Memorandum submitted by the Yorkshire
Naturalists' Union
The Yorkshire Naturalists' Union (YNU) is a
registered charity and was founded in 1861. Its aims are to promote
the scientific investigation of the fauna, flora and physical
features of the historic county of Yorkshire and to encourage
the conservation of these by means of a) the Union's publications
and b) the holding of field and indoor meetings in the Yorkshire
Watsonian vice-counties 61-65. In the terms of the Charities Act
2006, the Union qualifies for charitable status as a charity,
for the advancement of environmental protection and improvement
of nature.
The Union has two categories of membership:
i.
the natural history societies of Yorkshire (or strictly,
the historic county of Yorkshire). Excluding the Yorkshire Wildlife
Trust which is not a natural history society, there are 43 affiliated
societies with about 5000 members;
ii.
individual members of whom there are currently about
400. Not all individual members are resident in Yorkshire but
they will mostly have some association with the historic county.
The Union has twenty-eight Recorders covering
various taxonomic groups and the membership is organised into
sections covering these groups. Union membership includes a number
of very eminent naturalists. Many of the specialists however are
elderly and are difficult to replace.
The Union works closely with the Yorkshire and
Humber Region's Biological (Ecological) Record Centres and was
a founding partner in the Yorkshire and Humber Environmental Data
Network. Our Recorders are available to assist the Record Centres
with refereeing critical groups. Our Ornithological Section deals
with refereeing rare birds in line with national guidelines.
The Charity employs no staff and is managed
by ten trustees elected for a period of three years. Our General
Secretary, who undertakes nearly all administration, performs
day-to-day management.
We publish:
2.
The Bulletin in the spring and autumn. This
contains articles on natural history and conservation together
with the business of the Union and notices of meetings.
5.
An Annual Report containing not only the statutory
requirements, but natural history highlights.
6.
From time to time specialist works on aspects of
the flora and fauna of Yorkshire. A recent example is PP Abbott
(2005) Plant Atlas of Mid-West Yorkshire.
The Natural Sciences Committee composed of the
trustees, representatives of the sections and representatives
of the Union's Vice Presidents manages scientific affairs of the
Charity. Through this committee, field meetings are organised,
projects considered and reports are received. The Union organises
around 20 field meetings each year. The Union organises a major
conference on a biodiversity or regional theme each year. In 2007
the theme was Biodiversity of the North York Moors, in
2008 the theme will be Monitoring Biodiversity in Yorkshire
and in 2009 the proposed theme will be The role of linear continuities
in Biodiversity. The sections organise indoor meetings during
the winter months.
Following a special conference in September
2003 to consider Recruiting and Training the Next Generation
of Field Naturalists (a copy of the Conference Proceedings
is appended as part of this evidence), the Union set up an
Education Committee. We comment on our education work in our answer
to question 13 below.
EVIDENCE
We present our evidence in the form of answers
to the questions you have asked.
Questions 1-6 The State of systematics and taxonomy
research
As a society we will not comment on these issues
but we believe that some of our members will comment in a personal
capacity.
Questions 7-11 Data collection, management, maintenance
and dissemination
7. Does the way in which taxonomic data is
collected, managed and maintained best meet the needs of the user
community? What is the state of local and national recording schemes?
Members of the YNU are principal providers of
taxonomic data to the user community. Through its various activities,
reports and publications the YNU has also long been a major user
of the data that its members collect. The YNU also provides an
official data verification service to the Regional Biological
Records Centre (LRC) and many of our members give assistance to
other LRC's outside of Yorkshire. Our members are also members
of many national societies and recording schemes.
The composition of the user community and its
needs has changed drastically over recent years and data collection
and management is being adapted to meet the new circumstances.
With the adoption by Ordnance Survey of the National Grid, field
naturalists initially collected data on a 10km square basis. This
is no longer adequate. To meet the needs of local land-use planning,
the requirements of special land management tools (Biological
Action Plans, Water Level Management Plans etc.) and to provide
the data base needed for monitoring the distributional consequences
of climate change, requires, in comparison with past practice,
data on a much finer geographic scale, for a broader range of
taxa and with more frequent and regular collection. Future data
will need to be provided and stored electronically using accessible
and flexible software. The YNU is fully committed to a programme
of improvements in data supply and is cooperating with the regional
biological records centres to meet these requirements. However
there are a number of problems:
I.
A back-log of both recent and historic data exist
for many taxa. Some of the material held (this includes both two
and three-dimensional material) has been collected in great detail
over extended time periods and has great scientific value. However,
much of it is not at present in electronic format and will often
not meet the full desiderata of the regional LRC's, without considerable
work by knowledgeable recorders. For the most part these data
have been collected for private, not social purposes. To put it
onto national and regional databases requires verification and
interpretation. Making past data suitable for present and future
purposes, is an expensive and time consuming process. Most LRCs
lack the funding and staff resources to input the backlog of available
data. There is a very real risk that some of these data will be
lost, or so scattered (most of it is in paper format) that it
will not be possible to utilise it.
II.
For the future, data gatherers, many of whom are
unpaid volunteers, will need to be supplied with the requisite
software and to be trained in the use of that software. We see
this as a responsibility jointly of Natural England and the regional
record centres. The YNU has neither the resources nor the expertise
necessary to take on this responsibility. For the field naturalist
the opportunity cost of providing detailed electronic records
is time spent on field work. Electronic record creation must thus
be an efficient process that takes no more time and effort for
the recorder than is absolutely necessary. Proper training in
the use of well-designed software is in the interest of both users
and suppliers of data.
III.
Transferring past and future data to regional record
centres is not simply a technical problem. Difficulties arise
because those who generate the data are unwilling to make the
data freely available to all. This is in part an issue of trust.
In the past data generators have known what their data was to
be used for and who would use it. They shared common attitudes
with the traditional users of the data (national and regional
recorders; Natural England and its predecessors) on the importance
of species protection and stewardship. Thus the data gatherer
had confidence that data which could place biota at risk (eg by
revealing the location of rare lepidoptera or plants to unscrupulous
collectors, or placing sensitive breeding birds at risk of disturbance)
or could damage relationships with land owners and hence future
site access, would be safeguarded. It cannot be assumed that new
classes of users (eg local authorities and commercial consultancies)
will share the values of the data collectors and, to safeguard
legitimate interests, controls are needed. We note the moves by
the National Biodiversity Network to improve standards of data
supply and user agreements and their work in encouraging Local
Record Centres to provide data suppliers and end users with standard
agreements. We note also the difficulties placed by the Environmental
Information Regulations on Charities such as ours. The degree
of distrust by the voluntary sector may mean that significant
information is not being made available to the public sector,
who may well be in a position to enhance the conservation status
of the species/ habitat concerned. The solution being explored
is a common contract between data providers and the record centres.
While we are in favour of this, it is our view there is a prior
need for more dialogue between data providers and record centres.
The YNU will play its part in facilitating this dialogue.
8. What is the role of the major museums and
collections? How are the taxonomic collections curated and funded?
YNU members have long been major users of the
natural history collections held within Yorkshire's Museum. They
are also an important source of the material deposited in both
in these collections and collections held further afield. In addition
the YNU regularly assists in the identification and verification
of material for museums within the region.
Most regional museums are unable to fund even
the most basic research and many do not have the funding, space
or expertise to place the bulk of their collections in taxonomic
order. The regional museums do, however, play a major role in
housing local, regional and even international collections and
allowing access to these collections by local specialists and
recorders, without which these people would be unable to check
and verify the identifications of data submitted to LRCs and ultimately
to the NBN database.
The development of the Regional Museum HUBS
and the extra funding which came with this development from DCMS,
has made some difference but much of this extra funding has been
wasted due to a lack of long-tern strategic planning. Governments
like "quick fixes" which gain them publicity. One of
the easiest of these "quick fixes" is to spend more
on educational projects, often with little co-ordinated planning
and few long-term gains. The original plans for this extra funding
for museums were intended, at least in the first few years, to
build capacity and expertise within these institutions. Funding
should be allocated to museums to fund strategic taxonomic tasks
by employing trained taxonomists, as well as funding the proper
storage of their collections.
The many differing documentation systems used
by museums make it difficult to extract data from reference collections
via these data-bases for use in national recording schemes. Some
system needs to be established by which this data can be extracted
and used as the historical base for the modern LRC data-bases.
]
9. What progress has been made in developing
a web-based taxonomy? how do such initiatives fit in with meeting
demand for systematics and taxonomy information? How do UK-led
initiatives fit with international initiatives?
We do not have any significant experience of
web based initiatives, although we have members who are working
on the development and testing of identification keys downloaded
from the web.
10. What needs to be done to ensure that web-based
taxonomy information is of high quality, reliable and user-friendly?
In our view we are a long way from a situation
with any taxon where a web-site will replace the verification
and teaching functions currently performed by YNU.
For taxa where the taking of specimens is not
permitted, such as birds, or not practised, good identification
sources, whether paper or web-based, can make the recorder's life
harder not easier. In the construction of a description of a scarce
species they assist in supplying key identification features which
may have been missed in the initial observation!
Although the web can be used to rapidly update
taxonomic identification points, the observer must check that
the observation follows the key anatomical points of the species
under consideration. It takes experience to do this, particularly
where examination of the genitalia is essential. In other species
in both the plant and animal kingdom, the species may only be
identified by a professional with access to DNA analysis.
11. How does the taxonomic community engage
with the non-taxonomic community? What role do field studies play?
Taxonomy has declined considerably in recent
years. It is no longer a core element in biology degrees and there
are few taxonomists in university biology departments and regional
museums. In contrast to the past, those trained taxonomists that
remain are, for the most part, not members of the YNU and do not
interact with it.
The YNU's principal concern is with biological
recording which requires a combination of taxonomic and field
skills. In the UK these skills are combined in its community of
amateur naturalists. This community has long played a major role
in the collection, identification, recording, and developing knowledge
of, flora and fauna. It is a major strength of the UK system that
has resulted in a wealth of detailed knowledge of its biota and
its distribution that substantially exceeds that of almost any
other country. It has meant in the past, and for the future will
continue to mean, that the needs of users for biological data
can be met at an amazingly low cost. In our judgement maintaining
the vigour of this community of amateur naturalists means that
any increase in biological recording to aid understanding, inter
alia of the impacts of climate change, can be met at low (but
not zero) social cost.
Amateur naturalists acquire, usually by private
study, the taxonomic skills necessary to identify specimens of
the taxa they study. Many naturalists are able to read a scientific
description and use it to identify specimens, but may not have
the ability or the confidence to make such a description. The
taxonomic skills needed for successful and reliable recording
vary widely between taxa. At one extreme, taking specimens of
birds is illegal and the bird recorder does not need the ability
to produce a full plumage description in order to create reliable
records. At the other extreme taxonomic skills are essential for
botanists and mycologists.
The identification of live non-captive specimens,
normal practice with birds, is spreading among the Insecta
assisted by improved optics. Capture is generally seen as unnecessary
for identification of Odonata, most Orthoptera and
many families of Lepidoptera. Capture and release is even
more widespread. Current thinking is that routine taking of specimens
should be confined to taxa where identification is not otherwise
possible. Where closely related species require dissection, recording
at the level of the genus may be accepted practice, supplemented
from time to time by the taking of specimens to monitor intra-generic
distribution. This is the case with macro-Lepidoptera.
The ability to identify outside of the laboratory
is an important component of field skills. Our experience is that
students leaving universities with biology degrees, even at the
Masters level, have few field skills and have no ability to identify.
We view this with grave concern. Our educational activities discussed
below are in part directed at giving field skills to biological
science graduates holding posts where field skills are need; countryside
wardens and managers; ecologists in local authorities and ecological
consultancies; museum staff; biology teachers in schools.
Questions 12 and 13. Skills base
12. What are the numbers and ages of trained
taxonomists working in UK universities and other organisations?
See our answer to Q.11. We are unable to answer
this question even for Yorkshire, but our view is that the number
is declining and that it is below what is needed. We are particularly
concerned about the lack of trained taxonomists in the major regional
museums. Our diagnosis of the problem is that the museums services
lack the funding to employ staff and that the lack of job opportunities
has discouraged the universities from training them. The UK situation
contrasts unfavourably with the rest of Europe where taxonomic
skills are seen as necessary even in regional museums. The base
of amateur naturalists in the UK has meant that the shortage of
taxonomists has not undermined biological recording.
13. What is the state of training and education
in systematics and taxonomy? Are there any gaps in capacity? Is
the number of taxonomists in post, and those that are being trained,
sufficient to meet current and future needs across all taxonomic
subject areas?
See our answers to questions 11 and 12. The
shortage of trained taxonomists would be seen as severe were the
supply of experienced field naturalists to decline. However in
that event it would probably be impossible to meet the UK's demand
for biological data at acceptable cost. Some simple economic analysis
underlying this proposition is appended.
Training the next generation of Field Naturalists
June 2007, J.A. Newbould
In the face of widespread concern that the long
UK tradition of amateur field naturalists might, in fact, be under
threat, YNU organised a conference in 2003 with the title of Training
the Next Generation of Field Naturalists. There were several
reasons for this concern:
— the age profile of the current stock
of experienced field naturalists. The average age appeared to
be above 60 and was particularly high for specialists in some
important taxa, with difficult identification problems (eg diptera;
coleoptera; hemiptera)
— declining and aging membership of
local natural history societies
— a perception that the number of school
biology teachers possessing field skills was declining
While the evidence is open to alternative interpretations,
it was felt that there was sufficient basis for concern to warrant
the launch of a training initiative. Accordingly, in 2006, in
a partnership with the Yorkshire and Humber, Museums, Libraries
and Archives Association, Union members provided seven training
days in different aspects of taxonomy to over 70 people. These
workshops aimed at imparting the skills and knowledge necessary
for recording specific taxa (eg Odonata; Bombus
species; insects in general; marine biology; mollusca; birds)
or habitat types (eg hedgerows; grasslands). Workshop design embraced
elements of class-room, laboratory and field work and utilised
museum collections. As an unfortunate by-product of child protection
legislation, participation was restricted to adults. Participants
included staff from museum services, local authority environmental
services departments; ecological consultancies, environmental
NGO's, teachers and amateur naturalists wishing to extend their
skills to cover new taxa.
Because of changes in Museums, Library and Archives
Associations functions we were unable to continue this partnership
in 2007. However we continued to provide training in the same
format but with lower numbers of participants. It is our intention
to extend the scope and coverage of this programme in future years.
Our training programmes have been extended to
provide field skills training to some current university students.
At the request of the course director we provide field training
sessions for students on an MSc in conservation. In addition we
have offered weekend training days for post-graduates and also
training in wild flowers and habitat identification. The feed-back
from these endeavours has been strongly positive (eg recent graduates
saying that they learnt more about taxonomy from our training
days than in three years at University).
ADDITIONAL
NOTE:
Some Simple Economics of Biological Data
Gathering
Production of biological data, D, requires the
services of field naturalists N, and taxonomists T. The services
of field naturalists and taxonomists can be substituted for each
other but the substitution possibilities are limited. The extent
to which field naturalists can acquire taxonomic skills is limited,
so some trained taxonomists are required if a given level of data
recording is to be maintained. Equally, however many taxonomists
sit in the laboratories and museums, some one has to be in the
field collecting specimens.
The services of field naturalists are available
free to society but the training of taxonomists has a positive
cost. Level D1 of biological data will be provided using the minimum
possible level of taxonomists T1 and using N1 services of field
naturalists. This is efficient; since they are available for free,
field naturalists are used to the point where their marginal product
is zero.
Now assume that the supply of field naturalists
is restricted as a result of a failure to train the next generation.
The available supply of their services falls to N2. Society can
only maintain D1 level of biological data by expanding the amount
of taxonomists to T2 at the cost of training them and retaining
their services. Because the price of the services of field naturalists
is zero the socially efficient response to the problem is to maintain
the level of taxonomists at T1 and reduce the amount of biological
data generated to D2 using the price mechanism to ration the demand
for data.
Rationing data via the price mechanism, will
squeeze out the public goods elements in the demand for data,
such as university research into the consequences for biodiversity
of climate change.
2 January 2008
| 
