Memorandum by the National Biodiversity
Network Trust
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. The National Biodiversity Network Trust
(NBN Trust) is a charity set up to oversee the development of
a National Biodiversity Network, and to encourage participation
in its objective of making UK biodiversity data and information
available through the internet (see Annex).
1.2. As such, the NBN Trust feels that it
has a particularly relevant overview of some aspects of the topic
covered by this Inquiry and wishes to make the following submission,
in particular, relating to the role of systematics and taxonomy
in generating and using biodiversity observational data. We have
therefore addressed questions 2, 7 and 8.
2. RESPONSES
Question 2.
2.1. The role of systematics research in
relation to biodiversity conservation etc. in the UK, varies greatly
across taxonomic groups, depending on whether these groups are
well-understood already or not, and on the perceived relevance
of particular groups to overall ecosystem function. For example,
taxonomic research on fungi found in the UK is currently very
active, owing to the increasing realisation of the role of fungi
in ecosystems; while taxonomic research on groups such as the
mammals of the UK is limited since they are already well-studied.
Looking at issues of biodiversity conservation globally, taxonomic
research plays a crucial role, since if one cannot identify and
monitor the planet's living organisms one cannot assess the impact
of climate change on biodiversity. The UK has a leading role to
play in this field.
2.2. The role of basic taxonomy, however,
remains highly important across most groups, because of the need
to maintain and enhance understanding of the role and inter-relationships
of specific taxa in the environment. This applies both to the
definition of taxa and also to their identification in practical
situations. The role of taxonomy is fundamental to all other activities
involving the study and management of the broader natural environment.
Without an ongoing process of developing and maintaining taxonomic
knowledge, both in terms of current scientific understanding,
and the application of that knowledge in practice, our ability
to properly appreciate and react to the needs of conservation
would be seriously impaired.
2.3. As far as the level of recognition
of this contribution is concerned, the NBN Trust has only tangential
evidence, but its contacts with a broad range of organisations
covering a wide range of taxonomic groups would suggest that the
importance of taxonomy is still very under-estimated, despite
reports on problems with taxonomic support going back to the 1980s.
For example, few universities now address whole-organism biology
or taxonomy within their curricula (although very recently this
has slightly improved ). Also, many other institutions, such as
museums, that formerly had natural science staff with taxonomic
expertise in various fields have now lost them. The result is
that many subject areas witness difficulty in recruiting and developing
new participants, and, in a substantial number of cases, the country
is now lacking paid personnel with specialised knowledge in a
particular group. Given the mainly volunteer-based nature of biodiversity
recording and documentation in the UK, this is increasingly a
concern. The Trust also understands that there are increasing
difficulties recruiting even professional staff proficient in
species identification across a broad range of groups by, for
example, ecological consultancies and local authorities. Much
of the problem stems from the dispersed nature of the taxonomic
endeavour and its sources of funding, sometimes quite divorced
from either mainstream academic funding or that directly related
to biodiversity conservation. For example, funding of regional
museums, with a vital role in supporting taxonomy, is usually
unrelated to research or conservation funding streams.
Question 7.
2.4. The NBN Trust has wide and substantial
experience in this area, having supported processes of biological
recording across all sectors since its inception.
2.5. Taxonomic data consist of a number
of discrete components:
— Data concerning the description,
biology, genetic make-up and evolutionary relationships of the
taxa themselves.
— Information on the ecology and interaction
of taxa.
— Data on the geographical and temporal
occurrence of taxa.
2.6. Strict taxonomic data concerns primarily
the first of these, but its application is fundamental to effective
work involving the other two components. In turn, data collection
in these other areas provides essential feedback to the processes
involved in the first area, as well as providing data to other
users in conservation and land management etc.
2.7. At present, data collected and generated
in relationship to the first of these areas is patchy, depending
on the taxonomic groups concerned and the organisations or individuals
involved in its production. As noted in the answer to Question
2, above, quite a few taxonomic groups now have few, if any, people
actively involved in their description and study in the UK, and
funding for this role is often insecure. Several insect groups,
for example Diptera and Coleoptera, rely in part at least on purely
voluntary expertise, often from a very few retired professionals.
2.8. Collection of data in relation to the
second area is largely the affair of professional organisations,
such as the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in NERC, Rothamsted
Research in the BBSRC, or some universities. As such, it is probably
better funded and supported than most areas, although basic data
from such sources is sometimes not readily accessible by others.
2.9. The principal area in which biological
recording schemes at the national and local level are engaged
is with the third area—the broader collection of data on
the occurrence of species. This sector is extremely varied and
dispersed. There are about 80 existing taxonomically based national
recording schemes, ranging in size from one-man-band, volunteer
operations with few or no resources; through to large biodiversity
organisations focused on a specific group, such as the British
Trust for Ornithology. In addition to this, there are large, but
unknown numbers of local voluntary natural history organisations
that may or may not feed data into these national schemes. At
the local and regional level, there is also an incomplete network
of some 74 local records centres, run either by local authority
based partnerships or by voluntary bodies etc. that collect biodiversity
data especially in relation to local planning and land management
needs. These also may or may not collaborate with respective national
recording schemes over the collection and validation of data.
2.10. The primary mechanism for the support
of most, especially the smaller terrestrial national recording
schemes is through the UK Biological Records Centre, currently
at CEH Monks Wood, and due to transfer shortly to CEH Wallingford.
The resources of the BRC are relatively limited, although improving,
especially through its partnership role in the development and
use of the NBN Internet Gateway as a mechanism for data communication.
Larger recording schemes are increasingly being supported directly
through voluntary societies, although funding support for this
activity is often patchy and short-term, either coming from government
bodies of one kind or another, or from charitable sources. Lottery
funding has sometimes been available, but the criteria for receiving
these funds often do not relate to the needs of the biological
recording organisations. Marine biological recording is supported
by a separate network of organisations, focused through the Marine
Biological Association. The Freshwater Biological Association
also lends some support in its area, especially through recently
acquired short-term funding from charitable sources.
2.11. Local records centres are a non-statutory
function at the local level, and therefore suffer from insecure
and often very inadequate funding, although this is improving
through increased support from the Conservation Agencies recently.
Their role is largely to focus the collection and use of data
towards biodiversity conservation and related needs at the local
level, but they also play an important (but varying) role in support
of biological recording by local voluntary groups on the ground,
and are therefore an important element in supporting the overall
capacity of national recording schemes as well.
2.12. As regards the effectiveness of the
current system to generate and make data available to potential
users, the NBN Trust and its partners have recently carried out
a review of this area, and it is evident that, while broad-scale
understanding of most groups is reasonably well catered for through
the majority of existing recording schemes, the level of detail
and frequency of survey that are now being demanded by key data
users is putting a severe strain on the existing recording system.
Many voluntary recording schemes are just not well-enough supported,
either in terms of people involved or practical resources, to
carry out the level of recording that is increasingly needed for
uses such as Biodiversity Action Plan work or development planning
control. Meanwhile, local records centres, that might be in a
position to fill this need, are not securely funded, and often
do not have sufficient staff with wide enough knowledge to carry
out this work either. The NBN Trust, through its partnership,
is now seeking to co-ordinate what resources may be available
from existing sources to do what it can to improve both the flow
of data and its quality. However, much more is needed to be done
to support both the volunteer recording network and local records
centres if users' data needs are to be met.
Question 8.
2.13. As has been mentioned in relation
to Question 2, above, museum collections are a vital resource
underpinning taxonomy and also recording in the UK, but tend to
be under-resourced, partly as a result of not being seen as a
high priority within the museum, especially at the local level.
2.14. The taxonomic support provided by
museum biological collections involves more than one aspect. National
and major regional collections have an obvious and direct role
in support of descriptive taxonomy per se. Their collections
will have important UK type specimens necessary for nomenclatural
work, as well as for research. However, the role of larger local
museums also in providing resources for identification and the
maintenance of necessary reference material from recording work,
both by their own staff and from voluntary sources, must not be
under-estimated. This latter role is often badly neglected by
local and regional museums, especially if they have lost specialist
skilled staff through lack of resources. The tendency for many
museums to employ generalist collections managers, while being
administratively efficient, may not enhance their function as
centres of local or regional expertise, or as effective resources
to support local recording.
2.15. The role of independent university
and other research centre collections should not be forgotten,
although these are increasingly seen as irrelevant when molecular
biology becomes the sole interest of their institutions. While
the university itself may have moved away from whole-organism
biology, the collections in their care may be vital for ongoing
taxonomic understanding generally because they may house important
material from earlier workers. Recognition of these roles through
funding mechanisms needs to be examined and enhanced.
2.16. Finally, the interdependence of smaller
museums and larger institutions also needs to be recognised, where
collaboration with the professional expertise of larger institutions
can be vital in maintaining local capacity.
Annex
THE NATIONAL
BIODIVERSITY NETWORK
TRUST
1. The National Biodiversity Network Trust
(www.nbn.org.uk ) was established in 2000 as a company limited
by guarantee and a registered charity
2. The full members of the Trust are drawn
from non-governmental organisations and government agencies, namely:
|
| Scottish Natural Heritage | Scottish Environment Protection Agency
|
| Natural England | Environment Agency
|
| Countryside Council for Wales | Natural History Museum
|
| Joint Nature Conservation Committee | Natural Environment Research Council/ Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
|
| Marine Biological Association | The Wildlife Trusts
|
| Freshwater Biological Association | British Ecological Society
|
| National Federation for Biological Recording
| |
| |
3. The Board of the Trust is drawn from nominees appointed
by these full members and presided over by an independent chairman,
Sir Neil Chalmers.
4. The Trust is a non-advocacy organisation whose principal
objects are:
— to improve and ensure the accuracy and verifiability
of collected biodiversity data and to promote its effective collation
and interpretation.
— to develop an electronic network connecting all
known data holders through the Internet, and to promote public
access to the network, with appropriate safeguards for sensitive
and personal data.
5. To this end the Trust operates an internet "Gateway"
(www.searchnbn.net ) which presently (January 2008) gives rapid
access to 27,920,319 species distribution records from 229 different
datasets, many of which are available at a resolution of 100 metres
square. The majority of these data derive from voluntary recording
organisations, or from local records centres etc., that participate
as partners in building the Network. Interpretation of these data
is aided by a mapping interface which also allows access to geographical
boundary datasets including SSSI, SPA, SAC, National Nature Reserve
and Watsonian Vice-county boundaries.
6. The NBN Gateway is also the UK node of GBIF, the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility through which it is possible
to access species data sets from around the world.
|
