exposed to the wind growing as prostrate mats or where you see evidence of wind-blasted shoot tips – “there is nothing to be gained by burning this kind of vegetation, and long-term damage is highly probable, as recovery is extremely slow and there is a high risk of starting soil erosion” 8 Steep slopes and gullies , particularly slopes Where fire will be difficult to control and where that are dry and north-facing slopes or have old, soil may erode if it is exposed by burning. “As a very woody dwarf shrubs general guide, hillsides with a slope greater than 1 in 3 (18°) are best tackled only by experienced operators and slopes steeper than 1 in 2 (26°) are best avoided. Gullies should be avoided as they act like a chimney with both fire intensity and rate of TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
spread increasing rapidly
Vegetation recovery likely to be slow and there is an increased risk of erosion 9 Vegetation within 5 m of watercourses , other This vegetation helps to protect banks from than if the watercourse is the only practical erosion type of firebreak 10 Nesting areas of legally protected birds/ or where legally protected other species are known to occur 11 Any other areas identified as fire-free through established management agreements
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Appendix 3: Draft Action Plan for Calafate – to be completed by DoA and EPD Falkland Islands Invasive Species Action Plan CALAFATE ( Berberis microphylla )
Images from Falklands Conservation (2014) SUMMARY Taxonomy: Kingdom: Plantae; Phylum: Tracheophyta; Class: Magnoliopsida; Order: Ranunculales; Family: Berberidaceae; Genus: Berberis; Species: Berberis microphylla Nativeness: Introduced, naturalised TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Description: Spiny evergreen shrub with woody stems up to 2 m tall. Bright yellow flowers up to 1 cm across are borne singly in spring and summer and later produce purple berries about 8 mm diameter. Leaves are oval, 1-2.5 cm long. Spines are straight, 10-15 mm long, in T-shaped groups of 3. Sometimes forms very low, creeping shrubs which are hard to spot in dense acid grassland. Seedlings sometimes have spiny, holly-shaped leaves. (Taken from Falklands Conservation, 2014) Local trend: Increasing Impacts: Has both environmental and economic impacts. Smothers native vegetation in the area that it invades, changing habitat structure to impenetrable scrub. B. microphylla threatens rare native and endemic plants at one Important Plant Area, Keppel Island (Upson, 2012). It reduces the grazing land available and depreciates the value of wool via its spiny thorns. Similar species are very invasive in the US, Australia and New Zealand. TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
1. Distribution Global Native to South America (Chile and Argentina). Not known as an invasive anywhere else, however other species of Berberis are highly invasive in the US, Australia and New Zealand. The Falkland Islands is the only country where there is published evidence that Berberis microphylla has become invasive. Other Berberis species have been introduced and become invasive in New Zealand ( B. glaucarpa and B. darwinii ) and the U.S.A ( B. thunbergii ). In New Zealand this genus is now banned for sale and cultivation. There is no such ban in place in the Falkland Islands. Local Taken from Upson et al. (2016): Belton (2008) estimates the coverage of Calafate in the Falklands to be less than 24 km 2. Since 2008 field work carried out primarily by the South Atlantic Invasives Species project, confirms this is still the case. Calafate is known from the following areas (Figure 1):
In order of known extent of spread (greatest to least): • Port Sussex/ Head of the Bay Farm (East Falkland) • Cantera Farm (East Falkland) • Stanley Township (East Falkland) • Keppel Island (north of West Falkland) • Island Harbour (East Falkland) • Darwin (East Falkland) • Salvador (East Falkland) (main plants have been dug up and buried – site of origin should continue to be checked for a few more years) • Port Stephens (West Falkland) • Cortley Hill and nearby vicinity (East Falkland) • Governor Island (west of West Falkland) (single plant that has now been dug up - site should continue to be checked for a few more years)
Extent of spread not known and assigned a minimum area of 10 m sq: • East Falkland: Egg Harbour, Teal Creek House, Teal Creek, Ceritos House, Fitzroy Settlement, Bluff Cove, Stanley Airport, Goose Green • West Falkland: Hill Cove Settlement, Fox Bay West, Shallow Cove
A conservative assessment based on mapped field data suggests that in 2014 Calafate covered an area of approximately 16 km 2, with c. 4 km 2 heavily infested and c. 12 km 2 lightly infested.
Figure 1: Potential spread of Calafate over a 70 year period (left map, excluding green area) based on the previous rate of spread between 1944 and 2009 at Port Sussex/ Head of the Bay (right map) (Upson et al. 2016)
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
2. Status Population estimate: Not possible owing to difficulty in distinguishing individual mature plants. Population trend: Increasing
As stated by Belton (2008): “It is unclear when Calafate was first introduced to the Falkland Islands, however judging by the current distribution of plants at some sites, it is estimated that it has been naturalised and spreading for at least several decades and possibly a century or more. It is believed to have been present at Port Sussex for at least 80 years (Richard Stevens, pers. comm.). The first plants are likely to have been introduced as a hardy shrub for hedging and shelter, with the added attraction of producing edible fruit. Consequently several early settlement sites on the Falklands are the centre of dispersal for naturalised populations of Calafate.” Further spread of B. microphylla is inevitable without management. 3. Ecology Habitat As well as being adapted to grazing, B. microphylla is well adapted to the cool temperatures and acidic, nutrient-poor peaty soils found in the Falkland Islands. Low growing habitats are particularly vulnerable to overgrowth by B. microphylla and this includes the majority of the Falkland Islands. B. microphylla has formed the densest stands in sheltered, moist to wet vegetation – in valleys and along streams and rivers. Reproduction & life history Perhaps owing to the fact that the Falkland Islands is the only country where B. microphylla is known as an invasive, there is a dearth of information on its ecology. For example its growth rate, lifespan, seed longevity or the average fruit production per plant of Calafate in the Falklands and how this relates to climatic conditions is not known.
Taken from Upson et al (2016): “The Falkland thrush ( Turdus falcklandii subsp. falcklandii ) is a known disperser of Calafate berries (Richard Stevens, pers. comm.); it is possible that it is also the sole disperser locally (Sally Poncet, pers comm.). Otherwise all spread of Calafate is vegetative via suckering of roots – it can also re-grow from both stem and crown cuttings left in contact with soil. The range of the thrush has not been studied but it is likely that it might be several kilometres for some during the breeding season (Sally Poncet, pers comm.); anecdotal observational evidence in the vicinity of the largest Calafate spread corroborates this hypothesis - an isolated 3-5 years old fruiting shrub was located some 3 km from the nearest known fruiting plants. Beyond the breeding season and for fledglings dispersing end of season the thrushes may travel even further depending on food availability (Sally Poncet, pers comm.). Given the risks associated with Calafate, this identified potential for long range stochastic dispersal emphasizes the need for urgent eradication.
In New Zealand honey bees are the main pollinators of the related Berberis darwinii (Allen and Wilson, 1992). In the Falkland Islands it is pollinated by other insects (Belton, 2008a), however there are no published studies on what is pollinating locally.
There is conflicting information on the pollination biology of Calafate: Belton (2008a) describes it as self-fertile but others describe it is a self-incompatible (Smith-Ramírez et al. 2005; Riveros, 1991). If Calafate is self- incompatible this would offer an explanation for the long lag times reported by some between planting of an isolated shrub and fruiting.”
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Taxonomy & population structure Common name: Calafate
Latin name: Berberis microphylla G. Forst. Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis 9: 29. 1787.
Also known as: Box-leaved Barberry
Synonym: Berberis buxifolia Lam.
No research has been carried out on the population structure of B. microphylla in the Falkland Islands. 4. Impacts Competition (1) Magnitude: MAJOR B. microphylla is able to overgrow low native vegetation, where site environmental characteristics are favourable for it. Further investigation into whether any native habitats that are resistant to overgrowth by Calafate or whether any benefit from protection from grazing as a result are needed however there is currently no evidence of this.
Observational evidence from Port Sussex and Keppel Island indicates that community composition is altered owing to B. microphylla becoming dominant in valleys and along stream margins; in other habitats community composition is altered by a significant proportion of ground cover invaded by B. microphylla .
B. microphylla threatens rare native and endemic plants at 1 Important Plant Area, Keppel Island (Upson, 2012). Similar species are very invasive in the US, Australia and New Zealand.
Direct competition experiments between B. microphylla and native shrubs would be useful, however in areas where grazing occurs it is highly likely that B. microphylla would come to dominate owing to its resistance to grazing.
Transmission of diseases to native species (4) Magnitude: DATA DEFICIENT Taken from Upson et al. 2016:
A range of fungi have been recorded on living leaves of Poa flabellata , however the cause of rust epidemics observed in populations around the Falkland Islands has been identified as the stripe rust fungus Puccinia striiformis (Alistair McCracken, unpublished data; McAdam, 1985; Gunn, 1974).
Rusts reduce plant growth by decreasing the leaf area that is able to photosynthesise, literally blocking out the light as they colonise leaves. Although rusts are dependent on a living host, in the absence of at least minor resistance genes and favourable conditions, PST can prematurely kill cultivated wheat plants and thereby prevent seed production (Ricardo Madariaga pers. comm.). Perennial grasses such as P. flabellata probably build up a suite of minor resistance genes but the appearance of a new strain of the fungus could still cause a threat to their survival. In addition any weakening of P. flabellata that occurs can make it more susceptible to other stresses and infections and may also decrease its fruit production so impacting regeneration from seed. The exact scale of the impact will be dependent on the scale of the outbreak. Unfortunately there are currently no studies specifically investigating the impact of rust infection on Tussac growth and reproduction. Given that there are local observations of severely infected P. flabellata stands it is likely that at least growth is impacted.
Puccinia striiformis , like many rust fungi, requires different host plants for asexual and sexual reproduction. It has long been known that PST depends on grasses for the asexual part of its cycle and it has recently been confirmed that B. microphylla is the alternate host (Alistair McCracken, unpublished data), therefore assisting the rust fungus in part of its life cycle - the part that allows genetic recombination to occur and therefore the
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016 possible emergence of new strains of the fungus. The alternate host is essential - there can be no stripe rust on Tussac without the alternate host, Calafate (Alistair McCracken, pers. comm.). Chemical, physical, or structural impact on ecosystem (9,10,11) Magnitude: MAJOR In the worst affected areas, B. microphylla has completely altered the structure of the ecosystem by forming dense, introduced scrub. Socio-economic impacts - Damage to livestock and products (wool) Calafate impacts livestock and wool products (and thereby livelihoods) in the following ways (taken from Falklands Conservation, 2014; see Belton, 2008 for a fuller review): • Spines lodge in fleeces, injuring shearers and reducing wool value. • Spines can damage sheep’s mouths and spread Orf disease. • Forms dense thickets that out-compete pasture grasses reducing available food
4. Management notes The outcome sought for this species is ultimately complete eradication; accuracy, persistence and timeliness are critical. In order to achieve this aim, control and restoration/ re-vegetation programmes must be implemented in tandem – where ground is physically cleared there must be a plan in place for planting/ seeding that area with appropriate native species and for appropriate management of the site to allow regeneration and establishment to occur. Primary method of control/ eradication: Repeat spraying of herbicides for several seasons – this is the method recommended by the most recent visiting invasive species expert, Bradley Myer (Bradley Myer, pers. comm. 2015).
Results of spray trials show… - Adam Dawes at DoA will have further information on this next Spring (2016) Post-spray site treatment To be agreed – one of two main options
Brief summary of two options for post -spray site treatment – NB – THIS MUST BE DECIDED ON BEFORE ACTION PLAN CAN BE FINALISED Post -spray site Pros Cons treatment A. Leave B. This is the most appropriate and Landowner concern that as plants microphylla in situ and efficient method to deal with decay, thorny fragments will allow natural sprayed shrubs (Tom Belton, pers. remain in sheep’s fleeces degradation over time comm. 2016) May require land to be grazed by off shears sheep or cattle or areas to be fenced off from grazing entirely – i.e. farming practices would be affected by eradication effort B. Removal of B. Removes the plant from site and Highly labour intensive to remove microphylla and allows grazing to continue without plants from site and likely to be burning off site risks posed by thorns more costly than spraying itself
Requires timely re-vegetation of cleared area to prevent erosion
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Option A (in table above) use in the densest areas could be followed by planting of native shrubs that could be used to in-fill invaded areas:
• Fachine shrubs – with a view to these shrubs holding the plants in place as they decay and eventually overgrowing them • Tall fern – with a view to these plants discouraging investigation by sheep – this would be a cheaper method than fencing but requires horticultural input in the establishment of fern beds Required budget The cost of spraying heavily infested areas is estimated at £500 per hectare and £100 per hectare to treat lightly infested areas or areas for survey/surveillance (Bradley Myer, pers. comm. 2015). These figures are based on the following assumptions (Bradley Myer, pers. comm. 2015):
• Two local Falklands residents are contracted to provide the services • Price includes the supply of herbicide (herbicide treatment TBC by DoA) and equipment • Price does include mapping of all targets and production of spatial data • N.B. this price estimate does not include: removal of dead vegetation by burning or otherwise • Price does not include accommodation and transport where needed
Personnel: Bradley Myer is undertaking a train the trainer’s course – he could come out to the Falklands with his team to carry out first phase of work and train up a team (estimate of the number needed) at the same time.
Secondary methods of control Biocontrol A secondary method that could run alongside spraying is the use of biocontrol to inhibit the ability of Berberis microphylla to reproduce. In New Zealand Landcare Research are currently trialling release of a seed-feeding weevil ( Berberidicola exaratus ) onto Berberis darwinii Darwin’s barberry at three sites (Landcare Research, 2016). Weevils lay eggs within developing berries and the resulting larvae damage or consume the developing seeds. We would need to perform tests to see if the weevil will also attack seeds of Berberis microphylla . There is also the possibility of trials for a flower-feeding weevil ( Anthonomus kuscheli ). It is worth noting that neither species has been used for biocontrol anywhere else.
The option could include a shipment of larvae-infested fruits from Chile (Landcare have been working with Hernan Norambuena). The resulting adults could be released into field cages in Port Sussex.
Landcare Research in New Zealand are also considering using a rust fungus ( Puccinia berberidis- darwinii ) to damage the plant itself. As with any form of biocontrol we would need to test how specific that rust fungus is and what its additional host is. Berberis microphylla is already known to harbour a rust fungus that also attacks Poa flabellata so this suggests a potential risk. Hugh Gourlay is happy to be contacted in relation to the New Zealand trials ([email protected] ). Monitoring TO BE COMPLETED
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
5. Policy and legislation For a sustainable solution to the eradication/ control of Calafate there is a need to:
• Ensure that no plants in the genus Berberis are imported into the Falkland Islands • Ensure that after the agreed control targets are met by government, landowners take on responsibility for controlling Calafate on their land
Proposed actions to achieve the above:
• Include the genus Berberis on the Falkland’s blacklist (category 2 list) • Legislation on noxious weeds • Further biosecurity legislation to support blacklist
Legislative proposals for noxious weeds will need to be based on further consultations with stakeholders and MLAs.
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Table 1: Cost estimate for spraying of Calafate at sites across the Falkland Islands – based on estimates from Bradley Myer (managing director, Kaitiaki Ecological restoration and biosecurity). Cost per ha Estimated area (£100 = low of infestation infestation, using ArcMap £500 = heavy Location (ha) infestation) Total cost Port Sussex/ Head of the Bay Farm (East Falkland) - lower levels of infestation 1126.46426 100 112646.4 Port Sussex/ Head of the Bay Farm (East Falkland) - heavy infestation 200 500 100000 Cantera Farm (East Falkland) 122.880514 500 61440.26 Stanley Township (East Falkland) 87.6882984 100 8768.83 Keppel Island (north of West Falkland) 53.183946 500 26591.97 Island Harbour (East Falkland) 27.4584611 500 13729.23 Darwin (East Falkland) 2.54175687 100 254.1757 Salvador (East Falkland) (main plants have been dug up and buried) 1.95566772 100 195.5668 Port Stephens (West Falkland) 1.81438414 100 181.4384 Cortley Hill and nearby vicinity (East Falkland) 0.2171 100 21.71 Governor Island (west of West Falkland) (single plant that has now been dug up) 0.001 100 0.1 Hill Cove Settlement (West Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Fox Bay West (West Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Egg Harbour (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Teal Creek House (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Teal Creek (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Ceritos House (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Fitzroy Settlement (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Shallow Cove (West Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Bluff Cove (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Stanley Airport (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 Goose Green (East Falkland) 0.001 100 0.1 £323,830
TEFRA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 2016
Need confirmation of what the format is for action summaries – below is taken from SAP and amended – FC to inform on this… TO BE COMPLETED Financial Cost Financial Obligation addressed addressed Enact to Time Approx. action) (entire Body Responsible Lead Responsible Supporting Bodies Lat Long Notes Confidence ofimpact Severity Urgency Impact of Permanence Action Action Outcome addressed impact Primary impacts Additional Policy and legislation
Species management Outlier spray to reduce further dispersal - Goose Green (East Falkland) – includes mapping of all treated sites to allow follow-up treatment Sites to be checked again every 2-3 years (Belton, 2008)
Advisory
Future research and monitoring
RECOMMENDATIONS SUPPORTED BY THE CLIMATE CHANGE RISK ASSESSMENT 6. References Belton T (2008) Calafate ( Berberis buxifolia ) on the Falkland Islands. An assessment of this species and recommendations for management. Report to RSPB. 23 pp.
Falklands Conservation (2014) Invasive Plants: A guide to 12 invasive species in the Falkland Islands. Produced by Caroline Duffy and Richard Lewis.
Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua (2016) Barberry Weevil Breakthrough in Weed Biocontrol; Editor: Lynley Hayes; Issue 76.
Upson R, McAdam J, Clubbe C (2016) Climate Change Risk Assessment for Plants and Soils of the Falkland Islands and the Services they provide. Report to Falkland Islands Government. 96 p.
Upson R (2012) Important Plant Areas of the Falkland Islands. Report, Falklands Conservation. 90 p. Available: http://www.ukfit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IPA_directory_final_RU_191012.pdf
Whitehead J (2008) Introduced species on the Falkland Islands. South Atlantic Invasive Species Project. Report to RSPB.
26
Title of Report: Climate Change Project Recommendations
Paper No:
Date: 19 October 2016
Report of: Environmental Officer
1.0 Purpose
1.1 To seek Environmental Committee members approval and views before recommending that Honourable Members approve the prioritisation of climate change recommendations resulting from a recent project led by Kew Gardens.
2.0 Recommendations
2.1 It is recommended that Committee members endorse the action plan noted in Appendix 1.
2.2 It is recommended that Committee members support the proposed prioritisation of high priority action through existing or new policy and action plans.
2.3 It is recommended that this paper be published.
3.0 Additional Budgetary Implications
3.1 There are no additional financial implications arising from this paper.
4.0 Background
4.1 The TEFRA Climate Change project was led by Kew Gardens, FIT and FC and represents by far the most comprehensive assessment of climate change implications for the Falkland Islands. The research was undertaken over 3 years, included climate change modelling and provides recommendations and predictions on climate change implications over the next 100 years; focussing on terrestrial and plant communities.
4.2 The 96 page final report is available on request.
4.3 The project also provided a detailed set of recommendations for FIG to consider. This set of recommendations is attached at Appendix 1, with some additions proposed to put them in context and prioritise implementation within FIG.
5.0 High Priority Recommendations
5.1 The 13 key recommendations from the report have been assessed against national priorities, with 5 recommendation identified as high priority for FIG.
5.2 The Dept of Agriculture have considered the recommendations directly related to Agriculture and the comments are included in Appendix 2. High priority activities include:
4. Amend agricultural reseed policy to decrease erosion risks
5. Amend Agricultural Burning Code of Practice to decrease erosion risks
8. Establish a white list approach to non-native species (with a black list as ‘second line of defence’).
5.3 Remaining high priorities which fall to EPD to lead on comprise:
9. Updated Action Plans for threatened plants, taking climate change into account
5.4 MoD have been tasked to make:
6. Amendments to MOD code of conduct to reduce burning hazard of training and RR travel
5.5 EPD are content to lead or facilitate on implementation of all high priorities as identified in this paper. This will be actioned through new policy and action plans coming out of the Biodiversity Framework.
6.0 Medium Priority Recommendations
6.1 The remaining medium priority actions are being implemented or have some form of commitment to do so within FIG :
1. Amend format of ExCo report so that all applications include details of any potential climate change impacts. (This has been completed with the new ExCo template including an Environment section). 2. Establishment of a National Soil Policy (DoA involvement) 3. Update Farm Improvement Programme as an Agri-Environment Scheme with a range of ecosystem service deliverables (DoA are broadening the scope of FIP projects) 7. Establish a Noxious Weed Act (Being considered through Biosecurity section, support from EPD with draft Biosecurity Strategy to follow). 9. Eradication of all Berberis species – costed Action Plan. (Decision to follow in 2017 after DoA-led trials complete). 10 Additions to the Falklands Biodiversity Framework. (EPD to progress through Biodiversity Planning Group) 11 Long term vegetation monitoring – positioning of transects informed by CC work. (To be progressed as part of wider monitoring programme)
7.0 Low Priority Recommendations
7.1 The only low priority recommendation is:
13. Placement of further weather stations and clear policy on data gathering from these
7.2 This activity may be addressed through existing weather data recorders in place by the Met Office if a good case is made to collect and monitor weather data.
8.0 Financial Implications
8.1 There are no additional financial implications arising from this paper.
9.0 Legal Implications
9.1 There are no direct legal implications arising from this paper.
10.0 Human Resources Implications
10.1 There are no direct FIG human resource implications arising from this paper.
11.0 Background Papers Climate Change Risk Assessment for Plants and Soils of the Falkland Islands and the Services they provide, May 2016, Rebecca Upson, Jim McAdam, Colin Clubbe
Environmental Committee
An Executive Council Advisory Committee
Terms of Reference
Executive Council
CONTENTS
1. RECITALS ...... 3
2. DUTIES ...... 3
3. MEETINGS AND ATTENDANCE OF THE COMMITTEE ...... 3
4. CHAIRMAN ...... 5
5. THE SECRETARY ...... 6
6. THE COMMITTEE’S MEMBERS ...... 6
7. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ...... 7
Page 2 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
1. RECITALS
1.1 In accordance with the Constitution, Executive Council may delegate its powers or may empower officers by delegation. The Power to create committees is part of the Governor in Council’s general executive authority.
1.2 By resolution of the Executive Council duly convened and held on 29th June 2016, Executive Council reconfirmed the role of the Environmental Committee as set out in these terms of reference.
1.3 Executive Council shall have an Environmental Committee (the ‘Committee’) to advise it, which shall be formed, constituted and at all times operated, in accordance with the following Terms of Reference.
2. DUTIES AND DELEGATIONS
2.1 Attached at Schedule 1.
3. MEETINGS AND ATTENDANCE OF THE COMMITTEE
3.1 To achieve the Terms of Reference, the Committee will consist of:
• Councillor for the Environment, nominated by Legislative Council • One Councillor, designated by Legislative Council • Environmental Officer • Environmental Planning Officer Head of Environmental Planning Comment [NR1]: Job title changed some years ago • Member of the community with appropriate interests and skills • Member of the community with appropriate interests and skills • Member of the community with appropriate interests and skills Comment [NR2]: A third Community Rep was approved by ExCo in Oct 15; • 188-15 and a representative from:
• Falkland Islands Tourist Board • Rural Business Association • Department of Agriculture Comment [NR3]: This was approved by ExCo previously • Falkland Islands Fishing Companies Association • Falklands Conservation • South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute and a non-voting advisory representative from: Comment [NR4]: Agreed SEARI be given voting rights also • South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute
Page 3 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
3.2 Nominations for positions of community representative will be sought and a decision will be made by vote at a closed session of the meeting. Community representatives will normally serve a period of two years, but initially one community representative will serve a period of one year in order to have an annual rotation of one community representation.
3.3 Any member of the committee with an interest in a matter must have no part of the discussion and leave the meeting.
3.4 A representative of the Fisheries Department, Department of Agricultural Department of Mineral Resources, Department of Public Works, Attorney, Generals Chambers and Falkland Islands Development Corporation may attend where invited specifically to give advice on a matter within their expertise.
3.5 Nothing will prevent any person attending meetings of the Committee with the consent of Members of the Committee.
3.6 The Councillor for the Environment will chair the committee and the Environmental Planning Department will provide secretarial services, including preparation of the agenda and minutes.
These Terms of Reference were approved by ExCo on November 22nd 2007.
3.7 The lay community members of the Committee will be appointed by the Governor on behalf of the Executive Council having received the recommendations of the appointment panel.
3.8 It is anticipated the Committee will meet at least once every two months quarter. However, frequency of meetings may be determined by the Committee.
3.9 The Committee will operate in accordance with the Committees (Public Access) Ordinance 2012.
3.10 Lay Committee Members will serve for an initial term of no more than threetwo years and Members shall retire in rotation at the end of their term.
Page 4 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
They are eligible for re-appointment subject to a maximum of 3 consecutive terms.
3.11 A Member will cease to be a Member if:
3.11.1 the Member is a Member of Legislative Assembly and loses their seat;
3.11.2 a Member resigns; and
3.11.3 if 3.5 applies.
3.12 The quorum for meetings will be half of the Members of the Committee (listed in 3.1).
3.13 If a quorum is not present within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting or if during a meeting a quorum ceases to be present, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the same day in the next week at the same time and place, or such day and at such time and place as the Members determine. If at the adjourned meeting a quorum is not present within 15 minutes from the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall be dissolved.
3.14 The Committee shall make its decisions by majority vote. In any situation where there is an equality of votes, the Chairperson of the Committee will be afforded a second or casting vote.
3.15 Members may attend meetings by way of conference telephone call or video conference and that any Member participating in the meeting in this way may be counted towards the quorum.
3.16 Executive Council may ask the Committee to convene further meetings to discuss particular issues on which the Committee’s advice is required.
4. CHAIRPERSON
4.1 The Chairperson will be responsible for:
4.1.1 leadership and effectiveness of the Committee;
Page 5 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
4.1.2 chairing all Committee meetings and ensuring resolutions are passed appropriately;
4.1.3 signing the minutes of each meeting to deem the meeting validly convened and constituted;
4.1.4 ensuring Corporate Governance Best Practice is adhered to; and
4.1.5 the Committees (Open Access) Ordinance 2012 and all other legal obligations applicable to the Committee’s work.
5. THE SECRETARY
5.1 An Environmental Planning Department member of staff will be the Secretary of the Committee (the ‘Secretary’) and nominated by the Head of Environmental Planning. The Secretary will take minutes of all meetings except where the Committee wishes to meet without the Secretary being present, in which case the Committee will nominate one of its number to act as the Secretary of the Committee for the purposes of that meeting or part of that meeting.
5.2 The Secretary will be responsible for all administration of the Committee and will be expected to keep appropriate records and minutes of meetings.
5.3 The Secretary will ensure all minutes are signed by the Chairperson.
5.4 The Secretary will work with the Chairperson to ensure Corporate Governance Best Practice is adhered to. The Secretary will also ensure record keeping is in accordance with the government’s legal, financial and audit obligations.
6. THE COMMITTEE
6.1 The Committee may also invite any employee of the Government to speak at the Committee Meetings, but such employees shall not be members of the Committee and will have no rights to vote.
Page 6 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
6.2 The Committee may, with the consent of the Executive Council on behalf of the Board, co-opt people onto the Committee with relevant experience. Such co-opted members may not be employees of the Government.
7. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE
7.1 The Members of the Committee should not have any personal interest in the Committee’s decisions or have any conflicts of interest arising from other directorships or the day-to-day involvement in the running of the Committee. They should sit on the Committee free from any business or other relationship which could materially interfere with the exercise of their independent judgement.
7.2 Members should have regard to the Members of the Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct.
7.3 Each of the Committee’s Members should have a good understanding of the Terms of Reference as set out herein.
7.4 A Member of the Committee who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in any matter of the meeting shall disclose the nature of his interest to the meeting whilst also recording it in the minutes. Any interested Member shall not take any part in any deliberation or decision of that meeting.
7.5 Each Member shall be required to provide to the Clerk of the Councils, at the date of his or her appointment and on a continuing basis, information concerning any relevant financial or other interest which he or she or his or her family members or associates have. This information must be formally Comment [NR5]: Seems excessive and would dissuade members from recorded in the Register of Committee Members Interests which shall be joining the Committee. What is the definition of an Associate? maintained by the Clerk’s office.
7.6 It shall not do anything which might be interpreted as binding the Government in any matter nor shall it commit expenditure without the prior approval of Executive Council or Standing Finance Committee.
Page 7 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
Schedule 1
Part I
1. DUTIES
1.1 The Committee will meet to consider, discuss and make recommendations to Executive Council in relation to environmental issues affecting the Falkland Islands, its internal waters, its territorial sea, its air space and those other areas (including Falkland Islands Designated Areas) in relation to which rights are claimed by or on behalf of the Falkland Islands, which are referred to it by Executive Council, and any matters falling within paragraphs 21.2, 21.3, 12.4 and 21.5.
1.2 The Committee will advise the Falkland Islands Government on the implementation of legislation pertaining to the environment, including the Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance 19991 and Marine Mammals Ordinance 1992, including:
(a) management of National Nature Reserves, including access permits;
(b) issue of research licences;
(c) protection of listed species;
1.3 The Committee will advise the Head of Environmental Planning Officer on the management and allocation of the Environmental Studies Budget., including:
(a) preparation of the Environmental Studies Budget submission for consideration by the Government Secretary, Treasury and then SFC/EXCO/LEGCO;
(b) oversee the expenditure of the budget allocation once approved, following the structure set out in Appendix 2.
1 The Environmental Planning Officer, or in his/her absence the Director of Natural Resources, has delegated powers under the Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance 1999 to grant licences for the killing of turkey vultures for agricultural purposes in certain circumstances, for the conduct scientific research in certain cases and for the collection of penguin eggs for human consumption. Ordinarily the EPO does not consult the Committee in relation to exercise of the delegated powers except in relation to the issue of research licences. A policy relating to research licences and consultation with Committee members has been agreed by Committee and is attached as Appendix 1.
Page 8 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
1.4 The Committee will advise on the drafting and implementation of the ‘Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy’Framework’, associated ‘Strategies’, ‘Species and Habitat Action Plans’ and ‘Site Management Plans’.
1.5 The Committee will also consider and advise on the following issues, as appropriate:
(a) conservation of marine and terrestrial species and habitats;
(b) how the domestic legislation, policies, programmes and proposals of FIG, public bodies and private companies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, particularly of fishing, agriculture, tourism, aquaculture, mineral exploration and development, waste disposal, energy use and provision, quarrying, new roads and other infrastructure, and other developments; Comment [NR6]: This covers the bulk of Environmental Mainstreaming Group Terms. Remainder are covered below (c) biosecurity, invasive species, wildlife diseases and the importation of biological material;
(d) climate change implications Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering (d)(e) exportation of biological material from the Falkland Islands, including bioprospecting;
(e)(f) multi-lateral environmental agreements that FIG has signed to, is preparing sign to or should consider, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and United Nations Framework Formatted: Font: Not Bold Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Agreement;
(f)(g) the designation of National Parks, under the National Parks Ordinance 1998;
(h) the designation of land and marine National Nature Reserves, under the Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance 1999; Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering (g)(i) terrestrial and marine spatial planning initiatives
(h)(j) environmental education and raising awareness.
1.6 Members of the Committee may raise within the Committee environmental issues which are not set out in 21.2, 21.3, 21.4 or 21.5 above or which have not been referred to it by Executive Council. However, before detailed consideration of any such issues is undertaken, the Committee will ask
Page 9 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
Executive Council whether or not it wishes the Committee to proceed to undertake such detailed consideration.
1.7 The Committee shall (in addition to any other reports) provide Executive Council with an annual environmental report within three months of the end of the financial year.
Appendix 1 - Policy for issuing research licences
The Environmental Committee requests that the Head of Environmental Planning Officer should submit all research licences for comment and assessment, although understanding that this is not a legislative requirement. However, under the following circumstances, the Head of Environmental Planning Environmental Planning Officer can, after circulating to members an application for research by email, issue licences.
This can occur for applications that involve the following:
• Collection and/or export of one bird or animal artefact only (e.g. one egg, one skeleton, one skull, feathers) • Temporary capture of less than 10 birds or animals • Temporary or permanent capture of less than 20 zebra trout, depending on location and suspected population abundance
A research licence will only be issued for purposes of research or education, such as for studies of the biology of a species, its health or function and for displays that the general public can access. Licence will generally only be issued to people employed or connected with a scientific or environmental education institute and for people with either demonstrated scientific expertise and experience or having access to a relevant supervisor or supervising body.
Passed at the April 3rd 2007 meeting of the Environmental Committee
Page 10 of 11 Environmental Committee Terms of Reference
Schedule 1
Part II
DELEGATIONS
The delegations from Executive Council to the Committee are as follows:
None
Page 11 of 11
THE FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT
Environmental Planning Department, P.O. Box 611 Stanley Falkland Islands
Telephone: (+500) 28480 Facsimile: (+500) 27391 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.falklands.gov.fk
RESEARCH LICENCE AGREEMENT
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ON THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
Project title: Using unmanned aerial vehicles for environmental monitoring at Sea Lion Island
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT DETAILS
Name of the person leading Filippo Galimberti & Simona Sanvito the research
Affiliation Elephant Seal Research Group
Position CEO
Postal Address Sea Lion Island, Falkland Islands (until August 18th please use: Via Buonarroti 35, 20145 Milano, Italy)
Phone number +500 32010 (until August18th please use: +39 02 4980504)
Email [email protected]
SECTION 2 – ASSISTANTS DETAILS
Name-Surname Affiliation Role Country
Anna Agostini University of Milano and Field helper Italy ESRG Francesca Cellamare University of Milano and Field helper Italy ESRG Greta Colombi University of Milano and Field helper Italy ESRG Giulia Ercoletti University of Roma "La Field helper Italy Sapienza" and ESRG Bruna Giordano University of Roma "La Field helper Italy Sapienza" and ESRG Edoardo Ledda University of Roma "La Field helper Italy Sapienza" and ESRG Laura Redaelli University of Milano and Field helper Italy ESRG Galileo Schiavina University of Modena Field helper Italy and ESRG Thomas Uboldi University of Milano and Field helper Italy ESRG Maria Chiara Vinesi University of Modena Field helper Italy and ESRG
SECTION 3 – ORGANISATION PARTNER/POINT OF REFERENCE IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
Nick Rendell, Conservation Officer, Environmental Planning Department, Falkland Islands Government
SECTION 4 – PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
In recent years there has been an increasing interest for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for environmental monitoring. UAVs have the potential to produce a methodological revolution in spatial and landscape ecology (Anderson and Gaston 2013) and in wildlife biology (Chabot and Bird 2015), permitting the collection of accurate, high resolution data at low cost. UAVs have been used for general environmental monitoring (Gonzalez et al. 2016), vegetation mapping (Salamí et al. 2014), and census of indicator species (Zmar et al. 2015). We are developing an environmental monitoring programme at Sea Lion Island, and we would like to test the usability, advantages and negative impacts of UAVs for environmental monitoring. In particular, we would like to use an UAV to: 1) carry out counts of wildlife species which breeding colonies are difficult to access; 2) carry out counts of bird species that nest in dense colonies and, therefore, are difficult to count from the ground by human operators; 3) obtain panoramic views from composite aerial pictures to document changes in landscape; 4) collect data on the spatial distribution of our many study species, the southern elephant seal. UAVs have been shown to produce more accurate data than human observers (Hodgson et al. 2016) and to reduce biases due to the different accessibility of different colonies in birds and seals (Pomeroy et al. 2015).
Literature cited Anderson, K. and K. J. Gaston (2013). Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(3): 138-146. Chabot, D. and D. M. Bird (2015). Wildlife research and management methods in the 21st century: Where do unmanned aircraft fit in? Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 3(4): 137-155. Gonzalez, L., G. Montes, E. Puig, S. Johnson, K. Mengersen and K. Gaston (2016). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Artificial Intelligence Revolutionizing Wildlife Monitoring and Conservation. Sensors 16(1): 97. Hodgson, J. C., S. M. Baylis, R. Mott, A. Herrod and R. H. Clarke (2016). Precision wildlife monitoring using unmanned aerial vehicles. Scientific Reports 6: 22574. Pomeroy, P., L. O'Connor and P. Davies (2015). Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems in gray and harbor seals during breeding and molt in the UK. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 3(3): 102-113. Salamí, E., C. Barrado and E. Pastor (2014). UAV Flight Experiments Applied to the Remote Sensing of Vegetated Areas. Remote Sensing 6(11): 11051. Zmarz, A., M. Korczak-Abshire, R. Storvold, M. Rodzewicz and I. Kędzierska (2015). INDICATOR SPECIES POPULATION MONITORING IN ANTARCTICA WITH UAV. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XL-1/W4: 189-193.
SECTION 5 – RESEARCH PROCEDURE
Field work will be carried out at Sea Lion Island between September 2016 an March 2017. We plan to use a semi-professional four-engine UAV (Phantom 3 Professional, DJI, http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro), which is fitted with a high resolution camera capable to take 12 megapixels pictures and 4K videos. The UAV will be used only when the wind and weather conditions are optimal to fly. The following is a list of the planned uses of the UAV: 1) Counts of the southern sea lion colony during the breeding season. The topography of the southern sea lion colony, at the bottom of a steep cliff, makes direct counts of pups difficult, and variable, depending on how many pups are out of view from the top of the cliffs. Although the use of a video camera mounted on a pole can improve the reliability of counts, this solution is far from perfect. The UAV will permit direct counting of pups not visible from the top of the cliff, and counting of all sea lion classes in pictures taken by the UAV camera. 2) Counts of marine birds at the nest. We plan to use the UAV to obtain counts of gentoos penguins and king cormorants that nest in high density colonies. Direct counts of these species are difficult due to the large number of nests densely packed in space. Moreover, gentoos nest in colonies with different topography and, therefore, the accuracy of counts changes from one colony to the other. The accuracy of counts can be greatly improved by taking pictures of the colony from the air, assembling them in a composite, and carry out the counting in the pictures, using an image analysis software that permits to mark and number the counted nests (Goebel et al. 2015). The use of the UAV should permit to easily obtain a full picture coverage of all the colonies. 3) Documentation of landscape changes. The study of medium and long term changes is probably one of the most neglected parts of the environmental monitoring carried out in the Falklands. Starting from an initial interest about the effect of beach landscape changes for our long term study of elephant seals (www.eleseal.org), we are now trying to implement a data collection protocol to study landscape changes at Sea Lion Island. This protocol should include ground survey using survey-grade GPS receivers, satellite imagery, and aerial pictures. The UAV is obviously an ideal platform to take high resolution aerial pictures at low cost. 4) Elephant seal spatial structure. One of the main goals of our long term study of elephant seals is the effect of the spatial distribution of seals on their social behaviour. Although we are already collecting data on seal spatial distribution using GPS receivers and laser telemetry, the availability of aerial pictures of harems can greatly help. Therefore, we plan to use the UAV to obtain aerial pictures of harems during the breeding season. UAVs have been used previously in the Falklands to obtain counts of penguin colonies (Ratcliffe et al. 2015). A peculiar aspect of UAVs is that they require good weather conditions, and in particular rather low wind, to be flown. The Falklands are surely not an ideal place for UAV flying, due to the common high winds. Therefore, we are in an ideal position to test UAVs in the Falklands because we spend the whole spring and summer at Sea Lion Island, and we are, therefore, able to operate the UAV only on days with optimal weather conditions.
Literature cited Goebel, M. E., W. L. Perryman, J. T. Hinke, D. J. Krause, N. A. Hann, S. Gardner and D. J. LeRoi (2015). A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biology 38(5): 619-630. Ratcliffe, N., D. Guihen, J. Robst, S. Crofts, A. Stanworth and P. Enderlein (2015). A protocol for the aerial survey of penguin colonies using UAVs. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 3(3): 95-101.
SECTION 6 – ETHICS STATEMENT Please include copies of any ethics permits issued for the project by your own institution or nation or permits issued by other nations for this project).
Although the use of UAVs can produce notable benefits to environmental and wildlife research, it has drawbacks that should be taken into account. In particular, UAVs can produce stress and fear on the study subjects, often in subtle ways that are not easy to be recognized (e.g., increase in heart rate, Ditmer et al 2015). We plan to strictly apply best practice guidelines for the use of UAVs in wildlife research (Hodgson and Koh 2016) and to follow the suggestions for flying UAVs on bird colonies based on the results of previous studies (Vas et al. 2015), but we also plan to carefully evaluate the effect of UAV flying on each of the species and colonies that we would like to monitor. In the 2015-2016 season, after consultation with Conservation Officer Nick Rendell, we carried out three UAV trial flights, one over the king cormorants colony at the end of the nesting season, one over two different gentoos colonies when nesting was already over, and one over some groups of moulting elephant seals. We observed a variable but limited reaction of the different species. King cormorants showed the lowest reaction, being totally insensitive to the UAV flown at about 10-15 meters of height above the colony. Gentoo penguins, mostly fledging and moulting adults, showed a short term reaction by short distance movements when the UAV was flown below 10 meters above the colony, but showed no reaction when it was flown at 10 meters or more. Elephant seals were insensitive to the UAV, and directed attention to it only when it was flown very close to a specific seal, at a distance of about 3 meters. Full flight logs will be saved using the UAV control software (DJI Go), to document the application of best practice guidelines.
Literature cited
Ditmer, Mark A., John B. Vincent, Leland K. Werden, Jessie C. Tanner, Timothy G. Laske, Paul A. Iaizzo, David L. Garshelis and John R. Fieberg (2015). Bears Show a Physiological but Limited Behavioral Response to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Current Biology 25(17): 2278-2283. Hodgson, J. C. and L. P. Koh (2016). Best practice for minimising unmanned aerial vehicle disturbance to wildlife in biological field research. Current Biology 26(10): R404-R405. Vas, E., A. Lescroël, O. Duriez, G. Boguszewski and D. Grémillet (2015). Approaching birds with drones: first experiments and ethical guidelines. Biology Letters 11(2).
SECTION 7 – PLEASE STATE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF EACH MEMBER OF THE RESEARCH TEAM (please also attach relevant CVs of the research team)
Name – surname Qualifications Dr. Filippo Galimberti Twenty one years of wildlife research in the Falklands, CV attached Dr. Simona Sanvito Twenty one years of wildlife research in the Falklands, CV attached All field helpers Field helpers have no experience of field work in the Falklands but they will receive full training during the first three weeks of their field work
SECTION 8 – DATE OF THE FIELD WORK
From To 01/09/2016 31/03/2017
SECTION 9 – LOCATION OF THE FIELD WORKS
Sea Lion Island
SECTION 10 – LANDOWNER PERMISSION OBTAINED (please cross)
YES X NO
SECTION 11 – INSURANCES (please cross if you have any of the following types) All people entering the Falkland Islands must have medical insurance that covers medical evacuation.
Type All individuals Group
Medical X
Personal Accident X
Public liability
Professional indemnity
Travel X
SECTION 12 – PROTECTED WILDLIFE RESEARCH LICENCE REQUEST (Species protected under the Conservation of Nature and Wildlife Ordinance)
SECTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
NOT SURE IF I NEED TO FILL THIS
SECTION 1.2 PRINCIPAL FIELD WORKERS LIST
NOT SURE IF I NEED TO FILL THIS
NOT SURE IF I NEED TO FILL THIS
SECTION 1.3 PRECAUTIONS AND MITIGATIONS
NOT SURE IF I NEED TO FILL THIS
SECTION 13 FEES (If your research is subject to a fee indicate if you agree to pay this by cheque)
DO WE HAVE TO PAY A FEE ?
I, the undersigned, am applying to the Falkland Islands Government for a permit to carry out the research detailed within this application. By signing the application form I agree with the terms and conditions stated by the Research Licence Agreement guidelines. All the information
provided is, to my knowledge, correct and is the planned course of research action. Should any changes be made to any of the information above I shall notify the Environmental Planning Officer accordingly.
Signed:
THE FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT
Environmental Planning Department, P.O. Box 611 Stanley Falkland Islands
Telephone: (+500) 28480 Facsimile: (+500) 27391 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.falklands.gov.fk
RESEARCH LICENCE AGREEMENT
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ON THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
Project title:
Genetic Structure of Southern Rockhopper Penguins in the SW Atlantic
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT DETAILS
Name of the person leading Klemens Pütz the research Affiliation Antarctic Research Trust Position Scientific Director Postal Address Am Oste-Hamme-Kanal 10 27432 Bremervörde Germany Phone number +49 4764 810476 Email [email protected]
SECTION 2 – ASSISTANTS DETAILS
Name-Surname Affiliation Role Country
TBD
SECTION 3 – ORGANISATION PARTNER/POINT OF REFERENCE IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
Sally Poncet, Antarctic Research Trust, PO Box 684, Stanley FIQQ1ZZ, Falkland Islands
SECTION 4 – PURPOSE OF RESEARCH The populations of Southern Rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome) are globally declining, despite some recent population increases in the Falkland Islands. In order to take effective conservation management decisions, the local and regional genetic structure of the population in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean needs to be studied. For example, in several instances Rockhopper Penguins tagged in the Falklands showed up at Isla Pingüino, where devices were subsequently removed. The study will be conducted in breeding colonies of the species located in Argentina (Isla de los Estados and Isla Pingüino) and the Falkland Islands (Rookery Valley, Berkeley Sound, and Hummock Island). Ideally, twenty birds at each site shall be captured. Colonies in Argentina will be sampled by Dr. Andrea Raya Rey (CADIC-CONICET, Ushuaia, Argentina) and co-workers. In the Falkland Islands, the study is scheduled to take place between 20 November and 2 December 2016. The results obtained should help to understand the processes that explain the demographic dynamics of the species in this area. Also, nesting site fidelity and dispersion levels between and within populations will be determined. The ultimate aim of this project is the identification of management units and the consequent design of effective conservation measures for this endangered penguin species.
SECTION 5 – RESEARCH PROCEDURE
Birds will be captured by hand or with a hook trapping their feet away from the nest site and outside the breeding colony. Immediately after capture the birds will be restrained and their eyes will be covered with a hood to minimize stress. Blood, taken from the tarsal vein after being punctured with a needle by using a 1 ml capillary tube, and feather samples will be collected for posterior genetical analyses. This method does have only a minor and transitory impact on the birds. The whole procedure will last less than 2 minutes per bird. Experience shows that study birds continued with their daily routines immediately afterwards.
SECTION 6 – ETHICS STATEMENT Please include copies of any ethics permits issued for the project by your own institution or nation or permits issued by other nations for this project). n/a
SECTION 7 – PLEASE STATE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF EACH MEMBER OF THE RESEARCH TEAM (please also attach relevant CVs of the research team)
Name – surname Qualifications Klemens Pütz PhD in biology with a study into the foraging ecology of emperor and king penguins. Over 25 years of experience of studies into the biology of numerous penguin species, with special focus on the Falkland Islands.
SECTION 8 – DATE OF THE FIELD WORK
From To 20 November 2016 2 December 2016
SECTION 9 – LOCATION OF THE FIELD WORKS
It is anticipated, to take blood samples from 5-10 birds at the following locations: Rookery Valley, Berkeley Sound Hummock Island, West Falklands Sea Lion Island Steeple Jason
SECTION 10 – LANDOWNER PERMISSION OBTAINED (please cross)
YES
SECTION 11 – INSURANCES (please cross if you have any of the following types) All people entering the Falkland Islands must have medical insurance that covers medical evacuation.
Type All individuals Group Medical X Personal Accident X Public liability X Professional indemnity X Travel X
SECTION 12 – PROTECTED WILDLIFE RESEARCH LICENCE REQUEST (Species protected under the Conservation of Nature and Wildlife Ordinance)
SECTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
To investigate the genetic structure of Southern Rockhopper Penguins in the SW Atlantic to determine demographic dynamics (including immigration & emigration).
SECTION 1.2 PRINCIPAL FIELD WORKERS LIST
Klemens Pütz, Antarctic Research Trust Assistant TBD
SECTION 1.3 PRECAUTIONS AND MITIGATIONS n/a
SECTION 13 FEES (If your research is subject to a fee indicate if you agree to pay this by cheque)
The Antarctic Research Trust, charity register number C10 in the Falkland Islands, will pay for all expenses associated with this study.
I, the undersigned, am applying to the Falkland Islands Government for a permit to carry out the research detailed within this application. By signing the application form I agree with the terms and conditions stated by the Research Licence Agreement guidelines. All the information provided is, to my knowledge, correct and is the planned course of research action. Should any changes be made to any of the information above I shall notify the Environmental Planning Officer accordingly.
Signed: Date: 25 August 2016