FINAL FIFTY SIXTH MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD ON FRIDAY 21 ST SEPTEMBER 2018

Transcription

1 FINAL FIFTY SIXTH MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD ON FRIDAY 21 ST SEPTEMBER 2018 AT: Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Perth MINUTES Present Professor Bob Furness (Chair) Professor Neil Metcalfe Dr Ruth Mitchell Professor Martin Price Professor Jeremy Wilson Apologies: Professor Dan Haydon, Dr Aileen Mill, Sally Thomas In attendance Lynne Clark (minutes) Sarah Hutcheon (SAC Secretariat) Dr Jackie Hyland (Board observer) Clive Mitchell (Items 1-7) David O Brien (Item 5) Linda Pooley (SG) (Items 1-7) Eileen Stuart Professor Des Thompson Dr Athayde Tonhasca (Items 6 and 7) ITEM 1 - Welcome, apologies for absence and declarations of interest 1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Eileen Stuart, Head of People and Nature joined the meeting in place of Sally Thomas, Director of People and Nature. Eileen outlined recent structural changes that have taken place within SNH, to align Directors with the relevant Corporate Plan outcomes. Linda Pooley, Deputy Director Rural and Environmental Analytical Services (RESAS) for Scottish Government (SG) was in attendance. Linda provided a brief overview of her role within SG. 2. Apologies were received from Professor Dan Haydon, Dr Aileen Mill and Sally Thomas. 3. The Chair congratulated Des Thompson, Debbie Bassett and Sally Thomas on their work to secure the Biodiversity Challenge Fund as part of the Programme for Government (PfG). Des highlighted that consideration is being given to the types of projects that could be involved in the Fund and to work with other partners towards meeting the Aichi targets. 4. The latest Science newsletter was recently published. The Chair thanked Lynne Clark for her excellent work in compiling the newsletter. The Chair was also keen to ensure that SAC members have 28 th January 2019 in their diaries, for the next

2 joint SAC/Board meeting. This is likely to take place in Edinburgh, at the National Museum and discussions will focus on the science required to meet the Corporate Plan (CP) outcomes and the research priorities paper which is due to be discussed at this meeting. 5. All SAC members listed an interest in the PhDs paper, as current PhD supervisors. ITEM 2 Minutes, action points and matters arising from the meeting held on 22 nd March There were no further changes suggested for the minutes of the March 2018 meeting. 7. The action points were reviewed: AP01/18 Des Thompson to take an information paper on the student conference to the next Board meeting. DISCHARGED Information paper taken to the April Board meeting. AP02/18 Sally Thomas and Des Thompson to discuss options for location and timing of the next join SAC/Board meeting. DISCHARGED Plans underway for next SAC/Board meeting. Date confirmed for Mon 28 th Jan AP/03/18 Des Thompson to consider how a LEARN type function may be resourced and approach universities (already involved with the student conference) for interest and ideas. ONGOING this will be brought back to a future SAC meeting. ITEM 3 SNH Research Priorities 8. Sarah Hutcheon introduced the paper which informed the Committee about the development of a strategic approach to research, which SNH are developing. Activity Managers were asked to identify the key evidence needs and gaps within their activities. There are some gaps in the wildlife management section, in particular due to resourcing pressures. 9. The Committee was asked to: Confirm that they are content with the proposed key themes for supporting delivery of the corporate plan. Comment on additional sources of evidence we should be aware of; and Advise on key gaps in evidence, and the most appropriate means of filling these. 10. In discussion, the Committee: Highlighted that the list does not outline the real challenges facing SNH and how to deal with those. Suggested that some of themes could be turned into questions and the reasons SNH need the answers, which would help to prioritise. Outlined that consideration should be given to work that is being undertaken by RESAS and CAMERAS and ensure there are close links

3 between this and other research strategies both internally (including Marine research strategy) and externally. Suggested that linking the CP outcomes and identifying the pressures and threats would then identify the evidence that is needed. Emphasised that a timescale was required for some of the suggestions as they were time sensitive (agricultural policy in relation to Brexit). Considered restructuring the table to base it on key questions, why they were required and the timeframe. Highlighted that the SPORRAN project used a good method for compiling a prioritised list of research topics. Outlined that the key challenges had already been identified for the CP and this should be used to develop the challenges and key gaps and who will meet these. 11. In summary, the Committee suggested using the work that has already been undertaken to identify the challenges relating to the CP. This should be used to frame the research priorities which need to be prioritised. The Committee emphasised the need to make links to other research strategies (of both SNH and other organisations/structures) to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication. The Committee highlighted the distinction between research and scholarship (work that may have already been undertaken and needs compiled). The Committee were keen to continue discussions on this topic and to discuss a revised version at the joint SAC/Board meeting, scheduled for January ITEM 4 PhD Studentships 12. Des Thompson introduced the paper which updates the Committee on progress of existing studentships and provides proposals for Des was keen to hear the Committee s views on whether continuing with the current format of fully funding two PhDs was still preferable to inputting to a larger number of projects as a partner. 13. The Committee was asked to: note progress with the PhD programme, and advise on: proposed priority topics for the 2019 application round; and ways of seeking more partnership funding. 14. In discussion, the Committee: Outlined that Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTP) can lead to less influence over the projects that are funded. Highlighted that strategic partnerships work well for completing work for SNH and the partner organisations (Macaulay Development Trust, MASTS, SAGES). Suggested industrial funders as another potential funder for PhDs. Recommended amending the timing of advertising studentships to early January/February to align with research institutes and universities. Considered a collective communication to NERC to outline the difficulties of DTPs for CASE partners and suggested using the SBS Science Group for this.

4 Suggested the topics could be refined to relate more closely to the CP topics and that next year s topics should be based on the research priorities, once these have been defined. 15. In conclusion, the Committee agreed to continue with the current method of fully funding two-three PhDs. Advertising the studentships earlier in the year should attract the best students and refining the topics will further improve the benefits for SNH. ITEM 5 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy: Reporting on Aichi targets 16. David O Brien introduced the paper which provided an update on progress on global biodiversity reporting in Scotland against the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi targets. David outlined that the first reports were well received and the SAC Aichi sub-group helped compile the report. A method for assessing Target 13 (genetic diversity maintained) has been developed by a group of experts and it was proposed that this is circulated to SAC members for comment. 17. The Committee was asked to: Comment on the development of Aichi target accounts and the quality assurance process; and Approve the 2018 Aichi report for publication, subject to minor updates to the existing accounts being approved by the sub-group. 18. In discussion, the Committee: Commended the effort that has been put into compiling the report. Suggested including reference to the Biodiversity Challenge Fund that has been awarded as part of the PfG. Highlighted that the priority projects listed against each target could be collated and presented in a simpler format (table suggested). Were keen to see reference made to Aichi targets being met in SNH Research reports. Agreed to provide comments on the T13 methodology by correspondence. 19. In conclusion, the Committee were complimentary of the report and approved it for publication, subject to minor amendments. They were content to provide comments on the T13 methodology. ITEM 6 Honeybees and beekeeping on protected areas 20. Athayde Tonhasca introduced the paper which provided an overview of potential problems regarding beekeeping on Natural Nature Reserves (NNRs) and other protected areas with biological interests. Athayde highlighted that this paper had been promoted by people getting in touch to seek advice on beekeeping and it largely focuses on the impacts in areas with no history of beekeeping and the potential impacts. 21. The Committee was asked to: Review the rationale and evidence of this guidance; and Endorse the approach proposed.

5 22. In discussion, the Committee: Recognised the importance of this issue and agreed that the evidence base appeared strong. Accepted that SNH had little influence on beekeeping outside or around the boundaries of protected areas and recognised the difficulties of influencing practices on NNRs unless they were designated for a specific invertebrate interest, which is rarely the case. Agreed that this paper should be used to raise awareness of the issues and highlight the surrounding risks of beekeeping on protected areas. Highlighted that the practical advice in the paper was incomplete but recognised that advice would be given on a case by case basis. Suggested that presenting the evidence at appropriate fora (such as beekeepers conferences) would be a useful and important way to disseminate the information, and recommended the evidence was compiled into an Evidence synthesis paper. 23. In conclusion, the Committee agreed on the importance of highlighting the risks outlined in the paper. The Committee recognised the wide evidence base and were keen to see this shared with relevant groups. They advised caution and encouraged clear communications when promoting the messages in the paper to avoid an adverse reaction from the beekeeping industry. ITEM 7 SNH Terrestrial Invertebrate Strategy 24. Athyade Tonhasca introduced the paper which outlines an initial draft SNH conservation strategy for Scotland s terrestrial invertebrates. Athayde highlighted that partner policies and advice have been consulted. 25. The Committee was asked to: Review the rationale of this strategy; and Endorse approach taken. 26. In discussion, the Committee: Agreed that the rationale for this strategy is logical and complimented the format of the paper. Suggested that further clarity should be provided on which invertebrates would be included in this strategy (those that are of conservation concern). Suggested a number of minor amendments to the presentation of the paper. Recommended including information on habitat quality although recognised that there was no mechanism for monitoring this. 27. In conclusion, the Committee endorsed the approach taken in setting out this conservation strategy. They suggested minor amendments to the paper and were keen to see additional information added on the habitat quality as well as clarification on which invertebrates would be encompassed within this strategy.

6 ITEM 8 Four principles and evidence synthesis 28. Des Thompson introduced this paper which was written by Clive Mitchell. The paper sought the Committee s comments on a set of principles to guide evidence synthesis for policy and practice on nature. 29. In discussion, the Committee: Agreed that the principles were sensible and that they should be adopted when implementing policy. Highlighted that there are different types of evidence which should be considered when framing policy. Considered bias and objectiveness and the difficulties of fully implementing these. 30. In conclusion, the Committee noted the four principles and the need to be aware of power and bias. ITEM 9 Future of Nature Conservation 9 principles 31. Des Thompson introduced this paper which was written by Clive Mitchell. The paper outlines a set of principles that were prepared at the British Ecological Society Nature for Future Generations conference in May The Committee was invited to comment on the principles. 32. In discussion, the Committee: Queried the need for these principles and how they differed from or compared to the CBD principles. Raised concerns about the coherence of the principles and policy makers ability to apply them. Suggested that reversing the order of the principles would suggest a more intrinsic value of nature. 33. In conclusion, the Committee suggested some further amendments to improve the understanding of these principles. They agreed that a revised version should be submitted to the next BES AGM and highlighted that multiple benefits are not always better than one big benefit. Information papers 34. Staff publications The Committee were glad to see the updated version of staff publications. They highlighted that several papers are missing from the list and suggested using Web of Science to update this list, which should then be confirmed through circulation to SNH staff. They recognised the importance of this paper and suggested it should be uploaded to the SNH website. ITEM 10 AOB 35. There was no other business for discussion. End of Open session.