Didymo Long Term Management Programme Survey September 2009

2 Overview Survey Overview –Invitations to take part in the survey were sent to regional group members and Steering Group members –103 people were asked to participate –52 people participated (36 completed, 16 partially completed) Summary of results Analysis/Conclusion How this informs the Didymo LTM Programme review Full survey results are available on request from Corinna or Ranuka

3 Communications from SG, CCDAG & LTM Coordinator Most (>81%) respondents felt that adequate information had been provided on membership and roles of the Steering Group, CCDAG, and MAFBNZ LTM Coordination. Over 97% thought that the communications from the Steering Group and the LTM Coordinator were “extremely” or “fairly” relevant and useful. 83% for CCDAG. 4 respondents commented they had not heard anything at all from CCDAG

4 Knowledge Sharing Tools Didymo Shared Workspace: –58% never use the shared workspace Didymo monthly teleconference update meetings –Half of respondents find teleconference useful

5 Knowledge Sharing Tools Didymo.net: –Nearly ¼ had never used didymo.net –Key comments for improvement were around improving the search function – a list of site content could help –83% of respondents thought that it would be “very” or “fairly” useful to expand didymo.net to include other freshwater pest information. Remainder of respondents do not use didymo.net. Most however appeared to be aware of key documents and have at least some idea of where to find them

6 MAFBNZ Website 92% found MAFBNZ website “extremely” or “fairly” relevant and useful Approx half had used MAFBNZ website to refer to science reports 100% were aware of CCD instructions on the website Most had some idea about where to find info on border standards/bringing gear into NZ Most thought it would be useful to provide info about Sections 52 & 53 of Biosecurity Act

7 Expansion of programme to other freshwater pests Key comments were: –Concerns re overload of information –Need to ensure that no “feeling of no hope” with didymo –Improved inter regional communications – suggestion of meetings/workshops for practitioners/managers –Information on control and monitoring methods –Links to info from NIWA/Regional Councils

8 Knowledge Sharing Conclusions

9 Sampling Didymo Samples Database: –41% never use the didymo samples database –Some suggestions for improvement –May only be used by staff carrying out sampling work Most do not use outputs from the sampling programme to inform other regional activities (e.g. advocacy) Only 22% of respondents had been trained in microscopic analysis for didymo. 38% of those said they applied their training in their regional didymo sampling programme. Half send samples to laboratories for analysis

10 In the last 12 months, on average how much time have partners spent overall on the didymo LTM programme?

11 Where do partners spend the majority of their time with regard to the Didymo LTM programme? “Other” includes: Liaising with partners Management planning Operational coordination

12 General General comments included: –Challenge in maintaining an interest and concern –Advocates are very effective –LTM programme has been a successful pioneering initiative –The LTM programme sets a benchmark for other programmes

13 Analysis/Conclusions There were a lot of comments around the fact that respondents/ the public have lost interest or didymo is not a significant part of work programme any longer Although use of knowledge sharing tools like didymo.net and the shared workspace was not high, 81% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the existing programme effectively supports information sharing between partners 72% strongly agreed or agreed that the existing programme effectively supports delivery of key didymo- freshwater pest