Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme Final Report 19 February 2016 This page is intentionally blank Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme Final Report A report submitted by ICF International in association with Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Date: 19 February 2016 Job Number 30300452 Andrew Jarvis ICF International Watling House 33 Cannon Street London EC4M 5SB T +44 (0)20 3096 4800 F +44 (0)20 3368 6960 www.icfi.com Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Document Control Document Title Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme – Final Report (r) Job No. 30300452 Prepared by Mavourneen Conway, Andrew Jarvis, David McNeil, Naazia Ebrahim (ICF) Michael Pocock, Colin Harrower, John Redhead (CEH) Checked by Andrew Jarvis Date 19 February 2016 This report is the copyright of Defra and has been prepared by ICF Consulting Services Ltd under contract to Defra. The contents of this report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any other organisation or person without the specific prior written permission of Defra. ICF has used reasonable skill and care in checking the accuracy and completeness of information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project under which the report was produced. ICF is however unable to warrant either the accuracy or completeness of such information supplied by the client or third parties, nor that it is fit for any purpose. ICF does not accept responsibility for any legal, commercial or other consequences that may arise directly or indirectly as a result of the use by ICF of inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project or its inclusion in this project or its inclusion in this report. 19 February 2016 Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................ i Glossary ................................................................................................................. vi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Structure of the report .............................................................................................................. 2 2 The OPM control programme 3 2.1 OPM control between 2006 and 2012 ..................................................................................... 3 2.2 OPM control under the OPMCP – 2013 to 2015 ..................................................................... 4 3 The evaluation approach 13 3.1 Evaluation questions .............................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Counterfactual ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Evaluation methods ................................................................................................................ 13 4 Impact evaluation findings 19 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.2 Policy level ............................................................................................................................. 21 4.3 Social impacts ........................................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Environmental impacts ........................................................................................................... 32 5 Process evaluation findings 38 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 38 5.2 Programme level governance and management ................................................................... 45 5.3 Operational delivery ............................................................................................................... 55 5.4 Implementation of control measures ...................................................................................... 63 5.5 Data gathering and data management .................................................................................. 73 5.6 Awareness and engagement ................................................................................................. 78 5.7 Research and analysis ........................................................................................................... 87 5.8 Capabilities ............................................................................................................................. 92 6 Learning evaluation findings 97 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 97 6.2 Learning evaluation questions ............................................................................................. 101 7 Conclusions and recommendations 112 7.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 112 7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 113 Annex 1 References ............................................................................................. 116 Annex 2 Life cycle of OPM and available control options ...................................... 119 Annex 3 OPMCP Schematics ................................................................................ 122 Annex 4 Full list of evaluation questions .............................................................. 128 Annex 5 Further details on the different methodologies used for the evaluation .. 131 Annex 6 Stakeholders consulted .......................................................................... 137 Annex 7 Interview questions ............................................................................... 139 Annex 8 Questions asked in the request for written responses............................. 142 19 February 2016 Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Annex 9 Full method and results of the modelling exercise .................................. 146 Annex 10 Landowner survey screening questions .................................................. 170 Annex 11 Annual observed extent of OPM ............................................................. 174 Annex 12 Calculating the OPM rate of spread (2012 – 2015) .................................. 179 Annex 13 Number of infested trees ....................................................................... 184 Annex 14 Additional evidence on OPM health impacts .......................................... 186 Annex 15 List of Advisory Group Members ............................................................ 187 Annex 16 Scale of control activities carried out by outbreak area as has been reported to the OPMCP .......................................................................... 188 Annex 17 Communications activity ........................................................................ 189 Annex 18 Overview of OPM research and monitoring activity ................................ 190 19 February 2016 Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Executive summary Introduction An established colony of the oak processionary moth (OPM), which is not native to the UK, was discovered in the Kew area of London in 2006. Initial control efforts (administered under plant health legislation) had limited success and in 2011 the UK Government policy objective for the outbreak, which had spread across south west London, shifted from eradication to containment. Other, smaller outbreaks were discovered in Pangbourne (Berkshire), the Croydon/Bromley area and on the site of the 2012 Olympic Park. In March 2013 Defra ministers approved a pilot programme, the ‘Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme’ (OPMCP), that would develop and test an alternative approach to tackling the OPM problem. The OPMCP applied a mix of complementary interventions and established new kinds of partnership and governance. The most significant change was to provide public funding for the control of OPM. Previously landowners had to pay for the control themselves. The pilot programme also supported enhanced levels of OPM survey and surveillance, and used communications campaigns and active stakeholder engagement to support its objectives. The case for Defra’s investment was based on the threat posed by OPM to oak tree health and the risk that contact with the toxin contained in OPM larval hairs poses to human and animal health. Analysis showed that restricting the spread of the moth would yield significant benefits. This evaluation has considered the 2013-2015 programming period of the OPMCP, during which it spent almost £4.1 million. The evaluation comprises an appraisal of the pilot programme’s impacts, an analysis of what worked well and what not so well in process terms, and the identification of lessons that can be learned from the programme experience. It is informed by: consultation with stakeholders via interviews