View the Steering Group papers

1. Welcome and introduction

David Goode welcomed everyone to the meeting, in particular those who were attending for the first time: Anne Homyer and Emma Wilson.

2. Apologies

Apologies were received from Mel Lloyd (LB Barnet, NW London BBF), Jennifer Smith (LB Newham, NE London BBF), Alison Manning (PLA), Valerie Woodifield, (Countryside Agency), Christine Skinner (RSPB), Carolyn Harrison (UCL), Nigal Greenhalgh (BTCV), Peter Massini (EN), Doug Napier (LB Hounslow, SW LBBF)

3. Chairås address

DG announced that the Mayorås draft biodiversity strategy is on the GLA website under assembly docs. The draft strategy is currently undergoing consultation with the assembly and functional bodies. The consultation process will continue until Aug and is then due for publication at the end of the year. The partnership needs to think about links with the strategy (How do the action plans integrate?) This needs to be addressed at a later date.

4. Minutes from last meeting

Agreed

5. Matters arising

None

6. Report from Communication Topic Group

JF reported that the CTG has not officially met since the last SG meeting, some members of the group have left. It was agreed that there is a need to revise the group. Action: PO & CWG

7. Report from Habitats, Species and Data Topic Group

SG presented the report on behalf on PM. It was noted that Parks, Amenity Grassland & City Squares have been omitted from list. Some action plans such as Black poplar, Tidal Thames already have leads, but most do not

RG suggested that the current list for completion is very ambitious and that a smaller list of priority habitats needs to be selected. MM suggested a focus on waterways; LB suggested a priority for grasslands.

DD, JF, EC argued that all habitats were a priority. All should be taken forward with the realisation that many may not be completed by the end of the year.

LB & AT proposed that grassland should also be called neutral grassland, DD emphasised that a non-technical name for grassland was preferred. It was Agreed that the HSDWG decide the title early in the plans production.

Recommendation A: That the SG approves the list of Round 2 Action Plans. It was Agreed to go ahead with all plans. Action: PO & HSWG

 

Site Recording Guidelines were submitted to the group. RD emphasised the need to issue guidance. There was concern over whether the guidance was too broad and open to interpretation. RG pointed out that we could not dictate only suggest, and that it was the role of the new biodiversity records centre to provide in-depth guidance.

Recommendation B: That the SG approves the Partnership Site Recording Guidelines. It was Agreed to adopt the guidelines. Guidelines will be available on the website and are to be circulated via LHNS newsletter and to users of recorder 2000. Action: JF & RD

8. Report of Project Board

JF presented the 3-year structure plan on behalf of NM, who has now stepped down as Chair and thanked him for all his hard work.

Recommendation C: That the SG agree the priorities and Key Tasks as set out in the 3-year plan. The SG Agreed to the priorities and Key Tasks, items A1 to A3

Recommendation D: That the SG make a decision on the preferred option for future funding of the Partnership. The project board recommendation is that a number of partners jointly fund a PO as part of a plan to secure charitable status and therefore funding for the Partnership

Discussion as to whether the Major would fund the PO post. RG & JF stressed how the partnership needs to be kept independent. There was also concern regarding the Thames Estuary Approach (charitable status), particularly over ownership of the Partnership. Other options included individual members to approach their organisations for funding approach another charitable trust, such as Esmee Fairburn, or approaching the business sector. JF pointed out that these are only short-term options.

It was Agreed that there is a need for a PO who needs to be independent and to further investigate the options to achieve this. Further funding ideas and a biding paper to be prepared in 6 weeks time. Action: Project Board

RG suggested that the Biodiversity Records centre should be a sub-group of Habitat & Species and not report directly to the Project Board, as the record centre is not exclusive to the Partnership.

The SG Agreed to the new structure for the Partnership. The Project board is to meet and then decide who else will be on the board. Current members of the SG are to inform the PO if they would like to stay on the PB. Action: PO, Project Board

It was Agreed that a draft Memorandum of Agreement for active members and organisations and a Supporters Pledge for individual members should go for comment to the current SG. Action: Project Board

DG thanked JF on behalf of Partheship for all his hard work as PO. JF has now started work for the GLA.

JF presented the PO report; much work has focused on production of Volume 2 of the launch event. EC has distributed Action plans to all main borough libraries. The website has now been updated. It was Agreed that all current members should have 2 way links to the site.

No comments

Grey Heron … possibly TW, need to assess resources, which will be end of Feb

Tower Mustard … EA are meeting with EN

AH explained that there has been a successful bid from HLF, including partners contributions a sum of £70,000 for the next 3 years to go on projects such as peopleås perceptions, interpretation, management & volunteer support.

MM presented British Waterways newly produced technical manual. British Waterways & Biodiversity, A framework for waterway wildlife strategies, which are available to partners.

RB will shortly circulating a letter regarding WWT birthday party at the end of May and the series of poster displays on Biodiversity.

Steering Group papers