David Goode welcomed everyone to the meeting, in particular those attending for the first time: Doug Napier and Chris Lee.

2.    Apologies

Apologies were received from Leo Batten, Richard Bullock (WWT), Mike Manuel (British Waterways), Jennifer Adams (Royal Parks), Alison Manning (PLA), Caroline Davis (Thames Estuary Partnership), Jennifer Smith (LB Newham, NE LBBF), Mel Lloyd (LB Barnet, NW LBBF).

Agreed.

In response to Leo Battenås concern that the published Audit had failed to take his comments into account, James Farrell stated that most comments had been incorporated at the time. There are errors in the Audit, but as it evolves these can be corrected.

Chris Skinner responded to questions at the previous meeting about the role of the Communications Topic Group in taking on a funding-related role. The Group felt that this was outside their remit. In a response to a separate question, the Communications Guidelines had been amended to emphasis the role of Local Authorities as decision-makers on the local environment.

Nigel Greenhalgh outlined a forthcoming BTCV biodiversity project, funded in part by Bridge House Estates Trust Fund to implement Biodiversity Action Plans through the involvement of under-represented groups. 6 boroughs will be targeted. These are Ealing and Redbridge (1^st year), Camden and Hounslow (2^nd year), Bexley and Lambeth (3^rd year).

Chris Skinner presented the report of the last meetings. She outlined the proposal for the Partnershipås event.

Peter Massini took over from Mathew Frith as chair of the HSDTG and presented the Groupås report. PM raised questions about the role of the Lead organisations for the Action Plans, and stated that several plans were currently without Leads (grey heron, mistletoe, woodland, house sparrow). English Nature had recently agreed to take on peregrine.

JF stated that he had explained to Leads that their role was to co-ordinate the action in the Action Plan, though they would not necessarily be identified as the actor for all the individual actions, and monitor progress.

Niall Machin presented the written report of the last 2 meetings. Alister Hayes noted that the application to English Nature to fund a stag beetle display was hopeful.

There were 3 recommendations.

1. That the Steering Group consider the draft Forward Plan plan at its meeting on 9 Oct. The final plan to be approved by the Steering Group at its meeting in January 2001.

Niall Machin presented the draft Forward Plan that had been developed by the Project Board. This was discussed at length.

Item 2.2: Ruth Day felt that the Biological Records Centre issues deserved greater prominence. It was agreed to amend the Plan. Action NM

NG felt that 2005 was too long a target for production of all Action Plans. JF stressed the importance of getting good plans that can be implemented, rather than getting too focussed on plan production. It was agreed that a staged approach was important and more detail would be put in here.

Action NM and Project Board

Mike Fitt raised concern over how Action Plans would be implemented in reality. PM felt that realistic and achievable actions were the key to successful implementation. There should be identified mechanisms for implementing the actions.

Item 2.3: It was agreed that an Annual Report would be useful, to give a picture of what was happening on the ground and to flag up priorities for the following year.

Item 3: It was agreed that in principal the Project Officerås post could be funded jointly by partner organisations from 2002. It was felt that partners should receive the proposal well in advance of budget setting for 2002.

There were discussions over the need for support staff from 2002. It was agreed that the Project Board would produce a further options paper on this, to be presented at the next Steering Group meeting.

Action NM and Project Board

Item 4.1-4.3: The Steering Group was broadly in favour of becoming known as 'the Partnershipå, with the recognition that the Project Board would become a steering executive. PM pointed out that such an executive would need to contain a broad range of representatives. It was agreed that the Project Board would re-visit this issue before the next Steering Group meeting.

Action NM and Project Board

It was agreed that the HSDTG would provide guidance on the implementation of action plans, but the Lead Partners would co-ordinate the work on their habitats or species. It was felt that generic issues could be identified as part of Volume 2.

2. If the BHETF decline to fund the Project Officer post at their meeting on 19 October, then the Steering Group request that the GLA be asked to fund the post for 2001. Agreed.
3. The Steering Group agree the suggested format for Volume 2 of the Action Plan (Attached). Agreed.

AH stated that there should be greater stress on the rolling nature of the process. This was agreed … JF to ensure. Action JF

JF presented his report, which included an update on the status of the consultation. Chalk grasslands, gardens and Tidal Thames were late … canals and adder have been delayed to next year.

RD presented her paper. It was agreed that this should be circulated as widely as possible for consultation. Feedback should be sent to RD or Mandy Rudd at the Biological Recording Project, London Wildlife Trust.

Dave Dawson outlined the GLAås work towards a Biodiversity Strategy. An draft would be available to the public in early December. The members of the London Biodiversity Partnership are seen as key in the implementation of the Strategy.

As part of the pre-consultation, DD circulated a letter to all partners. Your comments would be welcomed.

AH stated that the London Borough Biodiversity Forum would cease to operate in sectors, but rather as a whole.

NG stated that BTCV were a funding partner with the New Opportunities Fund. It was hopeful that this could provide a major new source of funds for green space improvement in London.

Potential dates to be circulated by JF.