MINUTES CSL, SAND HUTTON, 27 FEBRUARY 2008, 11:00

Transcription

1 RAPID RESPONSE CORE WORKING GROUP FOR GB FIRST MEETING MINUTES CSL, SAND HUTTON, 27 FEBRUARY 2008, 11:00 1.Attendance/apologies Present: Huw Thomas (Defra - Chair) Niall Moore (NNSS - Secretary) John Allan (CSL replacing Pete Robertson) Scot Mathieson (SEPA) Robin Payne (SNH) Trevor Renals (EA) Angela Robinson (Scottish Government) Ruth Waters (NE) Gabe Wyn (CCW) Sallie Bailey (FC via tele-link) Apologies received from: Ian McLean (JNCC) Pete Robertson (CSL) 1. Introduction and apologies HT welcomed all to the meeting and all the participants introduced themselves and briefly outlined their roles. HT summarised progress to date with the GB Non-native Species Mechanism highlighting the importance of rapid response in the CBD Guiding Principles and the GB Strategy. He informed the meeting that the Programme Board (PB) had agreed to the establishment of the rapid response core group and that December 31, 2008 was the deadline for delivery of a final report with recommendations to the Programme Board. Page 1 of 9

2 HT asked the group whether it felt that the ToRs were suitable. SM queried whether the report would be sent to the three GB Governments as well as the Programme Board. TR suggested that resources were the key issue from the delivery bodies point of view and added that it was important to identify boundaries when rapid response becomes long-term control otherwise delivery bodies could be signing up to leading never-ending control. NE mentioned that for NE at least there is a need for high-level sign off of any protocol agreed by the group. HT replied that after the report was submitted, this high-level sign-off and commitment to any proposed protocol would have to be pursued at the PB and between the Board and the individual country agencies currently represented on the Board by the JNCC. GW informed the meeting that CCW had a risk register and that IAS could be added to this. RP stressed the importance of surveillance and monitoring feeding into the rapid response process. HT replied that a central data repository for non-native species distribution data is currently being investigated as a strategy proposal and that this would be closely linked to the rapid response process. For the purpose of this group, we should assume that the incursion has been identified. There followed a discussion of disease and plant health issues and the meeting agreed that representatives from several other agencies should be asked to join the group. ACTION 1 NM to invite appropriate representatives from PHSI, SASA, FRS, CEFAS, Sea Fisheries Committees and Local Authorities (COSLA) onto the group. JA pointed out that specialist control staff such as the ruddy duck team or specialist EA staff could be switched to rapid responses to make best use of resources. GW stated that the Oil Spill Response Mechanism led by the Sea Fishery Committees could help provide a framework to inform our rapid Page 2 of 9

3 response protocol development. The meeting agreed that the ToRs were suitable Common understanding of the meaning of rapid response and responsibilities of lead agencies HT introduced the issue of what rapid response means in practice and drew the attention of the group to the three bullet points in the background paper (RR Feb08-01). RW suggested that these bullet points were not sufficiently precautionary in approach and perhaps a fourth bullet point was needed which suggested that it should be possible to agree a policy on, for example, non-native vertebrates ahead of any full risk analysis. SM pointed out the existence of a grey list under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). TR suggested that there was a need for a sub-point under the third bullet that of strategically placed outbreaks (e.g. an invasive aquatic weed in a crucial headwater). TR queried how rapid response feeds into contingency planning. SM suggested that we use the contingency model more widely. The group agreed that creating a contingency model to help local managers identify the priority species would be useful. ACTION 2 AR to send the Secretariat the link to the Gyrodactylis salaris Task Force papers for distribution to the group. ACTION 3 SB to send the Secretariat the Tree Pest Contingency Response document. RW queried whether the group would continue to exist after it has reported to the PB. HT said that it was likely to continue in some form on the basis that some core liaison capability would seem necessary for communication of rapid response issues between key agencies, though much of the time, any rapid response would probably involve only one country s key bodies. TR suggested that a group would be needed to review response levels and judge when an issue had become one of ongoing containment. NM suggested that Page 3 of 9

4 the Plant Health Service approach to rapid responses and their reviews was a good model. There followed a discussion on legislative issues with the group agreeing that these were important to rapid responses especially the need for site access. HT then introduced the topic of the role of a lead body. There followed a general discussion on the need for designating a lead body in general circumstances. TR suggested that it could be done on a case-by-case basis with the planned ISAPs (Invasive Species Action Plans) designating the lead body within them. HT suggested that there needs to be some general rules or rationale for designating lead bodies to avoid debate and deliberation in any individual case. There was discussion on the role of the PB in this designation process and it was agreed that it was the role of the group to develop the general protocol for consideration by the PB. SB suggested assigning the lead body role at the end of the risk assessment process. HT suggested that the point of seeking to develop a protocol was to minimise delay and do away with the need for a committee to decide on a case-by-case basis. There was much discussion on the role of the lead body with general agreement that the lead body could not be expected in every case to take on the entire responsibility for delivering the response. The group also agreed that the main roles of a lead body should include: Acting as a clear focal point for developing the proposed action; Liaison with and facilitating action by the appropriate delivery body/bodies as identified and; Assisting in matching resources to needs Outlining current remits and responsibilities All the attendees outlined their remits and responsibilities in the area of rapid response. These were as follows. Page 4 of 9

5 NM (Non-native Species Secretariat) facilitating rapid response action that the PB had agreed as priorities through liaison with the appropriate delivery bodies and any other relevant stakeholders. AR (Scottish Government) Co-ordinating action on behalf of the Scottish Government and also responsible for legislation. TR (Environment Agency) Responsible for implementation of the Water Framework Directive in England and Wales, roles in flood prevention and as a regulator. The Agency has a general biodiversity duty 1 and responds to IAS threats where it benefits its statutory remit. SM (SEPA) a similar role in Scotland to that of the EA in England and Wales. SEPA is, however, primarily a regulator and mainly deals with pollution issues. It does not have the role in flood defence and releases of fish that the EA does. SEPA is the lead authority in River Basin Planning. RP (SNH) SNH is a land manager on designated sites and could be seen as an enabler wrt rapid responses - for instance through helping with grant aid. GW (CCW) purely an advisory role with no management powers except on National Nature Reserves. Potentially they may be seen as the body to step up to the plate in Wales. RW (NE) NE has general biodiversity responsibilities (and will lead on the England Biodiversity Strategy). It manages delivery of the PSA target on SSSIs. It has a licensing role for control of certain non-natives as well as government advisory and lobbying roles. JA (CSL) In the Plant/Bee Health area CSL has clearly defined inspection roles for Bee Health and Plant Health and Seeds Inspectors. For vertebrates CSL s main role could be to deliver control action on the ground diverting 1 NOTE: Section 40 NERC Act 2006 duty applies to all public authorities. Page 5 of 9

6 existing trained control staff to tackle rapid responses. A supplier of intervention skills and capacity in this regard but such core skills need to be maintained to benefit a rapid response mechanism. SB (FC) The FC has tree health inspectors at ports and also conducts research and surveillance on the ground. It has wildlife management staff who could be redeployed to tackle rapid responses. HT (Defra) Defra has a policy making role for England and is also responsible for legislation. HT controls a putative budget for assisting with rapid responses which, though primarily for action in England, might be of assistance in a situation of GB significance General discussion HT introduced the table of responsibilities from the report on the Audit of Responsibilities for Non-native Species within Government departments, NDPBs and local authorities in GB. SM queried whether all the bodies have capacity to act themselves or do they contract the action out. Rights of entry were discussed with it being pointed out that the EA and SEPA only have right of entry for pollution control and SSSI powers of entry relating mainly to site notification, enforcement of management agreement/schemes and certain SSSI offences. HT noted the following as important issues: Access to site(s)/rights of entry; Identifying staff resources; Identifying/locating equipment; Identify most appropriate time of year for control; Identifying the methodology; Identifying funds to deliver it; Delivery of rapid response; Disposal of species animal or plant material; Monitoring post-control for re-emergence. Page 6 of 9

7 The use of MoUs for staff movements (e.g. from CSL to Defra during Birdflu outbreak) was mentioned. RW pointed out the key role that Country NNS Working Groups have to play in this process. SM pointed out that it was vital to make best use of existing resources. RP suggested that a culture change in attitude was needed disease outbreaks have a culture of rapid response which is needed for general non-native issues. NM introduced the flow diagram that outlines the process of data flow from monitoring/surveillance through risk assessment to decision making by the PB. GW was worried about the number of times the PB needed to see things before a decision was made. TR suggested that a desktop exercise with actual species would be useful and the group agreed that this was a sensible approach. There followed a discussion on which species to choose the group agreed that there needed to be plant and animal examples and ones from terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. ACTION 4 GW to send the Secretariat details of potential marine examples to be used as working examples. ACTION 5 NM to compile a list of example species to work through Agreeing categories for responsibilities There were various suggestions for how to divide up the categories these included: pathways, threat category, country where found, whether they were related to the WFD etc. TR suggested that there was need for a robust forum approach. It was pointed out in the subsequent discussion that responsibility and capacity to act were often not located in the same agency/body. It was noted that it is often relatively straightforward to intuitively assign lead responsibility but more difficult to articulate the precise reasons why. RW suggested getting away from the term lead body and suggested replacing it Page 7 of 9

8 with focal body or co-ordinating body. The group agreed that the suggested terminology should be changed to manage expectations from the public and others. MS pointed out that SEPA have emergency co-ordinators for planning exercises etc. GW mentioned the New Zealand marine rapid response mechanism. The term Rapid Response Co-ordinator was agreed. ACTION 6 GW to send details of the New Zealand Marine Rapid Response Mechanism to the Secretariat for distribution to the group Principal contents of a protocol for identifying lead bodies responsibilities This topic was covered under the previous headings Audit of resources HT introduced the topic and AR mentioned that she and NM had started to fill in a table of resources and remits for the different bodies that were relevant to rapid response. It was agreed that the individual members of the group would seek to fill in the resource table on behalf of their agencies. JA mentioned that rapid responses were often difficult the first time they were carried out but that subsequent responses became much more straightforward. SM suggested that the MoD would be a useful source of manpower. ACTION 7 AR to send all the incomplete resource table. ACTION 8 All to complete the resource table on behalf of their agency/body. Page 8 of 9

9 8.8. AOB RP mentioned the sharing good practice meeting on November 11 that SNH is organising. Page 9 of 9