David Goode welcomed everyone to the meeting, including James Farrell and the representative from Railtrack. He announced that the Thames Estuary Partnership Project Officer, Caroline Davis, has joined the Partnership and would attend future meetings.

Apologies were received from Ruth Day (LNHS), Mike Fitt (Royal Parks), Tim Hill (LVRPA), Niall Machin (LEU) and Paul Outhwaite (RSPB).

Agreed.

No matters arising.

A written report on the last Project Board meeting (8^th September 1999) was issued with the papers. Ralph Gaines stated that Andy Tomczynski and Alister Hayes have now joined the Board. The meeting had concentrated on the forthcoming Conference and no recommendations were made to the Steering Group.

James Farrell summarised his report, which was issued with the papers for the meeting and outlined the timings and length of the current post. Much of his work has been editing and completing the London Biodiversity Audit for publication. James introduced Our Green Capital: The Introduction to the London Biodiversity Action Plan. Copies were distributed. He also mentioned some of the support work he has undertaken for local biodiversity partnerships at the borough level and was thanked by Richard Bullock for his advice to the Richmond Biodiversity Partnership.

Biodiversity Forum. James mentioned that no progress had yet been made towards a Forum, but an initial meeting was imminent. Action James Farrell

He described the background and purpose of the Forum, which will link with the Biodiversity Charter. This was supported by David Goode who stated that it may be an important mechanism for communication between the boroughs and the Mayor of London/GLA. In response to a question from Jane Carlsen, David Goode said that he hoped the Forum would be able to promote examples of best practice and that it would initially be a borough initiative. He mentioned similarities with other regional initiatives by the Royal Parks and Wildlife 2000.

James Farrell described the Wildlife 2000 initiative as a new attempt to spread to involve and inform local people about biodiversity in the SW London boroughs of Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Wandsworth.

Steve Gilbert reported from the last Communications Topic Group (29^th July 1999) on behalf of Paul Outhwaite. A full report was included in the papers for the meeting. Steve Gilbert stated that Malcolm Whitehead (WWT) had joined the Group. Much of the discussion was around media opportunities connected to the London 100, a list of species derived by Peter Massini for publicity purposes. The list would be used to raise the perspective of biodiversity action planning and RSPBås media unit had offered to assist. Leo Batten asked which UK Priority species are included in the Audit and Paul Sinnadurai replied that they all are.

Terms of Reference. Paul Sinnadurai explained the thinking behind these Terms of Reference as outlined in the papers for the meeting. He stated that once Action Plans are being implemented, the Terms will need to be revised. David Goode asked whether data monitoring should be more clearly stated but Paul said that it was incorporated into Terms 1 and 5. The Steering Group endorsed the Terms of Reference.

Recommendation 1. Paul explained that the Steering Group should consider a revised role for the Topic Group at a later date, as outlined in the papers for the meeting. Recommendation postponed.

Recommendation 2. Paul described the rationale behind this recommendation, which involves making Partnerås biological data freely available to the Topic Group as part of their contribution to the Partnership. James Farrell mentioned Ruth Dayås intention to raise the issue of Intellectual Property Rights at the next HS&D TG meeting. A discussion followed. David Mole mentioned that he would discuss the availability of London Transport data with his organisation. Toby Meadows described Railtrackås current Heritage database and data recording initiatives. Comments were generally supportive of the Recommendation and it was endorsed by the Steering Group, with the proviso that the word 'willingå be replaced by 'encouraged.å

Paul mentioned the need to involve the Environment Agency and Ralph Gaines felt that the organisation had not given high enough priority to Biodiversity Action Plans. Jane Carlsen pointed out the links between Biodiversity Action Plans and Local Environment Agency Plans and David Goode offered to write a letter to the Agency, suggesting that they increase their involvement. Action David Goode

Paul Sinnadurai then described the criteria for prioritising habitats and species in London. This was partly in response to Leo Batten, who agreed with the criteria on the whole. Paul explained the Topic Groupås intention to hold workshops for each potential Action Plan, in order to set objectives and assist the consultation process. Some habitats may be combined to reduce the number of workshops. Paul stated that this stage in the process would require a greater staff complement than a single Project Officer.

Recommendation 3. Paul introduced this recommendation and a discussion followed. Most comments were that it was sometimes possible for representatives to make decisions of behalf of their organisations and sometimes impossible. Ralph Gaines, Andy Tomczynski and David Mole stated that although they did not have staff time specifically devoted to biodiversity action planning, their organisations are attempting to shift the focus of their work in general. David Goode felt that the Action Plan process could be used to produce a framework for action. Action can be recommended to the Steering Group, who can take proposals to their organisations for endorsement.

Leo Batten asked whether draft Action Plans were needed in advance of the workshops. Paul Sinnadurai replied that outlines were needed. He added that objectives in the Action Plans would be a work programme for Action Plans. Steve Gilbert said that Action Plans would make partnerså roles clear.

Leo Batten prompted a discussion on 'cultural significanceå, one of the criteria for choosing habitat and species priorities. He stated that the Topic Group needed to consider whether boroughs and other partners should use a similar set of criteria. Alister Hayes said that similar criteria had been used in the Bromley Biodiversity Action Plan. He felt that most boroughs would follow the criteria used by the London Biodiversity Partnership in developing priorities.

James Farrell outlined the programme for the London Biodiversity Conference on 11^th January 2000. He invited partners to deliver any display boards to the Wetland Centre by 10^th January. Action Partners

James Farrell outlined the proposal to bring the next meeting of the Steering Group and all subsequent meetings of the Project Board and Topic Groups forward by one month. The Steering Group agreed.

Paul Sinnadurai asked about the future role of the London Ecology Unit in providing ecological advice to boroughs. David Goode replied that the GLA will have a strategic approach, but the Government never intended services to boroughs to be stopped. He mentioned that a protocol for the relationship between the GLA and the Partnership would need to be produced and that a new chair may be required. Jane Carlsen expressed her agreement.

Paul Sinnadurai also mentioned the Sustainable GLA Coalition (London Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Friends of the Earth, Sustainable London Trust, Campaign for Rural England. EN & Environment Agency observers) and its role in publicity and providing manifesto material for Mayoral candidates. Publicity work would include the Partnershipås work programme. David Goode stressed the importance of demonstrating links between the Mayorås strategies.

Wednesday 2^nd February 2000. LPAC Conference Room, 2.30 pm.