Menu:
Home
Up
PB060301
PB Agenda
PB190601
PBTOR
PBmins031001
PBmins140502
PBmins260303
PBmins020503
|
| |
 |
Project
Board
Minutes
19 June 2001
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
- Welcome & Introductions
EC welcomed everybody to the 1st new Project Board
meeting and attendees introduced themselves
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 can not 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
- 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
Home
|
|
| | |
|