Figure 1: Map of Fiji Islands
Figure 2: Map of Taveuni Island and islets
P a g e
Figure 3. Theory of Change (also see Table 1)
P a g e
. Assumptions and risks for the project Theory of Change (Figure 1)
National inter-sectoral, multi-stakeholder
institutional framework for biosecurity will have
appropriate staff and funding from the Government
to ensure its effective functioning.
The framework that will contribute to strengthened
IAS institutions and coordination at the national
level to reduce the risk of IAS entering Fiji and
implementation of NISFSAP will be backed up by
government willingness to adopt legislative reform
Government funding for appropriate functioning of the
framework and NISFSAP may be insufficient due to possible
changes of national priorities or financial crisis.
Stakeholders (agencies and sectors) in the framework may be
unwilling to cooperate and exchange information due to other
corporate priorities, challenging the potential to work
collaboratively and the implementation of NISFSAP and
establishing comprehensive pre-border and border biosecurity.
There will be government recognition and
willingness to provide staff and additional resources
to implement comprehensive strategy for IAS
prevention and surveillance in the four-island
system and develop EDRR capacity.
Government will provide adequate regulations,
infrastructure and equipment to support improved
inspection services (Outcome 2).
Establishment of new high-risk IAS within new and emerging
trade routes and with market-driven changes to pathways and
vectors cannot be fully anticipated.
The invasiveness of many species is unknown, making it difficult
to determine exactly which species training should focus on.
Protection of terrestrial ecosystems and their
biodiversity will have Government of Fiji significantly
increase its efforts and continued commitment
through to final eradication of GII, well beyond the
GEF project duration.
GII are not already established on Taveuni and
populations are only confined to Qamea
and Matagi (Outcome 3).
GII might be difficult to detect and as a consequence agency
and staff interest may wane with time.
Lack of understanding of the need for long-term commitment to
ensure success in eradication might undermine initial
Recognition that IAS impacts everyone at all levels
will ensure that prevention and management efforts
receive public and government support, ensuring
their continuance and maximize their effectiveness.
Stakeholders responsible for hosting database
systems, providing data and information and making
use of information are willing to collaborate and
share information and resources openly (Outcome
Actions among the assorted agencies and NGOs remain
uncoordinated and their priorities may be different than the
Lack of commitment of resources
, information and personnel to
move awareness programs forward.
National and international macroeconomic
conditions remain stable.
Politicians, local communities, tour operators
owners, importers and shipping agents recognize
the benefits of IAS prevention and control.
Willingness of institutions to share responsibilities
and work collaboratively.
Lack of continuing level of political support for project
interventions on biosecurity, eradication of GII, and financial
support for implementation of regulations and biosecurity
Poor or lack of long-term commitment of budget and staffing
resources, infrastructure and equipment for IAS surveillance
For ease of presentation, the matrix is simplified collating assumptions and risks at the outcome level. Risks and assumptions
operating on individual outputs are detailed in the Results Framework.
P a g e
Expected Results: The GEF funding requested by the Government of Fiji will be used to improve
the chances for long-term survival of terrestrial endemic and threatened species on Taveuni Island,
surrounding islets and throughout Fiji by building national and local capacities to manage IAS. This would
be achieved through the implementation of the following four Outcomes that have been designed to
achieve this aim and overcome the barriers discussed earlier:
Outcome 1: Strengthened IAS policy, institutions and coordination at the national level to reduce
the risk of IAS entering Fiji. The project will strengthen policy, institutions, coordination and
outreach efforts on biosecurity across Fiji and develop a national coordination mechanism to
facilitate effective communication, coordination and participation among stakeholders and to
leverage increased funding for biosecurity.
Outcome 2: Improved IAS prevention and surveillance operations at the island level on Taveuni,
Qamea, Matagi and Laucala. The project will strengthen capacity within BAF and its partner
agencies to emplace a system for IAS prevention, surveillance, monitoring, early detection and
control to reduce introductions and inter-island spread of IAS.
Outcome 3: Long-term measures for protection of terrestrial ecosystems and their biodiversity
in the selected islands. The project will help develop a detailed plan for eradication of GII and
implement this plan in Taveuni and surrounding islets, as a trial with potential for further
replication for eradication of other IAS in Fiji.
Outcome 4: Strengthened awareness, knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation in
regards to invasive alien species and biosecurity. The project will develop and implement a
comprehensive outreach program to broaden awareness and concern regarding IAS.
Outcome 1: Strengthened IAS policy, institutions and coordination at the national level to reduce the
risk of IAS entering Fiji (Total Cost: USD 16,809,874, GEF: USD 1,010,000: Co-financing: USD 15,799,874)
Achievement of Outcome 1 is supported through the following outputs:
Establishing a functional national level, multi-agency, multi-sector coordinating body for IAS
activities, including biosecurity and management codified in the national legislation.
Completing a National Invasive Species Framework and Strategic Action Plan (NISFSAP) and its
endorsement by National Environment Council.
Improving biosecurity capacity for surveillance, prevention, detection, monitoring and control;
of IAS in the country.
Identifying potential economic impacts of selected IAS to make a business case for mobilization
of long-term financing for biosecurity and inform awareness of IAS impacts.
Trialing a National-level Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) program in Viti Levu.
P a g e
Baseline conditions for this outcome (without GEF project):
Communities throughout Fiji, and their economies, livelihoods, quality of life, culture, food security, ability
to address climate change, health and other components of their society are threatened by established
IAS and species which have the potential to become established (both known and unknown species).
Without the proposed biosecurity project, biosecurity for Fiji remains at or around its current level with
some improvements over time, but without a clear comprehensive strategy or coverage, or
comprehensive legislation to advance biosecurity. No biosecurity inspection services are now provided
for domestic flights nor will they be in the foreseeable future. Systematic coverage of domestic watercraft
inspections is not feasible under current planning given the combination of a lack of staff, resources and
facilities. The potential for new non-native species to arrive and establish in Fiji and cause harm to various
sectors or segments of society remains high. The potential for established IAS to spread further within the
country also remains elevated.
There will likely be no effective overall IAS whole-of-government planning document that will be
developed in the foreseeable future, resulting in an under-capacitated and uneven IAS management
system that does not support synergistic, multi-party use of resources including cross-agency planning
and action implementation. No national Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) plan will be
developed and no comprehensive EDRR capacity will be developed for Viti Levu or other locations within
the country. This lack of EDRR planning, established resources, and EDRR protocols currently prevents Fiji
from responding adequately and effectively to new IAS incursions.
Alternative for this outcome (with GEF project):
A multi-agency national IAS committee will be established. This committee will lead efforts to address IAS
issues and concerns for Fiji in a comprehensive multi-sectorial manner, ensuring the best possible use of
resources and capacities and ensuring the best possible outcomes, including prevention, management,
eradication, awareness and restoration as needed and when feasible.
A national IAS strategy and action plan will be developed to guide and support efforts throughout Fiji to
comprehensively and strategically address IAS issues and concerns. This national strategy will provide a
pathway forward to address prioritized IAS issues at both the national and local levels. Detailed
background information regarding IAS, their threats and impacts will be part of the National Invasive
Species Framework and Strategic Action Plan (NISFSAP) development. This strategy will include an analysis
of IAS pathways and document current capacity, including gaps, in regards to addressing relevant IAS
Ensuring that pre-border and border biosecurity elements are comprehensive, in place and functional is
the primary method for protecting Fiji from the arrival and establishment of additional harmful pests.
Implementing trade requirements such as specific sanitation measures and other pre-border biosecurity
requirements is the best possible mechanism for reducing the risk of unwanted non-native species from
establishing. Ensuring 100% compliance with risk assessments and improving overall border biosecurity
will improve preventative measure beyond current capacity, again reducing the likelihood of new pest
P a g e
species establishing. Prevention is more cost effective than long-term management or eradication efforts.
Prevention can be applied across the spectrum of organisms while successful management and
eradication tools are not available for all organisms. By preventing unwanted organisms from establishing,
there will be fewer detrimental impacts from newly-established IAS, resulting in lower impacts to the
country, its citizenry, natural resources, and food security.
While it is critical to ensure that pre-border and border biosecurity efforts are as comprehensive as
feasible – as this is the best and most cost effective method of ensuring that new IAS do not become
established – it must be understood that even the best biosecurity system will never be 100% effective.
Therefore, it is important to develop capacity to both detect and respond to IAS that may arrive within
the country. An IAS Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) mechanism will be developed and trialed
on Viti Levu. Developing a trial EDRR system on Viti Levu will allow multi-sectorial partners to gain
experience working collaboratively to detect, identify, and remove incipient pest populations, and it will
allow for barriers and limitations in the system to be identified and corrected before expanding the
program nationwide. Viti Levu is the logical location to initiate EDRR in Fiji as it receives most new IAS
incursions and it has the greatest concentration of agency and academic capacity needed to implement
such a program. Once developed and operationalized on Viti Levu, the EDRR model can be expanded to
the remainder of the country.
The GEF alternative will provide technical support, training and limited equipment for strengthening pre-
border, border and post-border biosecurity, compilation of IAS information for Fiji and development of a
NISFSAP and strengthened biosecurity legislation, development of a BAF IAS database including black and
white lists of organisms, guidelines for determining black and whitelists, development of a BAF multi-year
strategy, development of a national-level EDRR program trialed in Viti Levu, capacity building of
biosecurity officers and cross training of front-line staff from other front-line agencies to help improve
biosecurity inspection services at key national and domestic seaports and airports, and improving
understanding of potential economic impacts of IAS. Government co-financing support from BAF and
other agencies will finance the improvement of inspection services at international and domestic airports
and seaports, improved incineration facilities and up-gradation of laboratory facilities, improved
detection and inspections, rapid response measures, and additional staff.
Output 1.1 Functional national level, multi-agency, multi-sector coordinating body for IAS activities,
including biosecurity and management codified in the national legislation
A national level IAS committee will provide a multi-stakeholder approach to IAS biosecurity and
management activities and ensure that resources and country-wide capacity are being utilized effectively
and synergistically as various departments, agencies and offices support IAS prevention and management.
The national IAS committee will bring together government agencies and statutory authorities with a
mandate related to and/or responsibilities related to IAS management in Fiji.
A review of existing and potential coordination mechanisms will be completed to identify the most
appropriate structure, governance and administrative arrangements for this national committee. This
P a g e
review will consider the option of utilizing the existing National Environmental Council (NEC) that reports
to the Minister of Environment and Cabinet of Fiji. The NEC has legal status and is multi-sectorial and at a
level where it can and does provide coordination as well as inform leadership and policy makers regarding
IAS concerns. The review led by the government of Fiji will consider factors including national legislation,
the mandates of existing coordination mechanisms, and with the view of utilizing resources efficiently.
The government’s determination of whether NEC, a working group for NEC or a similar mechanism apart
from or in conjunction with NEC is the most appropriate and functional place for a national IAS
coordinating body is still underway. It is expected that a decision on the most appropriate coordination
and governance arrangements will be agreed by project inception.
If this review finds that NEC is not the most effective mechanism then it will consider the legislative
options which addressed and will define the arrangements for the establishment of a new functional
national level, multi-agency, multi-sector IAS committee codified in the national legislation to oversee and
coordinate IAS management. The project will support the drafting of Terms of Reference, membership,
and governance and administrative arrangements
This national IAS committee would also be supported
by Fiji Invasive Species Taskforce (FIST), a technical advisory group of IAS specialists and others who work
daily with biosecurity and other IAS concerns and which can support the coordination body in regards to
providing technical information and details regarding IAS and IAS-related issues. FIST that was established
by the NEC is being currently reconstituted and would serve as an advisory group to the proposed national
coordination body. The reconstituted FIST will be Chaired by and administered by BAF.
Indicative GEF-funded activities under Output 1.1 include:
Establishment of national level, multi-agency, multi-sector IAS committee or use of the National
Environmental Council for IAS activities, including biosecurity and management (confirmed within
first six months of project implementation).
Reconstitution and enhancement of the Fiji Invasive Species taskforce (FIST) to support the
national coordination body on IAS issues (accomplished within first six months of project
Approval of by-laws and/or other IAS legal and administrative elements to support the national
coordinating body and advisory group (by-laws drafted in first year of project implementation and
approved by the second year, if relevant).
National IAS committee coordinating body and FIST advisory group are operational and oversee
and guide IAS activities on a regular basis.
Output 1.2 National Invasive Species Framework and Strategic Action Plan (NISFSAP) completed and
endorsed by National IAS Committee
It is essential to not only have a national level IAS committee supported by an advisory group of IAS (FIST)
experts but it is equally important to develop a multi-year strategy in regards to IAS prevention and
management. This National Invasive Species Framework and Strategic Action Plan (NISFSAP) should be
the primary tool supporting and guiding IAS prevention and management activities for the nation.
P a g e
A preliminary step towards completing a NISFSAP will be to conduct a desktop review to ensure that
detailed information has been compiled regarding IAS currently within Fiji, IAS which threaten the country
and biodiversity including endemics, threatened species and protected areas. It is recommended that this
compilation of IAS information for Fiji include the following: inventory of IAS by district, island group
and/or island; inventory of endemic and threatened species by district, island group and/or island;
inventory of designated nature areas and ecosystems; inventory of risk species already established in
neighboring countries and/or with trade partners; and an inventory of IAS prevention and management
projects undertaken within Fiji, including past and on-going activities.
By developing a multi-sectorial, comprehensive strategy that is endorsed at senior levels of government,
Fiji will be able to facilitate IAS prevention and management via a multi-stakeholder approach, ensuring
that existing resources and capacity are utilized effectively and that capacity gaps are addressed in an
effective and timely manner. A gap analysis conducted as part of the NISFSAP development will support
these efforts. The NISFSAP will also include an IAS pathways analysis, detailing risk levels for IAS incursion.
While the setting overarching goals and objectives via the NISFSAP is essential, it is equally important to
develop a prioritized action plan to guide implementation. The action plan would include as much
specificity as feasible, including details on actions, timing, facilitation, responsibility and resources. The
NISFSAP will also outline opportunities to broaden the responsibility base for IAS management, including
through voluntary compliance and improved biosecurity by individuals and operators, and through
industry and user fees, and penalties for non-compliance. A specific section of the NISFSAP will emphasize
the need to share responsibility beyond government alone and that “IAS and biosecurity is everyone’s
responsibility”. The action plan will serve as a road map for IAS prevention and management activities. A
suggested comprehensive outline for the Fiji NISFSAP is included in Annex 1.
Development and completion of the NISFSAP should be facilitated by an international consultant with
multiple years of experience with developing similar strategies in the Pacific as well as first-hand
knowledge of IAS management in Fiji and the region. The NISFSAP development, including the desktop
exercise, should take approximately 12 months to finalize and should be a priority for completion in the
first year of the project. The NISFSAP is expected to outline legislative reform and improvements required
to ensure strong biosecurity and IAS systems, and the development of this legislation will be progressed
following the completion of the NISFSAP.
Indicative GEF-financed activities under Output 1.2 include:
Compilation of inventory of IAS, endemic and threatened native species and ecosystems, risk
species already established in neighboring countries and/or trade partners, and ongoing IAS
prevention and management actions by district or island group and/or island.
Gap analysis of IAS prevention and control measures, and pathway analysis of potential IAS that
could arrive and establish in the country.
Completion of NISFSAP that would outline specific requirements relating to legislation and policy,
capacity building, research
, monitoring and biosecurity to protect Fiji from IAS.
P a g e
Development and drafting of IAS legislation and regulations in accordance with requirements
specified in NISFSAP, including to enhance cost-recovery mechanisms for the incurred costs of IAS
Output 1.3 Improved biosecurity capacity for surveillance, prevention and control of IAS systems
This Output will focus on risk assessments
, pre-arrival sanitary and phyto-sanitary and border security as
essential biosecurity tools for preventing the introduction of potentially harmful IAS. Improvements to
the existing suite of tools will be strongly supported as these are the primary ways of reducing risk from
IAS that are not already established within Fiji or which are within the country but are not yet established
This output will help establish a more comprehensive pre-border and border (including internal borders)
biosecurity program for the country. The specific elements to be developed would be defined through the
participatory planning process (likely to be part of the NISFSAP development) and the BAF strategic plan
to be developed by the project under this Output, and will include a strong capacity building and training
Indicative GEF-financed activities under Output 1.3 include:
Development of a multi-year strategic plan for BAF for IAS that includes pre-border,
international/domestic port considerations such as resources and capacity to address current and
anticipated future pathways, vectors and volumes. The BAF strategic plan would be a priority item
and likely completed within two years of project implementation. Importantly, the BAF strategic
plan can be used to inform the allocation of resources to priority matters and activities, and also
be used to highlight gaps in resource allocation and petition decision-makers for additional
resources. Mechanisms to broaden responsibility and resourcing for IAS management through
public–private partnership model will also be included.
Establishment of an official black list of organisms not permitted entry into Fiji. The black list will
be collated from existing lists (published and otherwise) from current trade partners of known
IAS. It will consider the role of trade in the introduction of IAS included in the existing lists,
consider knowledge gaps in the collated list, and from the list propose potential high risk species
for addition to a national black list and to a four-island black list. If and when new trade
partnerships are added or existing trade is expanded, review processes would be completed for
these particular areas. Black lists will be updated as new threats are identified and the review of
new locations and sources will be an on-going process as part of trade expansion. The black list
will be established and disseminated by the end of the first year of project implementation and
then updated regularly. Guidelines will be developed for determining black and white lists and for
change of status from black to white and vice versa.
Establishment of an official white list of organisms known to be permitted entry into Fiji with
appropriate documentation. The white list will be completed in the first year of project
P a g e
Completion of appropriate risk assessments for all organisms proposed for entry into the country
that are neither on the black or white lists. Risk assessments would be instituted in the first year
of project implementation, initially supplemented with GEF funding, but subsequently with co-
financing support. Over time, compliance should reach 100% risk assessments for all organisms
proposed for importation.
Development of a comprehensive BAF database, which is currently under development but needs
additional support. A preliminary database should be established and populated by the second
year of project implementation.
Additional patrol boats, equipment, training, staffing, protocols and work strategies as defined in
the BAF strategic plan. Initial purchase of such items would be considered as part of the GEF
project, but long-term support would be needed from the Government of Fiji.
Training for both new and existing biosecurity staff and partners as defined by the BAF strategic
plan. The GEF funds will help develop training materials and programs for BAF staff that can then
be maintained beyond the project completion by a long-term commitment from BAF.
Cross training of staff for front-line agencies will be instituted/improved enabling officers from
various offices to support each other’s missions. This would include Police, Health, Immigration,
BAF, AFL and Customs.
Complementing the GEF-supported activities would be a number of activities that would be part of BAF’s
long-term strategy, some of which will be supported as co-financing commitments, and others as part of
the long-term commitment of the government to improve biosecurity (refer to Annex 2 for specific details
of these activities). These include: (i) development of biosecurity canine teams to improve inspection
outcomes; (ii) provision of additional X-ray machines at international ports, including for cargo screening;
(iii) an additional 20-30 front-line inspections nationwide to complete international (sea and air ports) and
domestic (seaports) biosecurity coverage; (iv) upgrading laboratory facilities throughout the country; (v)
ensuring that all international ports have a full suite of appropriate and comprehensive biosecurity
elements in place and that staff are sufficient and appropriately trained and resourced; (vi) additional
capacity for increased inspection of vectors, goods and passengers at international entry points; (vii)
increased random inspections of high-risk goods; (viii) provision of tools, equipment and other resources
and maintenance of inspection services facilities to ensure conduct day to day inspection; (ix) availability
of inspection, quarantine and treatment areas at each inspection services site with emphasis on main
ports within island/island groups; (x) review of status and improvements to inspection services at
international air and seaports; (xi) institution of domestic air service biosecurity inspections nationwide,
expanding initially on Taveuni, Qamea, Matagi and Laucala; (xii) comprehensive domestic water craft
inspection services, expanding on the four-island biosecurity operations; (xiii) inspection stations for
domestic movements (inter-island) with appropriate quarantine and treatment/disposition facilities and
resources; (xiv) up-gradation of existing domestic inspection facilities; and (xv) review of status and
improvements as needed to inspection services at ports, wharfs, jetties and landings that handle domestic
traffic (including both domestic and international ports). These activities will be complemented by a
strong capacity building and specifically tailored training program that would be conducted locally with
the help of the international technical assistance support envisaged under this project. Additionally, staff
P a g e
would also attend regional and international training events that offer specialized training in biosecurity-
related topics and serve to bring international best practices and advances in biosecurity to Fiji.
Output 1.4 Study of potential economic impacts of selected IAS including cost/benefit analysis providing
the business case for mobilization of long-term financing for biosecurity
Numerous IAS are already established in Fiji and many have known impacts across various sectors. An
economic assessment will be undertaken to better understand the impacts of selected IAS – including GII
– on biodiversity, livelihoods, agriculture and forestry, and to determine the economic costs of specific
established IAS known to be causing impacts such as the taro beetle. The exact species to be utilized for
this study will be determined during the initial stages of the study. The economic analysis of these species
and their impacts will be used to better understand the broader implications of IAS to Fiji and improve
biosecurity prevention and management activities, government and buy-in, including long-term
government and diversified financing and commitment to biosecurity and effective IAS management. It
will look at the economic impacts and explore the cost/benefits of various management/control options
for the species in question.
Included in this analysis will be a determination of the potential impacts of IAS under various management
options. In terms of GII, the study will include cost/benefits analysis of prevention measures currently
utilized as well as additional tools for supporting improved management, impact reductions and providing
the business case for mobilization of long-term financing (including to resource GII eradication activities
in the four island area until it is confirmed that all GII have been removed – likely to be achievable only
beyond the timeframe of this project) and informing local and national awareness-raising campaigns of
potential impacts and need for biosecurity. This study will be conducted by pulling together experiences
from elsewhere to make the case for strengthened IAS prevention, control and biosecurity. The findings
of this study will also feed into knowledge management, and four-island and national biosecurity outreach
programs under Components 3 and 4. Findings will be utilized to educate stakeholders regarding the costs
of various options for addressing IAS and in particular the GII in Fiji and to emphasize that IAS prevention,
management and control is everyone’s responsibility with focus on more partnerships. It is fully
anticipated that maximizing input now to address the GII will ensure that impacts and management costs
are minimalized and that this analysis will demonstrate that now is the optimal time to effectively respond
(effective scale of response and long-term commitment) to the GII invasion in order to reduce overall
costs and impacts both on those islands where the GII has already established but also on other islands
where the GII would likely invade if appropriate control measures are not implemented.
Output 1.5 Developed national-level Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) program trialed for Viti
An early detection and rapid response (EDRR) program provides the second level of biosecurity defense
for a country if border-protection programs fail to stop a pest from entering. Central to such a program is
improved means of detecting incursions of new IAS, access to taxonomic experts who can rapidly identify
species of concern, and teams of trained personnel who can be employed to delimit the extent of any
P a g e
new incursion and undertake activities to eradicate it. Objectives for the EDRR program for Viti Levu during
the tenure of the GEF project will include creating: (i) a database of baseline information on IAS already
established and their distributions, (ii) an EDRR plan that assigns roles and responsibilities of all EDRR
partners, (iii) a protocol for rapid response actions; (iv) a central hotline that the public can use to report
suspicious new plants and animals, (v) a regime of regular monitoring surveys at likely introduction sites
for IAS (e.g., ports, nurseries) to discover new incursions, (vi) an outreach strategy to inform residents and
institutional stakeholders of the need for vigilance and rapid reporting of new pests, (vii) a training
program for rapid responders; and (viii) a dedicated rapid response fund to pay for program activities.
Long-term needs will include identifying barriers to rapid response, developing strategies to surmount
those barriers, and developing a risk assessment methodology to prioritize new incursions for response.
The EDRR program will also align with certain border protection activities, such as horizon scanning for
new pests to create lists of unwanted organisms that Fiji is especially at risk from given the nature of its
trade routes and partners. Illustrated alerts for these species can be disseminated to relevant stakeholders
to improve the chances of their early detection in the event they are introduced. A successful EDRR
program would necessarily be a joint venture involving many interested stakeholders because the
required sum of personnel and expertise will never lie within a single agency or organization alone. EDRR
partners will be confirmed during NISFSAP development but will include representatives from diverse
government agencies, USP, FNU and NGOs.
GEF will finance all of the activities discussed above, including preparation of the EDRR plan, creation of a
central hotline, development of a monitoring protocol, and support for the outreach and training
program, while the Government of Fiji co-financing will include establishment of a dedicated rapid
response fund for financing any IAS outbreaks in the country and staffing costs, as well as support for
continuation of the program beyond the life of the GEF project.