Barriers to addressing IAS in Fiji
While there are several initiatives underway to address IAS in Fiji, these efforts are not adequately
capacitated and coordinated to ensure a systematic and effective strategy to prevent introduction and
spread of IAS in Fiji or to safeguard biodiversity-rich and important areas such as Taveuni and surrounding
islets against the threats and impacts of IAS. The long term solution sought by this project is to transform
current baseline investments into a comprehensive approach to prevent, detect, control and manage the
introduction and spread of terrestrial IAS through production sectors, transport and other pathways, and
to prevent and reduce the impacts of IAS on globally significant biodiversity in vulnerable ecosystems,
such as Taveuni and surrounding islets. To achieve this, actions must be taken to strengthen decision-
making tools and information resources; to improve institutional coordination; and to increase financial
and technical resources across the whole spectrum of intervention measures so as to address the overall
management of IAS in the country. Further, biosecurity needs to be extended to include inter-island
movement of IAS in order to prevent further spread of high-risk IAS to vulnerable ecosystems that contain
biodiversity of global significance. There are four major barriers that currently hinder the development of
such a comprehensive biosecurity program in Fiji:
Barrier 1: Incomplete national management framework to support effective and cost-efficient prevention,
detection, control and management of terrestrial IAS in Fiji
Although establishment of the Biosafety Authority of Fiji (BAF) through the Biosecurity Promulgation of
2008, was a critical first step in consolidating legal and policy approaches to IAS in Fiji, there is a need for
a comprehensive national IAS strategy and action plan to support coordinated, efficient and cost-effective
prevention and management of IAS. Coordination among stakeholders and sectors is ad-hoc and a
coordination function needs to be institutionalized to facilitate planning and effective implementation.
For example, customs and immigration services at the ports can be more efficiently used if these staff
members are educated in the identification of IAS. Further, BAF has to date focused on inspections for IAS
that pose a threat to agricultural and horticultural production. The coordination and use of expertise in
the Ministries of iTaukei Affairs, Defense, Environment, Fisheries and Forestry, Immigration, FRCA, Fiji
Police and environmental NGOs, working in tandem with BAF, is badly needed to expand efforts to
manage IAS that threaten native biodiversity. BAF has established a website that provides some
information on IAS, but data are inadequate, putting constraints on national capacities to identify
priorities and needs for IAS management. A national database for comprehensive record keeping,
operational manuals and training records is lacking. More generally, there are few regulations and little
institutional responsibility for spread of IAS to natural ecosystems or for managing their impacts on
biodiversity. Additional budgetary resources will be needed to extend management actions to cover IAS
10 |
P a g e
that pose a risk to biodiversity and ecosystem services. Limited information on the invasion status,
pathways, distribution, population size, ecology, and the economic, social and environmental impacts of
IAS in Fiji hinders efforts to effectively address IAS and their impacts on biodiversity. Risk analyses to
determine the highest-risk IAS and their key pathways of introduction are lacking. There is absence of a
national list of all IAS that may pose a threat to Fijian biodiversity as well as criteria to classify priority and
non-priority IAS at national level. There is no national “blacklist” restricting the importation of high-risk
IAS into Fiji. Technical capacities to identify pathways, commodities and organisms that present risk, or to
measure the threats and impacts of IAS, are still rudimentary. Information on the economic impacts of
IAS (on biodiversity, livelihoods and key economic sectors) and the costs of different interventions is not
available. Such concrete information is needed to generate support among policy makers and the general
public, including tourists and transport operators, of the cost-effectiveness of a pro-active biosecurity
approach to prevention of high-risk IAS entry into Fiji.
Barrier 2: Lack of effective systems and tools for managing inter-island spread of IAS in country and for
management of high-risk IAS in priority biodiversity areas
BAF leads efforts to manage IAS in Fiji. There is a need to build the capacity of BAF to ensure
systematization of results, standardize basic operating procedures, and clarify roles and responsibilities in
relation to mandates and budgets. Threats from IAS to biodiversity, food security, livelihoods and human
health posed by rapidly increasing travel and trade within the Fiji group of islands are of increasing
concern. Capacity and effective systems for preventing inter-island movement of IAS are currently lacking.
Monitoring and surveillance operations are compromised by shortage of funds and appropriate
equipment. The range of IAS, the number of pathways by which they travel and the variety of ways they
impact native species make single approaches or isolated campaigns insufficient to stem the growing
threat posed to biodiversity-rich islands. Protocols to prevent inter-island IAS introductions are needed,
as well as campaigns to inform local residents and tourists of the threats posed by IAS and how to prevent
introductions. The most effective approach to new IAS incursions is early detection and rapid response
(EDRR). However, the necessary response systems, technical capacities and cooperation of local
communities are not yet in place to support such actions in biodiversity-rich areas. The recent
establishment of pests on some islands, such as GII on Qamea, underscores the need to develop and adopt
a standardized rapid response protocol that can be deployed to quickly respond to new incursions. No
complete island-by-island inventory exists of IAS or of native species at potential risk from IAS. The
absence of a national inventory on blacklist IAS also poses a threat to food security and livelihoods.
Barrier 3: Insufficient capacity and expertise to eradicate IAS like GII that pose a high risk to globally
significant biodiversity
Eradication of populations of high-impact IAS is the third leg of a comprehensive biosecurity approach,
following prevention and EDRR programs. However, eradication operations in Fiji have had only
intermittent success. Fiji needs to develop better institutional capacity for planning and implementing
eradication programs to ensure protection of important biodiversity areas. Although many established
IAS have already spread too widely across Fiji for eradication to be effective, GII is a relatively recently
established pest likely to inflict major negative impacts on native biodiversity, agriculture, tourism and
11 |
P a g e
health and that is only established on a small number of islets. There is strong consensus that GII needs
to be removed soon before it proliferates and spreads to the point where it cannot be eradicated, but
efforts have been hampered by a lack of funds, appropriate planning, skilled practitioners, including
herpetologists, and needed equipment and training. A population model based on results from 2000
population simulations indicates that existing GII populations could be near the end of their establishment
phase and that rapid increases in numbers could shortly occur. This demonstrates that any eradication
operation should be initiated as soon as possible to prevent anticipated major increases in numbers and
range – at which point eradication from Fiji may no longer be possible, even with improved capacity.
Eradication of GII can serve as a demonstration project developing the institutional planning and
implementation skills needed to achieve eradication of further IAS in Fiji. If such prioritization and planning
can ensure eradication in a specific area then such solutions will be of great economic value in securing
further support in Fiji for other needed eradications.
Barrier 4: Lack of awareness among the public, key industrial sectors, importers and shipping agents of the
risks posed by IAS and the need for biosecurity measures
A lack of awareness among the public, key industrial sectors, importers, freight agents and shipping agents
of the harmful impacts of IAS, how IAS enter Fiji and spread among islands, and of the measures needed
to prevent this is an important barrier to better IAS prevention. An effective and comprehensive national
awareness strategy on IAS and biosecurity is needed, as well as effective documentation of best practices
for IAS prevention, detection, control and management.
There is no single initiative in the country that is currently addressing all four aforementioned barriers.
However, the proposed GEF-financed project will work in coordination with ongoing efforts and partners
to build on recent advances in national biosecurity. The project is aligned with the strategic priorities of
the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) of 2007 and its Implementation Framework
that identify control of IAS as critical to the success of biodiversity conservation. The NBSAP proposes
priority actions, including: (i) adoption of relevant quarantine regulations; standards and tools to assist in
the decision-making processes involved in the importation of exotic species; (ii) strengthening legislation
and enforcing heavy penalties on individuals and organizations illegally importing organisms; (iii)
increasing public awareness of the risks and impacts of IAS on native ecosystems and biodiversity; and (iv)
effective control of invasive and potentially invasive species already present in Fiji. The GEF investment
would promote closer cooperation among agencies, sectors and stakeholders in achieving biosecurity;
strengthen institutional capacity; develop inter-island quarantine measures and raise public awareness of
the threat caused by inter-island traffic in spread of IAS; and establish a database of IAS present in Fiji
(these all directly relate to implementing action items under Objective 5.2 which calls for “Effective control
of invasive and potentially invasive species present in Fiji”). In addition, the project will contribute to
achieving the Aichi Targets, in particular strategic goal B (Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and
promote sustainable use), Target 9 (By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and
prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways
to prevent introduction and establishment, strategic goal C (To improve the status of biodiversity by
safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity), and Target 12 (By 2020, the extinction of known
12 |
P a g e
threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in
decline, has improved and sustained). The project also contributes to the post-2015 development agenda
and the Sustainable Development Goals particularly SDG 15 to halt biodiversity loss. It will also support
SDG2 to end hunger and achieve food security.
Baseline Scenario
The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) of 2007 and its Implementation Framework
(2010-2014; currently under review), are indicative of the strong commitment of the Government of Fiji
to biodiversity conservation. The NBSAP identified seven key thematic areas, with targets in the
Implementation Framework. The seven thematic areas are: Forest conversion management, Invasive alien
species, Inshore fisheries, Coastal development, Species conservation (threatened and endangered
species in trade and domestic consumption); Protected areas, and Inland waters. Specific actions
contemplated under the IAS thematic area included: identification of potential pathways of accidental
introductions, establishment of a national IAS database, research on the integration of impacts of IAS on
biodiversity and commercial values, completion of a legislative gap analysis for IAS, development of a draft
over-arching national IAS management strategy, national control programs for priority species,
quarantine committee strengthened to include broader stakeholder input into the decision-making
processes, bio-security bill implementation initiated, increased coordination between key Government
departments, effective implementation of national IAS policies, strategies, programs and initiatives, and
IAS awareness programs at all ports of entry into Fiji, as well as at major inter-island transport locations.
The establishment of the Biosecurity Authority Fiji (BAF) and the Biosecurity Promulgation 2008 is a
further demonstration of government's recognition and commitment to respond to IAS as a national
priority. Under the guidance of its Board and the Chief Executive Officer and Board, BAF is mandated by
the Biosecurity Promulgation of 2008 to prevent the introduction and establishment of foreign pests and
diseases in Fiji. BAF's scope stands at the pre-border, border and post-border operations where potential
pathways of IAS are regulated. The Biosecurity Promulgation of 2008 provides teeth to Fiji's fight against
IAS as it allows prosecution of individuals and/or organizations illegally importing such species. With the
Biosecurity Promulgation of 2008, the scope of responsibility for BAF has widened to cover both IAS and
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These added activities have required the sharing of information
and strengthening of networks among Government, scientific institutions, and NGO's. BAF has 18 facilities
throughout the country and another nine are planned or under development. BAF has over 200 staff, of
which more than 118 are front-line biosecurity officers. Fiji has established a variety of IAS emergency
response plans (ERPs), including response plans for GII. Various IAS projects and partnerships also exist,
including a project examining IAS as a carrier of disease vectors, which partners BAF and the University of
the South Pacific (USP) to examine the role of snails as disease vectors within Fiji.
The Department of Environment, with BAF as mandated authority, also addresses IAS under Thematic
Area 2 of the NBSAP, which defines specific strategies and objectives to assist Fiji in addressing IAS. The
NBSAP defines the required actions to achieve the objectives and strategies that will effectively manage
and control IAS. Every year, the Government of Fiji supports the functions of BAF with about USD 6 million
13 |
P a g e
for surveillance and monitoring of plant and animal pests, emergency response preparedness, biosecurity
awareness and information management, entry-point and border operations, and eradication of IAS and
pests. Additionally, annual revenues of BAF (amounting to around USD 4 million) are channeled to
surveillance, monitoring and quarantine.
The National Environment Management Act of 2005 established the National Environment Council (NEC)
that oversees the approval of national strategies and plans; monitors their implementation; facilitates
discussion on environmental issues; advises and oversees commitments relating to regional and
international treaties, conventions, and agreements on the environment; and appoints technical
committees to advise on specific environmental protection and resource management issues. In 2011,
the NEC set up the Fiji Invasive Alien Species Task Force (FIST) to help strengthen capacity and resources
of key stakeholders to address IAS and serve as a formal committee for IAS under the NEC. Chairmanship
of FIST rests with BAF as the mandated authority, and currently BAF is working with the Department of
Environment to refine the terms of reference of FIST as proper terms of reference were not established
earlier. The Department of Environment spends around USD 700,000 annually for supporting monitoring
and implementation of the NBSAP, which is currently under review.
A number of other government agencies closely partner with BAF in biosecurity-related activities in Fiji.
The Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority (FRCA) collaborates with BAF to oversee responsibility for
biosecurity and customs functions at international airports, parcel post facilities, and freight centers in
the country and collaborates with BAF to ensure that goods harboring exotic weeds, pests, and diseases
that would adversely affect and harm Fiji’s unique flora and fauna, environment, agriculture, livestock,
tourism, or health of its communities are not brought into the country. FRCA and BAF jointly spend
resources on scanning and X-ray facilities and operations, dog units, intelligence and data management
systems that are also used for biosecurity functions. The Airports Fiji Limited (AFL), in close collaboration
with BAF, undertakes surveillance and monitoring of incoming and outgoing passengers at Nadi and
Nausori international airports. For this purpose, AFL spends around USD 600,000 annually for contracting
services for the operation of X-ray machines and scanners for baggage screening and holding, and
incinerators at these two airports. All arriving international airlines are currently required to show
biosecurity videos, 100% of incoming mail is screened with X-ray machines at the international mail
facility, 100% of air baggage is screened at the port of entry, and 100% of high-risk goods are inspected at
international seaports.
Fiji National University (FNU) provides specialized courses in plant and animal disease control, biosecurity
and quarantine, IAS control and management, and economic evaluation of costs of IAS for Bachelor and
Diploma students amounting to around USD 2.2 million annually. The University of the South Pacific (USP)
engages in taxonomic and biotic survey data collection and provides training in taxonomic identifications.
Other agencies that partner with BAF in addressing biosecurity-related concerns include the Ministries of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tourism, iTaukei Affairs, and Health and Medical Services, as well as
the Fiji Police Force. BAF is the focal point for the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and
World Organization of Animal Health (OIE) standards setting body for plants and animals respectively. The
Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry supports treatment of all lumber in Fiji, runs sentinel traps at the docks
14 |
P a g e
in Suva as a first alert for forestry pest arrivals, and undertakes pest risk analysis for incoming seeds and
plants. BAF undertakes pest risk analysis for incoming seeds and plants and issues import permits. The
Department of Education currently undertakes awareness through inclusion of IAS education in the
classroom, while the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs runs community awareness programs in villages around
the nation. In addition, a number of non-governmental organizations have been active in biodiversity
conservation, including Bird Life International and Conservation International (CI). Bird Life International
is involved with mammal eradication work on 40 islands in the Pacific, including 11 in Fiji. CI focuses on
protected areas and works with communities in conservation efforts. The National Trust of Fiji supports
programs for protecting cultural and national heritage sites such as the Bouma National Heritage Park in
Taveuni, a critical habitat that needs protection from IAS within the four-island area. The Secretariat of
Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP) is involved with ecosystem and socio-economic resilience
analysis and mapping in sites of Macuata Province and Taveuni.
III.
S
TRATEGY
The problem that Fiji faces is the lack of a comprehensive overall strategy for reducing the threat from
new IAS. The preferred solution is through a multi-tier strategy that includes improved preventative
measures at points of entry into the country, early detection and rapid response programs to eradicate
new incursions, improved capacity to conduct eradications of long-established invasive species, and
improved public awareness to enhance understanding of the centrality of IAS programs for protecting
livelihoods of the general population. Prevention and quarantine elements currently exist for Fiji, but
these efforts are not comprehensive. Numerous existing biosecurity elements require improvement and
additional elements need to be implemented to reduce the potential of new IAS arriving and establishing.
To better protect the Fiji islands, a suite of preventative measures against IAS incursion and establishment
is required. These measures need to be supported by appropriate laws and regulations and with adequate
funding, staffing and equipment. To ensure that the most appropriate suite of preventive measures can
be implemented, a clear understanding of existing biosecurity capacity is necessary. What is more, a clear
understanding of which IAS are already present and where they are established, and which non-
established organisms pose the highest risk of invasion will greatly facilitate prevention of further IAS
damage in Fiji. Part of the strategy will necessitate pathway analysis to understand how best to address
existing and likely future modes of invasion (e.g. transit of persons and goods to Fiji and among these
islands) that will help determine what prevention activities need to be improved to ensure comprehensive
coverage. Understanding invasion pathways allows for development of strategic approaches for
prevention of IAS, such as:
Preparing for the arrival of IAS known to be a potential risk to Fiji (and other species of uncertain
status that may be determined via risk assessment to be potential IAS if permitted to establish)
Developing monitoring systems for as yet unknown potentially IAS applicable in specific areas or
industries
Establishing barriers (physical, legislative and community-managed) to the introduction of
15 |
P a g e
unwanted organisms
Impeding the spread of IAS that have already entered the country
Developing and implementing strategies to eradicate IAS that have entered the country, but are
not widespread
Developing awareness to support biosecurity preventative measures.
Obvious pathways of introduction both to and within Fiji are air and sea services. International air and sea
services may bring new invaders to the country, whereas domestic air and sea services spread invaders to
new locations within the country. An example of a very specific pathway for the spread of American
foulbrood would be beekeeping equipment. Moving this equipment from one hive to another spreads the
spores that cause this disease. Assessing the risk of spread of IAS is important the allocation of scarce
resources for the control of established invasive species. Information on pathways of introduction and
spread should be included in any IAS management plans developed for Fiji and/or areas within the
country. Inventories of species including both native and known IAS are needed for Fiji’s key trading
partners so as identify high-risk IAS that are not already established in Fiji. Such an inventory needs to be
created to facilitate developing appropriately preventative measures.
A sub-section of the northern division of Fiji that includes Taveuni Island and the surrounding islets, where
GII has established, is being considered as the main focus of the GEF project. This sub-section is composed
of the islands of Taveuni, Qamea, Matagi and Laucala (Figures 1 and 2). Taveuni is by far the largest of the
four islands and serves as the gateway for goods and people transiting to Qamea, Matagi and to some
extent Laucala (although Laucala also receives items directly from the main Fijian island of Viti Levu). The
project focus on biosecurity improvements and eradication of GII in the four islands would serve as a
national trial site, with the ultimate goal of improving protection against IAS that could be subsequently
scaled up throughout the nation under a longer-term Government of Fiji program.
The project’s Theory of Change outlining how the project activities combine to address the barriers and
achieve desired outcomes is shown in Figure 3 (and the associated Table 1).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |