Steering Group minutes 7 February 2001, 3-Year Structure Plan

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.

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:

The following Species Action Plans will also be produced:

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.

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.

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:

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.

1. 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.
2. Coordinated and led work on the Forward to Action Event, including design of invitation.
3. Employed and managed a temporary contractor to assist on the event.
4. Secured funding for stag beetle display and Forward to Action event.
5. Short-listed and interviewed candidates for replacement … Esther Collis appointed.
6. 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.

1. Carlton London Today. 12 January, twice. Coverage of launch with footage of Ralph Gaines (LWT) speaking at Camley St Natural Park.
2. 7 Days, ITV. 14 January. Coverage of launch with Peter Massini (EN) speaking and David Bellamy in the studio commenting enthusiastically.
3. South London Press. 23 January. ‘Wild Lifelines’ article on Action Plan, colour photo of peregrine, quoted Darren Johnson.
4. BBC World Service. 23 January. Coverage of launch with Esther Collis at Camley Street.
5. Wild London (LWT publication). Article in various issues.
6. LBC’s Friday wildlife show. The presenter Nick Green continues to use publicise London Biodiversity Action Plan species.

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.

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:

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:

Written by Dr Dave Dawson, Greater London Authority, and Mandy Rudd, London Wildlife Trust

Recommendations to the Steering Group appear at the end of the paper

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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

6. The Forward Plan attempts to address the following questions:

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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’:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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).

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

3.1 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:

Not available on the web. Contact the Project Officer if you would like a copy.

Steering Group minutes 7 February 2001