Project Initiation Document

Understanding and addressing the impact of invasive non-native species in the UK Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic

Project Executive: Richard Shaw Senior Users: Sean Murphy

Senior Suppliers: Carol Ellison Project Manager: Norbert Maczey

Date: 15/02/2011PID Version: October 2009

Part A – Background (1)Executive Summary & Objectives

Project Objectives• To assess the potential for the integrated biological control of introduced invasive plants on all the South Atlantic UKOTs using a recently-developed prioritisation tool.

• To make a preliminary review of the potential for biological control of arthropod species prioritised by the ‘South Atlantic Invasive Species Project’ using the arthropod biocontrol database literature held by CABI.

•To use the Falkland Islands and South Georgia as case studies for in depth assessments of priority invasive weeds and arthropods feasible for integrated biological control. This will include updated knowledge about the ecology of such species and their potential control agents, economic comparisons with other currently implemented control methods and stakeholder acceptance. The latter will focus on the perception of islanders of the scale of the invasive problem and their willingness to support biocontrol as a tool for management. In addition, this objective will in particular focus on priority species, where specific requests to analyse the feasibility for biological control already exist such as for the European earwig on the Falkland islands and Cardamine flexuosa on South Georgia

Executive SummaryA major component of this study will be a desk-based review assessing the impact of non-native plants and invertebrates in the South Atlantic UKOTs. We will rank the need and suitability for biological control of individual invasive species from high to low using a recently-developed weed biocontrol prioritisation tool. Priority species will be selected on the basis of population dynamics, reported impact on biodiversity, impact on livelihoods, costs for ongoing control measures other than biological control and others. Two more detailed case studies will evaluate the potential of implementing a biological control programme against priority species for the Falklands and South Georgia more closely. During a field site visit to the Falkland islands dialogues with stakeholders will allow us to assess acceptance levels for biological control. Equally, the need for pilot management trials to demonstrate the benefits of effective weed management on associated trophic levels will be assessed for the Falkland islands and South Georgia. CABI will assess the potential for integrated approaches for the Falkland islands and South Georgia and if suitable will include recommendation for future efforts to evaluate the ecology of native and introduced plants in trial sites in order to deliver the best management practices and remedial actions to support native plant restoration.

Part A – Background (2)Key Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

● Stakeholders and Beneficiaries:-● Donor(s): DEFRA● End-user(s): DEFRA, The Governments of the

Falkland Islands & SG, JNCC, Farmers on Falklands and subsequently other UK OT islands, NGOs working on habitat restoration on OTs

● Partner(s):The Governments of the Falkland Islands & SG, JNCC

● CABI Centres/Departments: CABI EU-UK

Part B – Implementation (1)Proposed Organisation Structure

● Corporate Management: Richard Shaw, Sean Murphy

● Project Board:-● Project Executive: Richard Shaw● Senior Users: Carol Ellison● Senior Suppliers: Sean Murphy● Project Assurance: Carol Ellison● CABI Budget-holder: Richard Shaw

Note that, if not the Project Executive, the CABI Budget-holder must have written confirmation from the Project Executive, and the Project Manager if required by Project Executive, prior to authorising payment.

● Project Manager: Norbert Maczey● Team Managers: Norbert Maczey

Part B – Implementation (2)Stages

StagesWork Packages / Deliverables in Stage, unless indicated in Stage Name

Stage

Completion Date

a) Business Plan Development (optional)Work Packages / Deliverables: Business Plan

1) Complete literature survey and survey of other publicly available sources. First written progress report to steering group setting out progress against the objectives, resource use, risk updates and communication details; presentation of preliminary results

Month 5

2) Complete selection of priority species and second meeting with Defra representative and/or steering group Month 11

3) Complete field site visit to Falklands and/or SG Month 14

4) Complete feasibility study for priority weeds) Second written progress report to steering group setting out progress against the objectives, resource use, risk updates and communication details

Month 21

5) Circulation of first draft of final report, information brochure and policy advice note and third meeting with Defra representative and/or steering group Month 23

6) Submission of final report, information brochure and policy advice note Month 24

Part B – Implementation (3)CABI Resource RequirementsStaff(and/or role on project)

Time Required on Project(Indicate whether time is in Days or Months)

Staff required for Business Plan Development (optional):

Total time required for Business Plan Development (optional):

Estimate of Cost (£) to complete Business Plan Development Stage (optional):

Remainder of Project (excluding Business Plan Development)

Remainder of Project (excluding Business Plan Development)

Norbert Maczey 75

Rob Tanner 43

Richard Shaw 12

Part B – Implementation (4)Customer Acceptance CriteriaAcceptance Criteria Target Measures

Project delivered in time Meeting all milestones in time Final report received By DEFRA in January 2013

Objective to study scientific feasibility of BC fully met

Feasibility or non- feasibility of target species clearly evaluated

Project recommendations and requirements for BC of target species available

Objective to study stake folder acceptance for BC fully met

Acceptance levels clearly stated

Training and awareness raising requirement soutlined

Results ready for publication and dissemination

Dissemination of results Publication in peer reviewed journals; availability of brochures

Part B – Implementation (5)Project Exclusions & Interfaces

Exclusions● no field experiments included● CABI not carrying costs for workshop organisation on Falklands● no field site visits to other islands than Falklands and SG● focus of study restricted to Falklands and SG

Interfaces● Invasive species compendium● ● ●

Part B – Implementation (6)Key Constraints & Assumptions

Constraints● time limitation to 24 month● access to journals limited by budget● limited access to unpublished reports●

Assumptions● internet access of high proportion of stakeholders on Falklands● collaborators providing access to unpublished data and reports● invasive species compendium providing up to date information●

Part C – Reasons for CABI (1)Key Business Benefits - Strategic

This project aims to facilitate research CABI is conducting on the biological control of invasive species in island ecosystems

● It has the potential to pave the way to future biological control projects within the study area and in addition UK OTs in other geographical regions.

● Helps to secure CABI’s global reputation in the biological control of invasive species.

● Will raise awareness about the safe use and economic benefits of biological control

● Strengthens CABI’s partnership with DEFRA.

Part C – Reasons for CABI (2)Key Business Benefits – Financial(Externally funded Projects only)

Full Project Budget – Planned Comments

Donor Currency: £

Exchange Rate to £:

Overall Contract Value in £ (if known): £58,352

Costs Billed to Project Donor (£)

Gross Revenue (Total Project Revenue): £58,352

Payments to External Collaborators: £2,500

Net Income: £55,852

CABI Implementation Costs (£)

CABI Staff Costs: £31,694

Direct Costs:(other direct costs, for example travel, etc)

£10,300

Net Profit/Loss (Project Contribution): £13,858

Net Project Contribution (%): 24.8%

Note that the financials should match the information in the Project Financial Analysis (PFA) form.

Part D – Risks (1)Key Risks(for Collaborator, Security, Technical Risks, see next slides)

Risk Owner Likelihood

(L)

(1=Low;

3=High)

Impact

(I)

(1=Low;

3=High)

Total

(L x I)

(1=Low; 9=High)

Management Strategy

(Choose from Prevention, Reduction, Contingency, Transference, Acceptance, and give brief description of how applied)

Failure to conduct feasibility studies due to lack of publicly accessible data.

Maczey/ Project board

low High medium Risk reduction by working closely with collaborating organisations (JNCC, Governments of Falklands and SG) and subcontracted expert

Failure to conduct field site visits due to difficult accessibility of some of the remote islands. This will only be the case if due to weather events etc. cancellation of scheduled flights or boat transport occurs

Maczey Medium medium medium Risk reduction by keeping travel tickets and travelling times flexible.

Online questionnaires not permitted or take up is poor.

Maczey/Tanner/

Medium Medium medium Contingency plan to follow up by telephone.

Part D – Risks (2)Collaborator Risks

Collaborator Name

(to be paid by CABI)

Has CABI worked with them before? (Yes / No)

Assessment of Collaborator Risk

Include, for example:• Their reputation;• Past experience of working with them (if appropriate).

How much (£) in total is the Collaborator to be paid?

Oliver Cheesman Yes Excellent previous experience (ex-CABI employee); well known expert on matters concerning habitat conservation and IASs on UK OTs

£2,500

Part D – Risks (3)Security Risks

Location of Work Has CABI worked there before?

(Yes / No)

Is there a current, or likely, security risk in that location?

(Yes / No)

Is an alternative secure location eligible for project?

(Yes / No)

UK Yes Yes (minor risk, with varying degrees of security alerts at airports)

No

Falklands, SG No No (no major incidents since 1982)

No

Part D – Risks (4)Technical Risks

Technical Work Has the Lead Centre previously undertaken this Technical work?

(Yes / No)

Has another area of CABI previously undertaken this Technical work?

(Yes / No)

This is primarily a desk based study not including any technical work

Part E – Dissemination & Impact (1)Dissemination of Results

Dissemination Method(what, how, etc)

Target Results Measures

Publication in peer reviewed journal

Dissemination of results to scientific community

Submitted draft paper by July 2013

Information leaflet s and/or brochures; publicized as PDF on websites of CABI and DEFRA

Awareness raising to stakeholders, the public and NGOs

Downloadable brochures by January 2013

Part E - Dissemination & Impact (2)Impact of Project(Scientific, Technical, Commercial, Social, Environmental)

Impact Target Measures

Invasive alien species on the South Atlantic UKOTs cause significant detrimental impacts on indigenous habitats, may threaten endemic species with extinction and hinder economic development. Biological control has been proven to be a very cost effective and safe method to mitigate the impacts caused by such invasive species.

Future uptake of new BC project in study area contributing to the conservation of biodiversity

Despite the huge potential of biological control, its usage on the UKOTs has been rather limited so far. This project will provide a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility for its use in all South Atlantic OTs thereby laying firm foundations for further work on biological control. With limited initial investment future applications of this method will be able to contribute to the preservation of unique habitats and prevent the loss of endemic species. It could also limit future economic losses, thereby benefitting local communities. In addition, the future application of biological control should save money currently being used on less sustainable control methods.

Change of control methods in study area and other islands to economically more viable options

The project will also provide a valuable insight into the attitudes of stakeholders to the issues of INNS and the concept of classical biological control and the detailed work proposed for the Falklands and South Georgia will provide a template for application in all OTs in the future.

Implementation of awareness raising campaign within study area and in other UK OTs

Part F – Reporting and Sign-off (1)Reporting

Information Provider Information Required Interested Parties Frequency

a) Maczey

b) Maczey

c)

a) PID

b) Final project report

c)

Corporate Management (CABI)

a) At start of project

b) Once at end of project

c)

a) Maczey

b)

c)

a) Progress report

b)

c)

Project Board (CABI)

a) Twice during the course of project

b)

c)

a) Shaw

b)

c)

a) Published results

b) Report on stakeholder workshop

c)

Marketing (CABI) a) Once at end of project

b) March 2012

c)

a) Maczey

b)

c)

a) Progress report

b)

c)

Collaborators (External) – paid by CABI

a) Twice during the course of project

b)

c)

a) Maczey

b)

c)

a) Progress report

b) Final project report

c)

Partners (External) a) Twice during the course of project

b) Once at end of project

c)

a) Maczey

b)

c)

a) Progress report

b) Final project report

c)

Donors / Funding Agency (External)

a) Twice during the course of project

b) Once at end of project

c)

a) Maczey

b)

a)

b)

Other – please specify

a)

b)

Part F – Reporting & Sign-off (2)Supporting Documentation

As a minimum to accompany the completed PID:● Project Financial Analysis: attached

Extra supporting documentation may be provided:● Gantt Chart (or Log Frame): attached● Any other documentation as appropriate

contract attached

Please note that projects with an Intellectual Property Right (IPR) component require the contract to be submitted to PMG prior to signature.

Part F – Reporting & Sign-off (3)Authorisation

Project Executive / EMT: ……………………………………………

Date: …………………………………………………………..

PMG Sign-off (Level 1 Projects) …………………………………………..

Date: ………………………………………………………………………….

Approval of: PID Development of Business Plan

PMG Comments and/or Follow-on Actions:

Appendix A – New Product / Initiative (1)

Customer Needs & Trends

What Problem Are We Trying to Solve?

<Evidence from market research, in-market interviews>

Purchasing Criteria

<evidence>

Purchasing Process

<evidence>

Preferred Pricing Models

<evidence>

Strategic Fit

Market Attractiveness

<£ per annum, size, strategic importance>

Market Growth & Trends

<% CAGR, evidence>

Profitability <High/Medium/Low, evidence>

Competition <Significant existing players, partner opportunities, quantified scale of competition>

Appendix A – New Product / Initiative (2)

Financial Impact

Revenue Opportunity <£ p.a. after 3 years, Gross/net revenue, Evidence, eg. no. of subscriptions @ £x, Annual growth rates, Total project revenue/contract value, etc>

Total Investment Required

<quantify, breakdown of expenditure (staff costs vs. direct costs), capex vs. P&L expenditure, payments to collaborators, etc>

Return on Investment <profitability target, return on capital employed, pay-back period/break-even, net project contribution, etc>

Proposed Product / Initiative Specifications

Product / Initiative Scope <Summary definition of product scope and objectives, Key selling points – how is this product better than the competition?>

Workflow Integration <Explain how product fits into user’s workflow>

Revenue Model <Subscription, purchased, sponsored>

Sales & Marketing Strategy

<Online marketing/conference attendance/direct mail/telesales, etc>

Technology Strategy <In-house development or third party solution?>