gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=11701_… · web viewdr paul stebbing, project...

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra Procurement and Commercial FunctionE-mail: [email protected]

Research Project Proposal Form• See Note a in guidance note for information about the storage of, and access to, information provided in this form.• For guidance on submitting the form, see Note b in guidance note.• For guidance on completing the form, see Note c in guidance note.

■ Section 1 – OverviewComplete the following information:

1.1 (1.1a) Defra project code orcompetition reference (Note d in guidance note)

(1.1b) Project title(as in specification)

Biosecurity of freshwater invasive species

1.2 Proposer’s full nameand title Dr. Paul Stebbing

Tel. No.(incl. STD code) 01305 206621

Position held Project Manager Fax No. 01305 206602

E-mail address [email protected]

1.3 Name and address of organisation (Registered address – to be enteredin Defra’s contracts database if proposal successful)

Cefas, Lowestoft LaboratoryPakefield RoadLowestoftSuffolk Postcode NR33 0HT

1.4 Name and address of organisation (Proposer’s address for technical enquiries, if different to the above)

CefasWeymouth LaboratoryBarrack Road,The NotheWeymouthDorset Postcode DT4 8UB

1.5 (1.5a) Proposed start date 01/11/2013

(1.5b) Proposed end date 31/03/2013

(1.5c) Proposed duration 5 months(1.5d) Date submitted

to Defra 19/11/2013

1.6 Summary of costs (excl VAT) – per financial year and total

Year13 /14 Year / Year / Year / Year / Total

For Defra £ 33,489 £ £ £ £ £ 33,489

Other than Defra £ £ £ £ £ £ 0

EVID2 Research Project Proposal Form (04/11) 1

mailto:[email protected]


In kind

1.7 Is this work currently or about to be submitted in another application elsewhere? ...................... Yes No

If YES: to which organisation and by what date is a decision expected dd/mm/yyyy

1.8 Brief project description (maximum 500 words). This should be a non-technical summary of your proposal, its potential relevance to policy and possible use of results. It should be easily understood by non-specialists. If your proposal is successful, this summary will be published on the Defra website (Note e in guidance note).

The purpose of the project proposal is two fold: 1) to increase understanding of the effectiveness of hot water as an easily applied, cost effective biosecurity measure to reduce the risk of spreading non-native aquatic species, and 2) to under stand how effective programmes of biosecirty measures are implemented in a sustainable long term manner

Non-native species and diseases have been identified as key factors contributing to the loss of biodiversity, resulting in significant economic and social impacts in addition to threatening food security. As a result there is a growing need to reduce the risk of their release and establishment. The guiding principles of invasive non-native species (INNS) management (Convention on Biological Diversity) sets out a three tier hierarchal approach. Prevention of INNS introductions between, and within state, is generally far more cost-effective and environmentally desirable than measures taken after introduction and establishment; if an INNS has been introduced, early detection and rapid action are crucial to prevent its establishment: the preferred response is often to eradicate the organisms as soon as possible; where eradication is not feasible or resources are not available, containment and long-term control measures should be implemented.

The Check, Clean, Dry campaign was launched in the UK by Defra in 2010, soon after the first discovery of the killer shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus) in 2009. The objective of the campaign is to promote good biosecurity practices amongst water users to prevent the introduction and spread of INNS. While the campaign provides a broad approach for water users to adopt, more specific advice, especially in reference to cleaning of equipment, is required. Work will be conducted to assess the suitability of hot water as a treatment against a range of INNS including plant and invertebrate species. In addition to assessing the effectiveness of hot water as a dip (suitable for personal equipment), method of practical application to larger equipment e.g. boats will also be assessed.

New Zealand is a recognised global leader in biosecurity, and have several programmes aimed at preventing the introduction of INNS in place for a number of years. One such programme is at the Rotorua Lakes and has been running for over 9 years. This project proposes to assess the biosecurity programme, looking at how it was implemented (including monitoring for success), how effective it has been at reducing spread and introductions of non-native species, how cost effective it has been, what problems have occurred, and what lessons can be learnt. Such information will be invaluable in assisting in the development of guidelines to help in the development and implementation biosecurity programmes in the UK.

1.9 Sub-contractor and/or joint contractor contact detailsOnly to be completed if there are sub-contractors to be employed on the project or if the project has joint contractors.For each sub-contractor/joint contractor please insert the name and address of the organisation, contact name, telephone number and e-mail address. Please also specify if they are a sub-contractor or joint contractor. Please list joint contractors first followed by sub-contractors in order of their relative contributions.

Organisation Contact name and, telephone number and email address Joint or sub- contractor Total costs

University of Leeds Dr Alison M. Dunn,Manton 8.09Reader in Evolutionary Ecology,School of Biology,Faculty of Biological Sciences,University of LeedsLS2 9JTUKTel +44 (0)113 3432856


Fax +44 (0)113 3432835


■ Section 2 – Evidence2.1 Background

Outline your understanding of the policy/research context and the key issues/challenges you are proposing to address in this project. Outline previous work on the subject.

The guiding principles of invasive non-native species (INNS) management (Convention on Biological Diversity) sets out a three tier hierarchal approach. Prevention of INNS introductions between, and within state, is generally far more cost-effective and environmentally desirable than measures taken after introduction and establishment; if an INNS has been introduced, early detection and rapid action are crucial to prevent its establishment: the preferred response is often to eradicate the organisms as soon as possible; where eradication is not feasible or resources are not available, containment and long-term control measures should be implemented.

Water users, such as anglers, canoeists and dingy sailors, have the potential to come into contact with INNS in freshwater environments during their recreational activities. Without adequate biosecurity, they can act as vectors for the overland dispersal of INNS and aquatic pathogens by transporting damp equipment which INNS and pathogens can survive on.

The Check, Clean, Dry campaign was launched in the UK by Defra in 2010, soon after the first discovery of the killer shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus) in 2009. The objective of the campaign is to promote good biosecurity practices amongst water users to prevent the introduction and spread of INNS. The campaign is based on a similar scheme in New Zealand which was originally established to prevent the spread of didymo (Didymosphenia geminata), an invasive freshwater diatom native to the Northern hemisphere that was first reported in New Zealand’s Lower Waiau River in 2004. Evidence suggests that 80% of New Zealanders have heard of the ‘Check, Clean, Dry’ campaign and that the spread of didymo, which cost $158 million dollars to manage in the first 4 years, has slowed since the Check, Clean, Dry campaign was launched (Bothwell et al. 2007, New Zealand Ministry for Primary Resources, 2012). These results suggest that such biosecurity awareness schemes have the potential to be effective in the prevention of further introductions and spread. While the campaign provides a broad approach for water users to adopt, more specific advice, especially in reference to cleaning of equipment is required.

Despite the advice given in the Check Clean Dry protocol, little research has been conducted on the most effective methods with which to clean equipment, or the period of time with which to allow kit to dry for in order to kill any ‘aquatic hitchhikers’. Cefas conducted a rigorous series of experiments in 2011 to evaluate the effectiveness of a number of liquid treatments as potential biosecurity measures to prevent the survival of D. villosus through recreational water activities. Treatments included Virkon S, Sodium hypochlorite and carbonated water. In terms of disinfectants, Virkon S proved to be an effective treatment, resulting in up to 100% mortality if the individuals were exposed for long enough (12 minutes for 100% mortality or 7 minutes and 44 seconds for 50% mortality). Carbonated water and hot water were considered to be the most effective treatments (as well as the most environmentally safe). The Norfolk Broads Authority has subsequently advised anglers to disinfect their gear to prevent the spread of killer shrimp by dipping it in water at 45˚C for 15 minutes in line with the results from the Cefas report.

The Check, Clean, Dry campaign aims to encompass all aquatic INNS, and therefore any advice to enhance the over arching message should be effective against a range of INNS. As the use of hot water proved to be the most effective in previous studies and has already included in advice to water users, then testing the efficacy of hot water on a range of other aquatic INNS will further enhance the Check, Clean, Dry advice. It is also important that there are a range of methods to apply effective treatments in an easily applicable fashion to match the diversity of water users and their equipment. To date hot water has only been tested as a dip; suitable for personal equipment, but not for larger items such as boats. Further investigation into the suitability and effectiveness of delivering hot water as a spray will provide additional advice to water users needing to disinfect larger items of equipment. Part 1 of this project will examine: a) the efficacy of hot water treatment on a range of aquatic INNS and b) the suitability of delivery of hot water treatments to larger items of equipment.

The Rotorua Lakes are a set of 16 freshwater lakes in the Bay of Plenty, North Island, New Zealand. The close proximity of the lakes (a result of the volcanic activity that originally formed them) as well as their popularity with tourists and locals makes them particularly susceptible to the accidental introduction of aquatic INNS. The Rotorua Lakes are a popular tourist destination. The area sees around 1.75 million visitors pass through each year with an approximate 50:50 split between domestic and international tourists (Rotorua Tourism in Focus 2013). Tourism generated NZ$491 million (£257 million) to the Rotorua economy in 2010 (Ministry of Economic Development, 2010). The area has been affected by a number of INNS and is threatened by others. Human recreational activities including boating, angling and water sports are thought to be the principal routes by which invasive weed fragments (which can transport the eggs of invasive fish as well as didymo cells) spread between lakes. Vessels, trailers and boating/angling equipment have been identified as the main vectors.


In 2004 (around the time of the first didymo outbreak in New Zealand), the Aquatic Pest Coordination Group (APCG) was set up in the Bay of Plenty to improve public awareness of aquatic INNS and prevent the dispersal of these species between waterways. The APCG comprises representatives from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC), the Department of Conservation, the Te Arawa Lakes Trust, Eastern Fish and Game, Rotorua District Council, and Land Information New Zealand.

Each summer (November until February), the BOPRC employs two temporary members of staff to carry out their ‘Aquatic Pest Advocacy Programme’. The roles of these staff are twofold: i) to distribute awareness information to the public (Check, Clean, Dry educational materials, posters and merchandise packs) at lakes, river access points, tourism outlets and local businesses and ii) to conduct surveys with boat users at boat ramps to determine the present level of aquatic pest awareness and to assess whether the boats being launched have any aquatic plants attached to them. In addition, awareness information is distributed at decontamination stations set up at major water sports events in the summer season. Events include national and international angling tournaments, water-skiing competitions, powerboat races, rafting competitions, canoe slalom and triathlons. The Aquatic Pest Advocacy Programme has now been running for 9 years.

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council has requested an evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme. The programme has now been running for 9 years and the BOPRC want to ensure that it is still meeting its objectives. They have asked for a quantification of its effectiveness and the provision of recommendations on how it could be improved. Hamish Lass, the biosecurity officer at the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has the following comments about the effectiveness of the programme so far:

- BOPRC is concerned that water users seem to have become complacent about biosecurity actions.- Surveys in 2012/2013 summer showed that 80.5% knew how to clean their boats but only 41.6% did clean their

boats.- Furthermore, in summer 2012/13, 41.5% cleaned their boats before launching, summer 2011/12 46% cleaned

their boats before launching and in summer 2010/11, 64% cleaned their boats before launching. This appears to be a declining trend but further investigation into the sampling methods is needed.

- Some groups (even rafters and kayakers – key water users) still appear have low awareness of aquatic invasive species and biosecurity. How do they target these groups more effectively? Again this is an anecdote that needs quantifying.

- It is unclear whether tourists have the same biosecurity awareness as locals. Are tourists being reached with the biosecurity programme?

- It is unclear which awareness distribution channels are most effective. Cost effectiveness analysis

Lucy Anderson, a PhD student of the proposed project manager and Dr. Alison Dunn based at Leeds University, have been awarded a travel grant from the Leeds University initiative Water@Leeds to cover some of the costs to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of the Bay of Plenty biosecurity programme. This application also seeks to cover the some of the costs of the trip to New Zealand.

In addition to quantifying the effectiveness of the Bay of Plenty biosecurity programme and the provision of recommendations to improve the programme, information will also be gathered on how the programme was set up, how it is run, what advice and facilities are provided, and any lessons that can be learnt. Obtaining this knowledge will greatly assist the UK in the development and implementation of biosecurity measures programmes in the most effective manner.

2.2 ObjectivesOutline the general aims of the project and specific evidence objectives (measurable and time bound),any interdependence (the extent to which the success of one objective depends on the successful completion of another), and where there is more than one contractor, show clearly the roles of each.

If your application is accepted, these objectives may be included in the agreement between you and the Department. Please, therefore, restrict your entry to the salient points and set these out clearly and concisely.


Part 1. Testing of hot water treatment methods in the control of invasive freshwater species:

1. To test efficacy of hot water on the control of (at least) the following species Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), Floating pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides), and Curly water weed (Lagarosiphon major).

2. To conduct a literature review on the use of pressure washers and steam cleaners in the control of invasive species, including work conducted by Norfolk Broads.

3. To undertake testing of steam and pressure cleaners to assess the effectiveness in the control of aquatic INNS.

4. Provision of result and advice.

Part 2. The assessment of a long standing biosecurity programme:

The aim of the work will be for a student (Lucy Anderson) to spend 6 weeks at the Bay of Plenty gathering information on the biosecurity programme to answer the following questions:1. How has the programme been implemented (including monitoring of success)?2. Has the programme been effective?3. Has the programme been cost effective?4. How could the programme be improved?5. What lessons can be learnt on the implementation of a sustainable biosecurity programme relevant to the

UK?

2.3 Approach and methodologyIf your application is accepted, the Approaches, Work Plan and Milestones will be included in any contract issued. Please, therefore, restrict your entry to the salient points and set these out clearly and concisely.

2.3a. Approaches and Work Plan

Outline the approaches to be used to achieve the objectives (set out in 2.2) and set out the work plan for the life of the project stating clearly how you intend to proceed (please include a Gantt chart if appropriate). The approaches should be given the same number, and be in the same order, as the objectives and must be clearly cross-referenced to the numbered milestones (see section 2.3c below). Where there is more than one contractor, please show clearly the roles of each.

Where appropriate, please describe the analyses of data you propose to undertake. This should include any statistical inputs.

Part 1. Testing of hot water treatment methods in the control of invasive freshwater species:

1. The aim of this experiment is to test the effectiveness of hot water and drying at preventing the spread of aquatic INNS on angling gear. To do this we will test the survival rates of four aquatic INNS on angling keep nets subjected to i) cleaning, ii) drying and iii) combined treatments.

The species used in the experiment are all listed on the UKTAG list of High Impact aquatic alien species. They will include (all species are to be tested at the University of Leeds unless otherwise stated):

Invertebrates Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) (to be tested at Cefas)

Aquatic plants Floating pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides)

And one of the following (depending on availability): Curly water-thyme (Lagarosiphon grandiflora) (also an invader in the Bay of Plenty region) Canadian pondweed (Elodea Canadensis) Water primrose (Ludwigia grandiflora)

Two hundred individuals (or fragments of plants) will be collected for each species to form replicates. Each of the species will be sourced and randomly mixed (keeping species groups separate) in tanks of dechlorinated water in a cold room at 17˚C for 5 days to allow them to acclimatise before being assigned to a treatment. A popular angling keep net will be cut into small pieces to form individual 10cm x 10cm envelopes, sealed with duct tape. Individuals will be randomly selected, measured and put inside a netting envelope. Each net pocket will be submerged in water for 3 hours, the mean time that anglers submerge keep nets according to


previous research.After being exposed to the water (to ensure that the keep net is realistically damp), each net envelope containing an individual will be subjected to one of four different treatment groups:

Treatment Action

Hot water only Submerge 50 individuals of each species in a water bath at 45˚C for 15 minutes. Once the time is up, put the 50 nets inside (unsealed) plastic bags (to prevent drying) in a cold room at 11˚C (simulates angling net stored in a stink bag in a garage).

Hot water and drying Submerge 50 individuals of each species in a water bath at 45˚C for 15 minutes. Lay nets out on a tray in cold room at 11˚C. Netting envelopes with individuals in will each be weighed before treatment begins and at several stages throughout the treatment in order to calculate a rate of drying.

Drying only Lay 50 individuals of each species out on a tray in the cold room. Netting envelopes with individuals in will each be weighed before treatment begins and at several stages throughout the treatment in order to calculate a rate of drying.

Control Put 50 individuals of each species inside (unsealed) plastic bags (to prevent drying) on a tray in a cold room at 11˚C. Nets are not cleaned nor allowed to dry.

As it will be difficult to assess the survival of individuals inside the nets during the experiment without interfering with the treatment, 10 individuals from each treatment will removed after 24h, 48h, 4 days, 8 days and 16 days as follows:

Clean and dry Clean only Dry only Control (neither cleaned nor dried)

Day 1 10 10 10 10

Day 2 10 10 10 10

Day 4 10 10 10 10

Day 8 10 10 10 10

Day 16 10 10 10 10

Total (per species)

50 50 50 50

Once each treatment group has been left for the allocated time, survival will be tested in the following ways:Zebra mussels: Each net will be weighed at the end of the treatment to calculate water loss. Each mussel will be removed from netting envelope, placed in a container and visually inspected to see

whether it is open or closed. If it is open, the mussel will be prodded with a blunt needle to see whether it responds to stimuli. If it

does not respond, it will be assumed dead. Animals will be disposed of in bio waste at the end of the experiment.

Floating pennywort and other aquatic plant:

Each net will be weighed at the end of the treatment to calculate water loss. Each fragment will be removed from netting envelope. A portable photosynthesis meter will be used to


assess whether the fragment is producing O2.

In order to quantify growth, each fragment will then be photographed against a scale. Using image analysis software the fragment (stem, leaf and root) will be measured.

Each fragment will be placed in an individual container of water in an incubator with its optimum light/temperature regime in order to stimulate growth.

The fragment will be photographed (and subsequently measured) at weekly intervals to determine whether it is growing.

2. A brief literature review will be conducted to examine the use of pressure washing and steam cleaning in the control of aquatic pest species including INNS.

3. Parameterisation of pressure washing and steam cleaning equipment will be conducted to assist in the development of biosecurity advice. As lethal temperature for a range of species will have been determined then proxies will be used rather than live animals to assess temperature and time of exposure. Previous work such as those conducted by the Norfolk Broads Authority will be considered and used to help progress the development of easily applied practicable biosecurity advice.

4. The results from this work will be presented with advice provided on how more robust information can be provided to stakeholders on the cleaning of equipment.

Part 2. The assessment of a long standing biosecurity programme:

1. How has the programme been implemented?a. A review of the background to how the programme was implementedb. Detailed explanation on how the programme has operated over the years

2. Has the programme been effective?a. Has the programme been an ecological success?

i. Using historical data from the BOPRC, we can assess:ii. The rate of pest species introductions in the Rotorua lakes before and during the

biosecurity programme (annual data).iii. The proportion of boat users observed with weeds on their boats/trailers each summer

during the programme.iv. The abundance and distribution of existing aquatic pest species in each of the Rotorua

Lakes before and during the programme.v. We also keen to find a suitable control site to compare the rate of introductions where

the programme has been running to an area where it hasn’t been running.b. Have the awareness messages reached the target groups? (Collection of primary data using

questionnaires hopefully both in the Rotorua Lakes and at a control site where no aquatic awareness programme has taken place in order to tease apart which actions are likely to be a result of the programme)

i. Proportion of water users who have heard of the programme - stratify by type of water user, by lake and by tourist/local.

ii. Can they recite Check, Clean, Dry when prompted with a poster without the programme slogan on?

iii. How did the water users hear about the programme (distribution channels)?iv. Why is there a greater awareness of the programme at some sites than others (previous

research suggests this)v. Do they understand what it means/what they should be doing?vi. Can they identify local invasive species?vii. Do they know which species are present/absent in the lakes when provided with a

list/photos?c. Are the target groups following the biosecurity awareness messages?

i. Proportion of water users cleaning/checking/drying their boats/angling gear etc. (this data is collected annually by the BOPRC staff).

d. How do these results vary between locals, tourists and competition participants?i. Repeat the questionnaire with locals, tourists and competition participants?ii. What is causing the differences?iii. How can this be improved? Interview stakeholders.

3. Has the programe been cost effective?a. Data will be collected in reference to the incured costs of the project (per FY).b. Potential estimates of costs mitigation measures calculate for a number of species will be

gathered.c. A simple cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to assess how cost effective the project has


been.d. Attempts will be made to try breakdown relevent cost and benefit to different aspects of the

project e.g. applied biosecurity, awareness raising.

4. How could the programme be more effective?a. Why are people complacent about biosecurity measures? Time? Expense? Hassle? Lack of

knowledge? Delve into their motivations.b. Carrot vs. stick - what would encourage people to do so? For example, spot fines if their boat

was found with weeds on vs. or a wash down area/incentive.c. Interviews with key stakeholders about ways in which they think it could be improved.

5. What lessons can be learnt on the implementation of a sustainable biosecurity programme relevant to the UK?

a. An qualitative review of the geographical area, the main aquatic stakeholders, including user groups, and pathways of introduction.

b. A review of how the programme was set up, what stakeholders it is aimed at and the management structure and how this has changed over the life of the programme.

c. An assessment of any gaps in the programme, i.e. major pathways not covered by the programme.

d. The information will be assessed and lessons leaernt will be highlighted with the aim of assiting in the development of guidelines to aid in the implementation of how biosecurity measures programmes can be implemented effectively, which pit falls to avoid and what needs to be done for the programme to run effectively.

2.3b. Will the project require a survey to be carried out (Note f in guidance note)? .................. Yes No

If yes, please give brief details about the proposed survey, for example, about the type of survey, its scope and scale.

2.3c. Milestones table (Note g in guidance note)

These must relate directly to the Objectives, Approaches and Work Plan.

Target date(dd/mm/yyyy)

No. of monthsfrom start date

Description of milestone(maximum 120 characters)

Cost (£) – when required by specs

1 01/11/13 0 Start up meeting

2 15/11/13 0.5 Start of experimental work (Leeds University)

3 01/12/13 1 Work to start in NZ

4 05/01/14 2 Review of cleaning systems to start (Cefas)

5 15/01/14 2.5 End of experimental work (Leeds University)

6 15/01/14 2.5 Mid project review

7 01/02/14 3 End of work at NZ

8 15/02/14 3.5 Start of cleaning system experimental work (Cefas)

9 15/02/14 3.5 Start of experimental work (Cefas)

10 31/03/14 4 Final reports to be provided to Defra

2.3d Knowledge exchange

Consider the expected outputs which may arise from this project, identify key audiences for the results and outline your plans for knowledge exchange and communications of results. Provide a list of all proposed project outputs, including datasets, publications, presentations or demonstrations, and a brief description of how you anticipate the results will be used and by whom.


Where the project specification has been supplied by Defra, you must include any communication and knowledge exchange requirements set out in that specification. Additionally, Defra invites you to add any proposals of your own to communicate the results.

Please note that should you be successful, you will be required to seek approval from the Defra Project Officer before any press release is published at any time during the project. This may take up to two weeks.

Defra will be provided with monthly up-dates on the progress of the work throughout the project. A final report will be produced detailing the work under taken in each section of the project for Defra. Suitable results will also be written up as scientific publications.

2.3e. Quality assurance (Note h in guidance note)

• If specified in the competition details, please confirm that this project will be completed inaccordance with the measures laid out in the Joint Code of Practice for Research: ............ Yes No

• If NO, please list the areas of the Code that you feel cannot be met and describe the remedial actions you intend on taking to ensure future compliance. Please indicate the dates by which you expect each of these actions to be complete. If the Joint Code of Practice for Research is not applicable to your project please explain why here.

Cefas operates a formal quality policy endorsed by the Chief Executive and recognises that the provision of Quality services and products is fundamental to its business and is therefore totally committed to achieving customer satisfaction by meeting agreed requirements for each contract and, wherever possible, exceeding the customer’s expectations. Cefas will achieve this objective by: working with its customers to understand and clearly define their requirements and needs; working to continuously improve the quality, safety and performance of our products, services and people, ensuring that all staff understand our policies; ensuring that all staff are trained and have the necessary expertise to undertake their assignments; operating within a defined quality management system for each of our business areas. The Weymouth laboratory is GLP compliant for Environmental Toxicity testing and the Safety Testing of veterinary Medicines and also has ISO17020 and ISO17025 (accredited for the identification of pathogens in molluscs and crustaceans) accreditation in a number of areas and is continuously expanding this in the invertebrate and fish disease groups. The Cefas Weymouth laboratory has an experienced Deputy Quality Manager who will provide guidance, advice and support to Project Managers on the principles and application of the Joint Code of Practice.

If the project will be compliant with other Codes of Practice (e.g. the Government Social Research Code) please list these here. Please also state what procedures you operate for Quality Assurance, including formal accreditations.

2.3f. Risks, ethical considerations and health and safety

List the risks which might prevent or delay achievements of the project objectives. There is no such thing as a risk-free project – please complete this section. For each risk include an assessment of the likelihood of the risk occurring, the likely impact/consequences on the project, any steps that will be taken to minimise/avoid the risk and the risk owner.

Where relevant you should highlight any ethical considerations which the project may raise and also highlight any health and safety considerations.


1. Collection of animals (low risk) - animals will be collected by either members of staff or managers of water bodies. In all cases appropriate SOPs and H&S procedures will be adhered to.

2. Laboratory work (low risk) - all experimental work will be conducted under the appropriate SOPs and H&S procedures. The nature of the work poses little risk in itself.

3. Use of steam and pressure cleaners (medium risk, but can be reduced)- the use of such equipment will be kept to a minimum and will only be conducted after an appropriate H&S risk assessment has been conducted.

4. Loss of key staff (low risk, only partial reduced) – the majority of the work being conducted will be able to be picked up by others, however the visit to NZ is dependent on the skill set and funding secured from elsewhere by Lucy Anderson.

5. Loss of equipment (low risk, easily reduced) - no equipment is being used on any part of the project that cannot be easily and quickly replaced in the case of any loses.

6. Foreign travel (low risk) – NZ is considered a low risk country for travel (according to UK government website). All travel and work will be conducted in well populated areas, no trips will be made to remote locations as a result of work. All work will be conducted with the approval of local authorities.

7. Accidents abroad (low risk) – travel insurance will be obtained prior to travel (through Leeds University), all university guidance and procedures on travelling abroad for work purposes will be adhered to.

■ Section 3 – Resources and Other Requirements3.1 Project managementYou should identify the individual(s) who will have overall management responsibility for the research and/or identify the Project Director, and nominate a representative for day-to-day contact with the Defra Project Officer. You should outline how you plan to keep Defra informed of progress made and of any difficulties encountered, as well as the level of input and guidance that you will require from the Defra Project Officer and Project Board (if relevant). You should also describe your organisational approach to project management and how this is implemented.

Cefas has significant, and broad-based, project management experience and, as such, standard project management principles/procedures will be applied to this project.

Within Cefas each new project is assigned a ‘Project Sponsor’ and a ‘Project Manager’. The Project Manager has day to day responsibility for all elements of the project, including responsibility for: (1) implementing an appropriate project plan, data plan, risk register and project schedule (including tasks, deliverables, milestones and meetings (internal and external)); (2) ensuring resources required for project completion are scheduled and available; (3) briefing team members so they are fully aware of their roles and responsibilities and holding project team meetings as necessary; (4) ensuring technical and QA/QC reviews are conducted for all deliverables and substantive client and stakeholder communications; (5) ensuring appropriate contracts are in place and signed before work commences.

The Project Sponsor has ultimate accountability for the success of the project, including accountability for the following: (1) health & safety (in relation to project activities); (2) completion of the project and submission of deliverables to schedule; (3) completion of the project within budget; (4) overall client satisfaction. In addition, the Project Sponsor will: ensure that the Project Manager is implementing an appropriate project plan and data plan; conduct Project Reviews as scheduled with the Project Manager and sign-off of Project Review checklists prepared by the Project Manager; Proactively consult and mentor the Project Manager and act when intervention is required.

Dr. Paul Stebbing will have the responsibility of Project Management for the proposed work. He will have regular contact with the Defra customer throughout the project, with monthly up-dates being provided. The project will have an experienced Project Sponsor (Dr Edmund McManus) who has held senior management responsibility for a large Defra R&D portfolio for many years. The project will be subject to standard internal risk assessment and review. The Project Sponsor will, as necessary, be available to the Defra Project Officer/Board to discuss any matters associated with the project and will, specifically, ensure that should any problems/difficulties be encountered the Defra sponsor will be informed immediately.

All project information is held in a database which is routinely used to monitor project progress/outturn/staff utilization and milestone delivery. Project delivery is discussed by the AHH Management Group on a monthly basis and, where necessary, support/guidance provided to Project Sponsors/Managers.

3.2 Proposed teamEVID2 Research Project Proposal Form (04/11) 11

3.2a. Include a summary statement that explains why your proposed team has the appropriate skills and expertise to successfully undertake the project. Name all the members of the proposed team and outline their respective roles/activities in the project, relevant expertise, and unit cost. Please do not repeat the level of detail of the CV.

You are also required to submit short CVs (no longer than 2 pages) for each member of the proposed team, which should clearly show their expertise in relation to the needs of the project (e.g. include only relevant publications).

Dr Paul Stebbing, Project Manager, Cefas Grade 6, has been working on aquatic invasive species for over 12 years. Current lead on invasive and non-native species work at Cefas, Weymouth. He is involved in a broad range of work relating to aquatic invasive and non-native species, including regulatory review and enforcement, risk assessment and management, modeling routes of introduction, pathway management and the development of biosecurity, control and eradication methods. Dr Stebbing is currently managing a number of projects relating to the delivery of the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. He is a UK Delegate to the ICES Working Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors (WGBOSV), UK technical expert to the ICG COBAM working group in descriptor 2 of the MSFD, and the UK technical expert to the EU MSFD Task Group for descriptor 2. Dr.Stebbing’s broad experience as a Fish Health Inspector has provided him with a good understanding of the various trade related pathways of introduction. This has provided a pragmatic view in researching methods to control and manage non-native and invasive species.

Dr Alison Dunn (University of Leeds) Dr Dunn’s research interests are in the overlapping areas of parasite-host ecology and of invasive species. Work on biological invasions looks at the ecological impact of biological invasions and at the spread and management of invasive species, focussing in particular on aquatic invasions. She has a track record of successful collaboration with Cefas through industrial placement students as well as two CASE PhD studentships. Alison is a core member of the NSF Global Invasions Network and recently edited a special issue of Functional Ecology “Infection & Invasions” with 25 authors. Co-author of book “Parasites in Ecological Communities” (invited, CUP 2011). I have published >90 papers in invasion biology, parasitic disease and ecology. She also leads the Yorkshire Dales Environment Network (NERC KE funded), a network of >25 partners engaged in environment policy and practice.

Allan Reese, Cefas Grade 7, has been working at Cefas as a senior statistician for 9 years. Allan provides advice to project managers on the design of studies, analysis of data, and presentation of results.

Georgina Rimmer, Cefas Grade 4 has been working at Cefas as a Laboratory Support Technician for 8 years. Georgina will provide general support to the project.

3.2b Summary of staff time involved per financial year (in days) and total days per staff

You should show here the staff days expected to be spent on the project, including both specialists and assistants, during each year of the project. Please make an entry for each member of staff and cross reference to section 3.2a by, for example, using initials of the staff member. If it is helpful in order to clarify your proposal, entries for individual staff can be broken down by task.

Staff time per financial year in days (whole days only)

Name of staff member.(If not yet appointedenter the task to be

performed e.g. Res. Asst.)

13 / 14 / / / / Total Days

Paul Stebbing 10 10

Allan Reese 4 4

Georgina Rimmer 20 20

0

0Total staff 34 0 0 0 0 34


days per year


3.3 Project costs3.3a Cost breakdown

Before completing this part of the form you should read the Financial Guidelines for project cost estimate (within the guidance note).

If the project has joint contractors or sub-contractors details of these costs should be submitted separately in 3.3b.

Financial years (April – March) (e.g. 11/12)

Year 13 / 14 Year / Year / Year / Year / Total

Cost £ £ £ £ £ £

Pay costs 6,424 6,424

Consumables 5,000 5,000

Equipment

Travel expenses 500 500

Overheads 8,893 8,893

Sub contracts1 4,172 4,172

Other 8,500 8,500

Total costs*(FINANCIAL year) 33,489 0 0 0 0 33,489

VAT (FINANCIAL year) 0 0

*Excluding VAT. (See also Financial Guidelines (non-competitive work must be costed at current prices)

3.3b Additional cost details

1


Please describe and explain what costs are included in Consumables, Equipment (include equipment to be used in project, and justification for further purchases), Travel expenses, Sub contracts and Other in the above table.

Also use this box to describe any in kind contributions or funding contributions other than Defra (e.g. for project joint funded with other organisations).

Consumables – Aquatic services, collection and delivery of animals and purchase/hire of pressure and steam washersSub Contracts - sub contract with the University of LeedsOther Costs - Contingency and laboratory specialist services

3.3c Joint and Sub-contractor costs

If the project has sub-contractors or joint-contractors use this box to provide a breakdown of each of their costs in the same format to the table in 3.3a. Please copy and paste one table per joint contractor and one table per sub-contractor.

University of Leeds FY13/14 Total

Pay Costs £312.00 £312.00

Consumables £500.00 £500.00

Equipment £770.00 £770.00

Travel Expenses £2,344.00 £2,344.00

Overheads £246.00 £246.00

Sub Contracts

Other

Total Costs £4,172.00 £4,172.00

3.3d Address to which payment should be made

Accounts PayableCefas Lowestoft LaboratoryPakefield RoadLowestoftSuffolk, NR3 0HT

VAT status:

• Will VAT be charged? ............................................................................................................ Yes No

3.4 InsuranceThe Department requires its research contractors to have an appropriate level of insurance cover based upon identified risks. Please state the current level of insurance cover you hold in respect of Employer’s Liability; Public Liability; and Professional Indemnity, together with the insurer and current insurance certificate number. Should your bid be accepted, you may be required to provide a copy.

Cefas is an agency of the Government Department Defra and enters into contracts as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Cefas, in common with Government departments, does not purchase commercial insurance for the risks they face. The Government self-insures against losses that may be incurred through its departments and agencies.


3.5. Intellectual Property (IP) Rights (Note i in guidance note)

The default position is for Defra to own the IP developed as part of the contract. This policy came into effect in December 2010 when updated Terms and Conditions were introduced by Defra and reflects the cross-Government model position recommended by the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group.

• Is the proposed research likely to lead to:

(i) protectable results (e.g. patents, design rights etc.)? .........................................................Yes No

(ii) other commercially negotiable results (such as ‘know-how’)? ............................................Yes No

If YES to (i) and/or (ii), please give details including interest already expressed. Please provide justification if proposing other IP Rights arrangements. Please include details of proprietary IP rights.

3.6. Small business declaration (Note j in guidance note)

Under the Small Business Research Initiative Defra is required to monitor the amount of research funding that is awarded to small businesses. As such you are required to provide responses to the following questions in your tender document:

3.6a Are you or any joint contractors on the project small businesses?.........................................Yes No

If yes, please list names of businesses.

3.6b Does the proposal involve sub-contracting work to a small business?..................................Yes No

If yes, please give the name and level of funding for each small business acting as a sub-contractor.

3.7. Use of animalsIf the project involves the use of animals, you must complete this section.(a) Does any of the work outlined in the proposal require a licence from the Home Secretary

under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986?..............................................................Yes No

If YES, please give an estimate of the numbers of each species to be used

(b) Defra requires full compliance with the guidelines set out in the ‘http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/page.asp?id=871. If your proposal involves the use of animals, please confirm by ticking this box that youhave read the statement and will seek to implement it in full.................................................Yes No


Declaration (to be completed by a duly authorised signatory of the proposer’s organisation)

I declare that:

(a) I have read all sections of this proposal, the financial guidelines for project cost estimates, and Defra’s standard contractual terms and conditions;

(b) if agreed for funding, the work will be accommodated and administered in our organisation in accordance with the above mentioned terms and conditions;

(c) the costings in this proposal conform to the above mentioned financial guidelines, and the staff grading and salaries quoted are correct and in accordance with the normal practice of this organization;

(d) no capital equipment proposed for purchase for the project, and included in the project costings, duplicates existing equipment which is available for use on the project;

(e) Defra may use the information in this application for the purposes outlined in Note a;

For universities and public sector research establishments only:

(f) the costings in this proposal represent the full economic costs determined in accordance with the appropriate methodology (‘Transparent Approach to Costing’ and ‘Costing and Prices for Sustainability in PSRE’s’ respectively).

dd/mm/yyyy

Signature Date 19/11/2013

Title Mr

• First name Paul

• Surname Haywood

• Position held Operations & Business Manager

• Telephone No. (includingnational dialling code) 01305 206704

• Fax No. (including national dialling code) 01305 206601

• E-mail address [email protected]

Name and address of organisation

Cefas Weymouth LaboratoryBarrack RoadThe NotheWeymouthDorsetDT4 8UB

For submission of this form, please see Note b in guidance note.



gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=11701_… · web viewdr paul stebbing, project...

Documents