Home Up
| |
Steering Group
7 February 2000
Papers
Steering Group minutes 7 February
2001, 3-Year
Structure Plan
1. Report of Communications Topic Group
The Communications Topic Group has not officially met since
the last Steering Group. However, several members were involved with others in a
series of planning meetings for the ‘Forward to Action’ event, some of which
took place with the facilitators from the Environment Council.
Members of the Group have left – Ruth Hayhurst (Wildlife
2000) and Tamsin Maunder (LWT).
A date for the next meeting of the Topic Group has not been
set.
2. Report from Habitats, Species & Data
Topic Group Meeting on 16 November 2000 and 1 February 2001
The November 16 meeting was concerned with agreeing the format for the Action
Plans and discussing the content of the Generic Action section of Volume 2.
The meeting on 1 February discussed priority habitats for Round 2. The
following list of Habitat Action Plans for production in 2001 is submitted for
approval by the Steering Group:
 | Acid Grassland
Grasslands, Meadows and Pastures
Ponds, Lakes and Reservoirs
Canals
Tidal Thames
Churchyards and Cemeteries
Private Gardens |
The following Species Action Plans will also be produced:
 | Black poplar
Adder |
A decision will be made by the Group on how to take forward the list of
additional Species Statements.
There was a presentation by Peter Harvey on Thames Terrace Grassland
invertebrate fauna. It was agreed that this habitat would be covered by the Acid
Grassland, Grassland Meadow and Pasture, and Wasteland Habitat Action Plans –
as well as the species guidelines that will ensue from habitat plans.
A paper was submitted by Dave Dawson (GLA) and Mandy Rudd (LWT) on Site
Recording Guidelines – a follow-up to Ruth Day’s previous paper submitted at
the last Steering Group meeting. The paper is attached at the end.
The potential re-structuring of the Partnership was briefly considered and it
was thought practical to set up a separate working group for a London
Biodiversity Records Centre.
Recommendations:
A That the Steering Group approves the list of Round 2 Action Plans to be
prepared before end 2001.
B That the Steering Group approves the London Biodiversity Partnership Site
Recording Guidelines.
3. Report of Project Board Meeting on 2 February 2001
Niall Machin stepped down as Chair of the Project Board due to his changing
role in the GLA. He was thanked for his long-standing contribution. James
Farrell will attend in his place during the transition to a new Partnership
structure.
There were 2 recommendations from the Habitats, Species and Data Topic Group.
a. Recommendations from the other Topic Groups
 | Habitats, Species and Data: |
A That the Steering Group approves the list of Round 2 Action Plans to be
prepared before end 2001.
B That the Steering Group approves the London Biodiversity Partnership Site
Recording Guidelines.
The Project Board’s 3 Year Structure Plan was discussed and amended. It is
presented here for the Steering Group and located at the back of these papers.
Several key recommendations result:
b. Project Board recommendations
C That the Steering Group agree the Priorities and Key Tasks as set out in
the 3 Year Plan
D That the Steering Group make a decision on the preferred option for
future funding of the Partnership. The Project Board’s recommendation is
that a number of partners jointly fund a Project Officer as part of a plan to
secure charitable status and therefore funding for the Partnership.
E That the Steering Group approves the suggested new structure for the
Partnership
F That the Steering Group agree that a Memorandum of Agreement needs to be
drawn up to secure organisations’ commitment to the Partnership
4. Project Officer’s Report
James Farrell began a new job at the Greater London Authority on 1 January.
The new Project Officer, Esther Collis, began work on 8 January and is based at
the GLA with James.
Key Work
- Work during this period was concentrated on production of Volume 2 of the
plan: editing, finalising format changes, design etc. Some extra working group
meetings were needed.
- Coordinated and led work on the Forward to Action Event, including design of
invitation.
- Employed and managed a temporary contractor to assist on the event.
- Secured funding for stag beetle display and Forward to Action event.
- Short-listed and interviewed candidates for replacement – Esther Collis
appointed.
- Website (www.lbp.org.uk): Put Volume 2 on the website, which was given a
more polished look overall. Completed work on the Species Audit database for
the website. Minutes of meetings on web. Wildlife 2000 ‘exit report’ on
web.
Background Work
Attended Partnership meetings including London Borough Biodiversity Forum.
Boroughs: attended the first Borough Partnership meeting in Camden and gave
a presentation. Bexley Biodiversity Partnership. Lee Valley Park Biodiversity
Action Plan Executive Committee. Attended Wildlife 2000 exit presentation.
Events: Thames Estuary Partnership Annual Forum, Launch of Westminster
Biodiversity Action Plan, Launch of GLA Biodiversity Strategy.
Other meetings: Rail Link Countryside Initiative to discuss future funding.
London First to discuss Business and Biodiversity – a working group is being
set up.
Met High Trade International & Jacobi Jayne and Thames Water to discuss
ways of funding species boxes in London via business sponsorship and local
involvement.
Media
- Carlton London Today. 12 January, twice. Coverage of launch with footage of
Ralph Gaines (LWT) speaking at Camley St Natural Park.
- 7 Days, ITV. 14 January. Coverage of launch with Peter Massini (EN) speaking
and David Bellamy in the studio commenting enthusiastically.
- South London Press. 23 January. ‘Wild Lifelines’ article on Action Plan,
colour photo of peregrine, quoted Darren Johnson.
- BBC World Service. 23 January. Coverage of launch with Esther Collis at
Camley Street.
- Wild London (LWT publication). Article in various issues.
- LBC’s Friday wildlife show. The presenter Nick Green continues to use
publicise London Biodiversity Action Plan species.
Action Plan Progress
 | Canals, Tidal Thames, Gardens, Chalk Grassland, Black Poplar and Adder were
not part of the First Round of Volume 2. They will be produced as part of
Round 2 in 2001. |
5. Financial Status
Figures for the Partnership’s current financial status will be made
available at the next meeting and hereafter in more detail in the Annual Report.
Income
Bridge House Trust |
Project Officer etc |
Jan 2001 – Dec 2001 |
£33,600 |
English Nature |
Event facilitation |
Dec 2000 |
£2000 |
Total |
|
|
£35,600 |
English Nature also made a contribution to LB Bromley on behalf of the
Partnership. This amount was matched by contributions from London Wildlife
Trust, LB Bromley and PTES:
English Nature |
Stag Beetle displays |
Dec 2000 |
£4400 |
Provisional phasing of expenditure in 2001
Print, Post, Stationery |
£6052 |
Travel & Subsistence |
£548 |
Conference |
£3000 |
Consultants |
£4000 |
Salary and NI |
£20,000 |
Total |
£33,600 |
Additional 1.
London Biodiversity Partnership Site Recording Guidelines
This note provides the London Biodiversity Partnership’s guidance on
dealing with the geographic location of Biological records. Because of the
variety of taxa, methods for recording them, and uses for the records there is
no single ideal recipe for describing locations. However, records are more
useful the smaller and more homogeneous is the ‘site’ from which they come.
For many purposes, especially for rare or unusual occurrences and surveys of
private gardens, a full six-figure grid reference is encouraged. This identifies
the location to within the nearest 50 metres. Such precise locations can be
readily associated with larger areas (such as grid squares or ‘sites’ and
‘sub-sites’), but the converse is not the case.
For postal surveys and other records associated with the address, e.g.
private garden surveys, the full postcode can be used as a location that
is nearly as precise as a full grid reference, and more likely to be known.
Postcodes do not cover anything other than residential areas, and are therefore
not relevant for recording in open spaces. Postcode sectors are not
satisfactory, as on average, there are only 26 per borough.
There are occasions when lists of species are obtained for wider areas. These
larger sites should be appropriate for the purpose. For example, the sensible
size for higher plants may be smaller than that for birds. When adopting such
larger sites it is desirable, where possible, to reach a local agreement. The
aim is to prevent inadvertent disagreement on site and sub-site boundaries where
agreement can meet the purposes.
As a default, where there is no more sensible local decision, the Partnership
has recommended that the present Greater London Authority’s (GLA) wildlife
sites are used. This involves using their site names, codes, grid references and
boundaries. The site details and boundaries will soon be available, on
completion of the contract between the GLA and London Wildlife Trust. As Sites
of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) are recommended for protection in
statutory planning, it is important that they are kept up to date. For this
reason, the present sites will not necessarily remain unchanged.
For recording on rivers, the default will be based on the Environment Agency’s
river corridor sites. These will probably be split into reaches or 500m
stretches for each bank.
For other features, where they fall outside of wildlife sites, the default
will be the GLA’s wildlife habitat survey parcels, grid references, boundaries
and codes. These parcels may also sometimes serve as sub-sites of the GLA
wildlife sites.
So, locations should follow this hierarchy, in order of preference:
Order |
Location |
Description |
1 |
Six-figure grid reference. |
e.g. St Paul’s Cathedral is 320811. |
2 |
Full postcodes. |
Only for information related to the postal area, such as private garden
and stag beetle surveys, e.g. SW19 7HR. |
3 |
Locally decided small, homogeneous site. |
e.g. Management parcel 1 of Sydenham Hill Wood, or Leg of Mutton Pond
Richmond Park. |
4 |
GLA Site of Importance for Nature Conservation |
The site name, site code, grid reference and boundary, e.g. Mitcham
Common, M093, 290680. Habitat parcels within these sites may become
sub-sites, e.g. Wimbledon Park Lake is parcel 22xxx/y. |
5 |
Other designated site boundaries. |
May become a subsite of the GLA SNCI. For example, SSSI and LNR
boundaries, where they are smaller than the Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation, e.g. Richmond Park SSSI is smaller than the SNCI. |
Written by Dr Dave Dawson, Greater London Authority, and Mandy Rudd, London
Wildlife Trust
Additional 2.
London
Biodiversity Partnership 3 Year Structure Plan
Introduction
The purpose of paper is to:
 | To give direction to the Partnership for the next 3 years |
 | To enable a decision to made on the funding of the London Biodiversity
Partnership |
Recommendations to the Steering Group appear at the end of the paper
Background
- The original Project Proposal for the Partnership, produced back in 1997,
envisaged the publication of a Biodiversity Action Plan in 1999 and proposed
a 3 year Project Officer post. Bridge House Estates Trust Fund agreed to a 2
year post which began on 1.1.99, with the option of an additional third
year. This additional year has now been granted.
- The Partnership currently consists of a Steering Group of around 30
organisations and individuals, supported by sub-groups. It represents all
the major nature conservation groups active in London (including statutory
agencies, local and national voluntary groups), together with a range of
private and public sector organisations. New groups and individuals have
joined the Steering Group or sub-groups in an ad hoc fashion.
- The terms of reference (TOR) for the Partnership were published in 'Our
Green Capital: Introduction to the London Biodiversity Action Plan' (2000),
and are reproduced as Annex 1 of this plan.
- Perhaps the most significant change of circumstance since the formation of
the Partnership occurred in April 2000 with the formation of the Greater
London Authority (GLA): the new Mayor for London is required by the GLA Act
1999 to produce a Biodiversity Strategy for London. The emerging
relationship between the Partnership and the GLA is clearly an important
factor in the implementation of Partnership's Action Plan and for its role
in setting biodiversity priorities for the capital.
- In addition, the London Borough Biodiversity Forum was also created in
2000, with the intention of providing a networking facility for local
authority biodiversity contacts and facilitating biodiversity action at the
borough level. Individual Borough Biodiversity Action Plans are not only
significant implementers of the London plan, but will also be an important
influence on the thinking at the London level.
Objectives
- The Forward Plan attempts to address the following questions:
 | What are the priorities for the Partnership over the next 3 years? |
 | What staff and resources will be required to implement this work? How will
this be funded and who will be the employers? |
 | What is the most desirable structure of the Partnership to deliver the
above? |
2. Priorities and key tasks for the Partnership for the next 5 - 10 years
- The following interrelated priority areas have been identified:
A. Co-ordinating biodiversity action and increasing biodiversity
B. Raising awareness and encouraging understanding of biodiversity
C. Making a more effective Partnership
- Using these priorities, the key tasks for the Partnership over the next 3
years are set out below. Although many key tasks meet a number of
priorities, they have been grouped under broad headings for convenience.
A. Co-ordinating biodiversity action and increasing biodiversity
A.1. Process of plan production, implementation and review
- The First Round of plans was published in January 2001. The plans contain
realistic and achievable actions which can be implemented by current
Partners. The Habitats Species and Data Working Group (HSDWG) will provide
guidance on implementation. Lead Partners will be responsible for co-ordinating
the progress of their plan. Progress will be reported back to the HSDWG and
will be summarised in the Partnership's Annual Report. (see 2.6). Action
HSDWG
- Lead Partners are recommended to collate their Action Plan actions in
chronological order at the start of the implementation process – to form a
basic work plan. Likewise, the Communications Working Group (CWG) are
recommended to collate the habitat Flagships together for publicity
purposes. Action Leads and CWG
- The Second Round of plan production will begin in 2001. A timetable for
plan production will be drawn up by the Project Officer, taking into
account: Bridge House requirements (2001-2 only); the need to complete all
habitat plans; the need for any further species plans or statements). Action
Project Officer
- The Action Plan as a whole will be reviewed after 3 years by the
Partnership’s Project Board. Individual Action Plans will be reviewed
annually by the Lead Partner and successes will be put forward to a London
Biodiversity Partnership Annual Report. These annual reviews may lead to the
addition of new objectives and actions to reflect changing circumstances. Action
Project Board
- Action Plans have a finite life. Priorities will be periodically
re-assessed and new Action Plans may be required in response to changes in
species or habitat status. The Project Board will have responsibility for
this.
A.2. Integrating action plans with Borough BAPS
- The review and prioritisation process should take account of existing and
forthcoming borough Biodiversity Action Plans. The borough focus on species
may need to be reflected at the London-wide level, for example. It will be
necessary to keep track of progress at the borough level – which should be
coordinated by the GLA, who have a requirement to take account of borough
biodiversity plans. Action GLA
A.3. Co-ordinate and maximise resources for biodiversity work
- Many of the action plans identify a need to review existing funding
programmes to enable implementation to be effective. This review needs to be
a priority and should be completed by summer 2001, as indicated in the
Generic Action. Action GLA
A.4. Secure funding for continuation of the Project Officer post(s)
- Current Bridge House Estates Trust Fund grant expires in early January
2002. After this point, four options exist – which can essentially be
split into ‘do nothing and lose a Partnership post’ or ‘various
organisations contributing to a post’:
 | (i) Project Officer post ended |
 | (ii) Project Officer post funded by arrangement with partners |
 | (iiii) Partnership formalised as a charity-company using Thames Estuary
Partnership (or similar) model. Part of this model may include a membership
scheme |
 | (iv) Admin post funded by arrangement with partners. No proactive work |
- The Partnership received c£36000 from the Bridge House Trust in 2001.
This is sufficient for the employment of one Project Officer but would not
provide enough for admin support.
- The Thames Estuary Partnership is funded primarily by 6 partners. They
provided c£84000 in year ending 30.9.00. This funding contributes to the
employment of staff that provide a secretariat to the management
structure, deliver core tasks and carry out fundraising. Action Groups
exist for various topic areas, a Management Group consists of Directors
and Trustees and provides strategic direction. The Steering Group advises
and guides the Partnership and consists of chairs of the groups and other
representatives. A Forum meets annually by open invitation.
- Consideration should also be given to the provision of extra support for
the Project Officer post either in additional posts, or via increased
support from Partner organisations (the preferred option at the last
Steering Group meeting (9.10.00)). The Project Board’s recommendation is
that a number of partners jointly fund a Project Officer as part of a plan
to secure charitable status and therefore funding for the Partnership.
This combines options (ii) and (iii).
A.5. Continue to develop a biodiversity records centre for London
- A separate working group for a Biodiversity Records Centre will be set
up. LNHS, WWT, GLA, EA and EN are likely core partners. Data will remain
part of the Habitats, Species and Data Working Group.
B. Raising awareness and encouraging understanding of biodiversity
B.1. Raising awareness of biodiversity work
- This is coordinated by the Communications Working Group. A key aspect of
this work will be to develop guidelines for dealing with the media to
ensure that the Partnership benefits as well as individual partners. Action
CWG
C. Making a more effective Partnership
C.1. Strengthening the Partnership
2.16 The re-structuring proposals are aimed at making a more effective
Partnership. Presently, the Partnership consists of active individuals, with
little collective involvement and responsibility from member organisations.
This must be achieved if the goal of the biodiversity action planning
process is to be realised. To strengthen the commitment of the existing
Partnership organisations will be encouraged to become members by signing a
Memorandum of Agreement.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). This would be signed by groups who are
committed to the process and are to be involved in implementing action.
These would then become 'members' of the Partnership. This is considered to
be appropriate for most of the groups currently on the Steering Group. The
current TOR will be simplified for this purpose.
The MOA should have a welcoming statement that includes an equalities
statement.
C.2. Broadening the Partnership
- The Partnership needs to introduce a mechanism in order to broaden its
constituency. The following is suggested:
Supporter's pledge. Other groups and individuals sign a pledge and acquire a
Supporter's certificate. They are put on the mailing list and invited to
Partnership meetings (see below).
C.3. Making links with business
2.17 The Partnership will continue to progress the proposal for a Business
and Biodiversity Post for London with English Nature. This might be funded by EN
and devote a proportion of its time to developing links between the Partnership
and the local business community. Action Management Working Group
3. What sort of structure will achieve the above?
3.1 At the last meeting of the Steering Group it was agreed that the
Partnership should be restructured. Diagram 1 depicts how this could be
achieved.
3.2 In brief, the existing Steering Group transforms into the wider
Partnership and meets twice per year. All are welcome and will be encouraged to
sign a pledge and acquire a supporters certificate. This wider Partnership will
meet twice per year: once to hold a conference/workshop; and once to have a more
formal meeting (like an AGM).
3.3 The Project Board transforms into more of a Steering Group role
but retains its name. This will necessitate a broadening of the existing Project
Board to reflect the broader representation of the Partnership. Having a maximum
membership of 10-12, the Board will play a co-ordinating role for the Working
Groups, resolve any conflicts, pursue the implementation of generic actions,
produce the annual report and review this 3 year plan. Members will sign a
Memorandum of Agreement. Recommendations from wider Partnership meetings will be
co-ordinated by the Project Board Board.
Membership should include: the 4 chairs of the working groups; the chair of
the Borough Forum; and appropriate representatives from Partnership Members. The
Quorum for the Project Board is the chairs of the working groups, or a mandated
substitute.
On those occasions where a strategically important decision is to be taken
(e.g. funding of the Partnership), the Project Board will call an Executive
Meeting where the membership would be widened.
3.4 For the transition, it is proposed that the existing Board will form the
nucleus of the new Board and recruit new members following submissions of
interest. This is EN, RSPB, Borough rep, GLA, LWT, Thames Water
3.5 The current Habitats, Species and Data Topic Group continues to
play a key role in overseeing the production, implementation and review of
actions plans. Its members will need to be representatives of organisations, in
line with the effort to increase whole organisation responsibility. As a core,
its membership should comprise EN, EA, LWT, LNHS, GLA, business rep. and borough
rep.
3.6 A new Biodiversity Records Centre Working Group is formed. English
Nature now has impetus to push this proposal forward and a separate group is
required, chaired by EN. Membership should include: EN, EA, LWT, LNHS, GLA,
business rep. and borough rep.
3.7 The Communication Working Group continues to oversee the
Partnership's communication strategy, an important component of which will be to
produce guidelines for Partnership members when communicating with the press.
This Group may require the revision of its membership due to recent staff
changes.
3.8 A new Management Working Group is set up. This group will address
generic Partnership issues such as the Project Officer post (funding,
administration), funding bids etc. It is proposed that this is chaired by RSPB
(as current post employing body). It should be a small compact group composed of
individuals with real experience and commitment who are prepared to undertake
significant work as group members. Decisions will be agreed by the Project
Board.
3.9 Members of all groups will be present as representatives and mandated by
their organisations.
3.10 Guidelines for Chairs will be drawn up. These will include the need for
Chairs to drawn up agendas 2 weeks in advance, submitted to the Project Officer
who will put them on the website. Questions and issues submitted by others
should be brought up in Any Other Business.
3.11 The proposed new structure reinforces decision making at the Working
Group level. Decisions are fed upwards to the Project Board who will ensure
consistency - both among the groups and in terms of the Partnerships overall
objectives, priorities and terms of reference.
3.12 As a result of the recent December 2000 workshop, it is also proposed
that greater participation in the Partnership process and greater transparency
is sought. Therefore, the following are proposed:
 | All Working Groups and the Project Board have a mechanism whereby other
members or supporters can attend their meetings. One proposal would be to
have 2 extra places available to others at the discretion of the Chair.
Those expressing an interest in attending would be considered. |
 | There should be an open invitation to submit questions in advance to the
Working Groups. The Chair would have responsibility for ensuring that a
response is given from a member of the group. |
 | The value of newsletters to keep everyone informed of activities and
progress should investigated. |
4. Recommendations to Steering Group
 | That the Steering Group agree the Priorities and Key Tasks as set out in
the 3 Year Plan |
 | That the Steering Group make a decision on the preferred option for future
funding of the Partnership. The Project Board’s recommendation is that a
number of partners jointly fund a Project Officer as part of a plan to
secure charitable status and therefore funding for the Partnership. |
 | That the Steering Group approves the suggested new structure for the
Partnership |
 | That the Steering Group agree that a Memorandum of Agreement needs to be
drawn up to secure organisations’ commitment to the Partnership |
Annex 1
Annex 1. LBAP Terms of Reference
To establish an effective, committed and participatory partnership to
conserve and enhance biodiversity in London.
To identify broad aims and objectives to ensure biodiversity conservation in
London.
To ensure that national targets for species and habitats specified in the UK
Action Plan are translated into effective action at the London level.
To identify the information required to effectively conserve London's
wildlife and to act to remedy deficiencies.
To develop targets and costed action plans for the conservation of habitats
and species that are of international, national, regional or local importance,
or are of special value to people living and working in London. The special
circumstances that arise from London's urban character should be acknowledged.
To promote access to and enjoyment of wildlife in London.
To resolve conflicts between nature conservation and other interests.
To promote public awareness and interest in the wildlife of London, raise
the profile of nature conservation and encourage people's involvement and
personal commitment to the implementation of action plans.
To produce guidance to boroughs and other key organisations on the
implementation of habitat and species action plans.
To publish the London Biodiversity Action Plan and so establish priorities
and action plans, incorporating a mechanism for monitoring and review.
Annex 2
Full list of proposed action plans and species statements
Round 1
Habitat Action Plans |
Species Action Plans (AP)
Statements (S) |
Woodland |
Bats (AP) |
Heathland |
Water vole (AP) |
Chalk grassland |
Black redstart (AP) |
Wasteland |
Stag beetle (AP) |
|
Mistletoe (AP) |
|
Adder (AP) |
|
Black poplar (AP) |
|
Sand martin (AP) |
|
Grey heron (AP) |
|
Tower mustard (AP) |
|
House sparrow (AP) |
|
Peregrine (AP) |
|
House martin (S) |
|
Humble Bumble (S) |
Round 2
Habitats |
Species statements |
Gardens |
Hedgehog |
Canals |
Grass snake |
Tidal Thames |
Great crested newt |
Open landscapes with ancient/old trees |
Skylark |
Hedgerows |
Kestrel |
Acid grassland |
Brown argus |
Grassland, meadows and pasture |
Small copper |
Grazing marsh and floodplain grassland |
London rocket |
Marshland |
|
Reedbed |
|
Farmland |
|
Lakes, ponds and reservoirs |
|
Parks, amenity grasslands and city squares |
|
Railway linesides |
|
Churchyards and cemeteries |
|
Rivers and streams |
|
Diagram 1
Proposed new structure
Not available on the web. Contact the Project
Officer if you would like a copy.
Steering Group minutes 7 February 2001
Home | |
|