Steve Gilbert (RSPB)

Esther Collis (London Biodiversity Project Officer)

Doug Napier (London Borough Biodiversity Forum & LB Hounslow)

James Farrell (GLA)

Stephanie Fudge (WWT)

Peter Massini (EN)

Caroline Arnold (Thames Estuary Partnership)

1. Actions from previous meeting

Action: JF to draft terms of reference - Terms of reference have now been drafted and agreed

Funding options for a Project Officer and Partnership- please refer to section 3 for follow-up on actions.

Action: JF to draft MoU and circulate to working group- to be agreed at next meeting- MoU has been drafted and is now ready to go to the Project board

2. Functioning of Project Board

General discussion on the functioning of old steering group. Previously the group received progress reports from all the topic groups and the Project Officer with the steering group providing comments and recommendations on any issues raised. The key question raised was are we still going to have the same format with the restructuring of the partnership? Decisions are now made independently by each of the working groups. The project board new role is to co-ordinate these decisions and check for any conflicts. With this in mind each working group needs to provide the project board with of the key relevant decisions they have made. It was also decided that the Project Officer still needs to provide a progress report for the Project Board as members may miss issues as they do not sit on all of the groups.

Action: SG to draft a short paper on the functioning of the Project Board

Chair for Project Board

There is a need for a comprehensive London representative to act as chair. Historical continuity if GLA chair (James Farrell), other appropriate candidates are LWT or a Borough rep.

This issues is to be debated at the Project Board meeting

Action: SG to contact Ralph Gaines and Alister Hayes about acting as chair for the group and to report back to PO

3. Future Funding for the Partnership and the Project Officer

Previous Action: RSPB to approach Bridge House Trust for continued funding – no further funding is available from the BHT

Previous Action: SG to lead on application to John Ellerman Foundation.

A letter has been send to the JEF to get initial sounding, could provide 3 year grant at £20k/yr. RSPB have asked for £40k/yr, there has been no response as yet but are optimistic about proposals as we fit the bill particularly in relation to Partnerships. The ball is now JEF court.

Previous Action: EC to approach LWT and WWT to ask if in principle they would apply to the Esmee Fairbairn for funding – LWT are unable to apply, WWT are willing and happy to apply. Stephanie Fudge has been invited to this meeting to discuss the issue in more detail.

WWT can go ahead with an application to EF, but have received previous funding. There is concern over why RSPB can’t apply for funding, as this may be applicable to WWT. WWT will now pursue further once they have received feedback from RSPB.

Action: SG to find out more details and report to WWT. EC to approach other partners about Esmee funding if other options prove unsuccessful.

Previous Action: EC to co-ordinate to London Borough Grant Scheme – on hold, depends on progress with other applications

Previous Action: JF to asses possibility of GLA to fund independent PO – very unlikely as Strategy needs funding, but could be followed up.

Previous Action: CD to find out more about INTERREG funding – CD has sent info to JF.

Action: JF to circulate info to rest of working group

4. Guidance to Boroughs on BAP production

There is a clear need to provide the Boroughs with more guidance. EC & JF provide individual guidance and spend a lot of time commenting on BAP’s. This tends to be generic comments on format etc so to save time and get the Borough up to speed have produced a brief guide which focuses on key issues.

Action: guide needs to go to the Project Board for approval. Could then be circulated to the Boroughs with a covering letter from the GLA reps introducing themselves as their contact point.

5. Partnership MoU, Terms Of Reference and Supporters Pledge

MoU

This not a legally binding document, more formal in approach but seeks encourage more commitment from core partners. There is however still a problem with who are the Partnership.

To bring the Boroughs on board the MoU would have to go to all Chief Executives. There could be a rolling programme for signing up. As Boroughs publish their plans they sign up.

Action: Issue to be raised at next LBBF

Terms of Reference

All text has now been agreed.

Action: JF to rework diagram of Partnership Structure

Supporters Pledge

The supporters pledge is needed to broaden the Partnership. The Communications group has raised concerns over the pledge, particularly if organisations are signing up without agreeing to fulfil any action. This could be addressed by providing different sectors with list of ideas to sign up to. The pledge also needs a control mechanism and needs to go to the Project Board for validation.

6. AOB

No other issues raised

7. Date of next meeting

25^th Sept. 01, 2pm at GLA