Terms of Reference
6 March 2001
19 June 2001
19 June 2001
3 October 2001, Reports
14 May 2002, First Business Planning meeting
26 March 2003
2 May 2003, Business Planning Meeting
25 June 2003
10 October 2003

Greater London Authority, Romney House, SW1P 3PY

Present:
Chris Lee - ALG
Esther Collis - LBP Project Officer
Anne Homyer - BTCV
Richard Bullock - WWT
Alister Hayes - LB Bromley, LBBF
Steve Gilbert - RSPB
Doug Napier - LB Hounslow, LBBF
Ralph Gaines - LWT
Mike Fitt - Royal Parks
James Farrell - GLA

Apologies:
Mike Manuel - British Waterways
Pete Massini - EN
Andy Tomczynski - Thames Water
David Mole - London Underground


1. Welcome & Introductions
EC welcomed everybody to the 1st new Project Board meeting and attendees introduced themselves.

1. The New Structure of the Partnership
EC outlined the new structure with reference to the attached paper showing diagram of the new structure. The Chairs of the 4 Working Groups, and the chair if the LBBF sit on the project Board with other organisations making a max of 12. Each Working group has two open places including the project board. The LBBF inputs at all levels. The Roles of the Project Board and Working groups were discussed in more detail under agenda item 4 Project Board method of working.

1. Election of a chair
EC asked if there were any nominations for Chair. DN nominated JF, SG seconded the nomination. The issue also needs to be raised at the LBBF to see if there are any other nominees. Until then JF is the new chair of the project board.

1. Project Board method of working
SG submitted a paper, as Chair of the Management Working group, which outlines the roles of the working groups and the project board. This was as follows:

Provision of information to the Project Board Background Following the recent restructuring of the partnership, the roles of the Project Board and the Working Groups have changed significantly from the previous arrangement. Crucially, Working groups now generally make firm decisions about issues within their remits, rather than producing recommendations for 'vetting' by the project Board and subsequent endorsement or otherwise by a larger Steering Group. The Project Board will be directly involved with the decision making of the Groups only in very limited circumstances, for example if they were unable to agree on a course of action or in order to ensure a consistent approach. It is important therefore that the Project Board is kept properly informed of the decisions made by the Groups. Equally, it is crucial to ensure that members of the Project Board are adequately informed about the work undertaken by the Project Officer and the overall progress being made by the Partnership against agreed objectives. Recommendations 1. Following each Working Group meeting, the Chair will ensure that the key decisions made by the Group are summarised and reported to the Project Board. A concise note of the decisions should be supplied to the Chair of the Project Board not later than two weeks before each Project Board meeting. 2. The Project Officer will produce a short progress report to be circulated to members of the Project Boars with the Agenda for each meeting. This will generally be short (recommended no more than a side of A4) and focussed on key actions. There will be an opportunity for questions and elaboration at meetings where necessary.

The paper was Agreed by all. One issue was raised as to whether the Project Board could recommend ideas. This is addressed in the Project Boards new Terms of Reference, where it is stated that the purpose of the Project Board is to provide the overall steer for the Partnerships activities.

Agenda item 7 Project Board Terms of Reference was brought forward for discussion. The ToR were Agreed to in principle, with a few minor changes. These include the need to review the membership of the Board and to have reporting structures in place.

Action: JF to revise the terms of reference.


1. Verbal progress reports from the Working Groups and the Project Officer

Communications Working Group - the report was given by AH
• The CWG have met twice in its new form (8th may & 13 June 2001).
• Chris Skinner (RSPB) has stepped down as Chair & Anne Homyer (BTCV) has now been appointed as the new Chair.
• The Groups overall purpose still remains the same, promote understanding of the Action Plan to increase involvement and commitment in the process.

They have redefined their key roles now that BAP implementation is underway.
• To provide partnership communication guidelines e.g. press release guidelines
• Provide support and advice in developing BAP related material & to act as a point of reference for communication materials.

• To help co-ordinate BAP communication actions, the working group would like all materials to be sent to the chair so the group can provide advice. The group has decided to extra meetings for this purpose.
• Development of a new strapline is need, so the logo can stand-alone. Possible suggestions "Working together for wildlife".
• The group are also working towards developing a supporters pledge
• The group will also help with co-ordinating Partnership events. And will be speaking at this year's event.

Habitat, Species & Data Working Group - the report was given by RB
• No significant change in working groups remit as a result of the restructuring of the Partnership. Main roles are to oversee and co-ordinate the production and implementation of the Action Plans and ensure data needs are addressed with respect to each plan.
• The group selected the habitats and species that would comprise the second round of action plans the meeting on the 27th Jan. These were:

Habitats - acid grassland; grasslands, meadows & pastures; ponds, lakes & reservoirs; canals; churchyards & cemeteries; parks, amenity grassland & city squares; tidal Thames and private gardens. Species... adder; black poplar. NB. The preparation of a Grasslands, meadows and pastures action plan was subsequently deferred due to the difficulty in identifying a lead for this complex action plan

• Subsequent to a presentation by Peter Harvey, an entomologist, concerning the importance of invertebrate assemblages in semi-natural and post-industrial habitats along the Thames the Group has begun to flag up the need to ensure invertebrate conservation is addressed through the respective habitat action plans.
• The Chair of the group has written to all existing leads to clarify the role of lead partners. The Project Officer has sent monitoring forms to all leads to elicit information about progress on implementation.
• The Group has produced and agreed site recording guidelines, which have been circulated to partners and posted on the web.
• Peter Massini has stood down as Chair and Richard Bullock has taken over the reins.

Management Working Group - the report was given by SG
• Have produced a paper on the functioning of the project board and drawn up the Term of Reference their working group.
• Drawn up a memorandum of understanding
• The key issue for the group has been future funding. There is no further funding available from the BHET. Other options are now being pursued.
• John Ellerman Foundation - RSPB have approached JEF for £40k for 3yrs and are now waiting for a reply.
• Esmee Fairburn - RSPB cannot apply, WWT are happy to make an approach.
• London Borough Grant Scheme- on hold, depends on progress with other applications
• Interreg funding- initially though we were not eligible- AH pointed out that themes have to be cross boundary and we are eligible if we find European partners. Need to find 3 twin partners (Capital cities, themes would be green open spaces. There would be money foe action plans but not sure about funding for a Project Officer.
• Action: MWG to explore this source of funding further

Biodiversity Records Centre Working Group - The report was given by EC
• The group has had an initial meeting
• The chair is Greg Smith (EN), with Alex Machin (EN) currently acting as contact.
• Agreed in principle to starting a development plan process
• EN have allocated money for a development plan
• Once minutes have been agreed, they will go on the website
• Need to bring on board individual recorders

Project Officers Report - the progress report was given by EC

Key Work:
• Round 2 Action plans update- All plans as selected are H,S&D WG are ongoing and aiming for a drafts by 31st Aug. Concern over Ponds, lakes & reservoirs as no initial contact has been forthcoming.
• Implementation of first round of action plans is making good progress. EC has attend working group meetings and set up a monitoring database.
• Partnership Event has been planned for the 31st July at WWT. This is a follow on event from Jan. The aim of the day is to encourage implementation of the action plans. The event is also an opportunity for networking and information exchange
• The Audit needs to be Reviewed & Update later in the year

Background Work:
• Attended Partnership meetings including LBBF
• Borough Biodiversity meetings: Brent, Lewisham, Richmond, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Havering, Bexley, Haringey
• Other meetings: Lee Valley Executive, London First- Business & Biodiversity
• Attended: Ben networking conference, Presentation at LTOA, LBAP practitioners' workshop Bristol.
• Training: Working with your stake holders (3 day facilitation course), training to take over day to day management of website
• Media; BTCV- Greenwork (1 page article issue 49 Spring 2001) on launch of action plans, TEP- (spring /Summer2001 edition) Talk of the Thames article on launch of plans.

Financial Status
Total allocated £16,210

As of 1st April 2001 minus Salary & NI and GLA Invoicing
Print £5000
Conferences £3000
Consultants £3000
Training £690
Total £11,690
Current running total = £11,257.38

Management Working Group - the report was given by SG
• The group has produced papers on the functioning of the Project Board
• Developed the Memorandum of understanding & outlined they way forward for the supporters pledge
• The Key issue for the group has been the future funding for the Project Officer
• RSPB have looked at the possibility of further funding from the Bridge House Estates Trust- there is no further funding available
• RSPB have lead on an application to the John Ellerman Foundation and have asked for £40k for 3yrs... they are waiting for a reply
• RSPB can not apply to the Esmee Fairburn... WWT are happy to make an application
• London Borough Grant Scheme- application is on hold until there is feedback from the other Trusts
• Funding from the GLA... the GLA is not a grant giving body so this can not be pursued
• Interreg Funding... initial though that we were not eligible. AH pointed out that themes have to be cross boundary e.g. green open spaces, and we would have to find European Partners. There would be money for the action plans but maybe not for a Project Officer.
• Action: Management Working group to look further at Interreg funding

London Borough Biodiversity Forum - The report was given by AH
• Held first meeting on the 28th Feb, next meeting on the 26th June
• Issues at the forum include: The Role of the GLA and the Majors strategy
• Borough updates ( 17 borough represented at last meeting, hoping for 32 next time)
• Schools, education & Biodiversity
• Need to encourage boroughs onto the working groups. There is a need for greater representation and second alternates.
• Action: LBBF to report back along with working groups

1. Point of principle on partner's financial contributions
• There is a need to have sustainable core funding, as trust fund only guarantee money for 2-3 yrs. Therefore the ideal funding model would be via partner contributions.
• The general feeling form the board was more details were needed before an agreement could be reached. A business plan would provide a coherent strategy that could then be presented to the partners.
• Action: CL, MF, JF & RG (input via email) to hold a meeting about business plan opportunities. Stephanie Fudge at WWT should also be contacted. PM has offered to draft a letter of intent (via David Goode) but further details are still need on how this will work.

8. Memorandum of Understanding
• JF with reference to the attached paper outlined the need for a MoU. For the core functioning of the partnership there needs to be organisational commitment rather than individual commitment.

The board Agreed to a MoU with a few minor changes and Agreed to minor changes to the Partnerships ToR

Action: JF to redraft ToF, AH to redraft Borough line. EC to circulate MoU to partner organisations. LBBF to discuss how boroughs should sign up.

9. Partnership Supporters Pledge

• EC outlined the nee d for the pledge, which is needed to broaden Partnership
• The Communications group have raised concerns, particularly if organisations are signing up without agreeing to fulfil any action.
• This can be addressed by providing different target group with a list of ideas, which they can then sign up to.
• Action: Communications Working group to develop the pledge and sign up background information.

10. Borough Biodiversity Action Plan Guidance
• Definite need for further advice, particularly since LWT publication is out of date and the London plan has been published.

The board Agreed to the guidance note.

Action: GLA reps to send out with a covering letter of introduction.

11. AOB
JF gave an update on the Mayors Strategy. Consultation will now start on the 20th Sept with the strategy due for publication next year.

Date of next meeting: 3rd October 2001, 2pm at the GLA


Back to top