Biological Recording Ina Changing Landscape

NationalFederation for BiologicalRecording

BIOLOGICALRECORDING INA CHANGINGLANDSCAPE

editedby P.T. Hardingand D.A. Roberts

1986 NationalFederation for BiologicalRecording

BIOLOGICALRECORDING INA CHANGINGLANDSCAPE

editedby P.T. Hardingand D.A. Roberts

1986 BIOTOGICALRrcMDIre INA CHAilGIIG TANDSCAPE

Proeeedings of a seminar and worKsbops held at the inaugural conference of the National f'ederation for Biological Recording, Fitzwilliam College, Cambrioge, 15-.1-6Apri I 1986.

edited by

P.T. HARDINGand D.A. ROBERTS

l{ational Federation for Biological Recording Cadcridge

1986 Biological recording in a ctranging larrtscape

Proceedings of a seminar and workshop. Edited by P.'I. Harding and D.A. Roberts.

First published in September1986 by the:

National Federation for Biological Recording c/o 'I'6e MrselrmDocumentation Association Building 0 347 Cnerry ilinton Road Cambrioge CBl 4DH (0223) 242848

Distributed by The ttuseumDocumentation Association.

€6-00 plus postage. (f.4-50 plus postage for rr,iFBRmembers.)

@National Federation for ciological Recording' 1986. A11 rights reserved.

rsBN0-9511602-0-6 @I{IENIs

page

Preface iv P.I. Hardinq and D.A. Roberts

Contributors v

Acronlms vi i

Conferenee participants viii

fntroduct.ion I G. Stansfield

Seminar: Biological Recording in a Changing tandscape 3 Chairman, Professor R.J. Berry

The need for biological recording now 3 Dr F.rt. Perring Botanical Society of the eritisb Isles monitoring scheme 6 R.G. Ellis An Ecological Data Unit 10 G.L. Radford Survey and nrrnitoring in the Nature Conservancy Council 13 Dr R.J. Kelzmer

grbrkshops: Relnrts by *orksbop cpnveners I7

1. Priority taxa L7 Dr A.G. frwin 2. Created habitats 2A f .M. Evans 3. The "flidden" data 23 C.J.T. Copp 4. Handbookfor biological recording 29 r,.S. Way 5. fnvolvement in planning 33 f .M. Evans 6. 'Ihreats to organisms 35 H.R. Arnold 7. Species names, codes and vernacular 37 i.t{.'Iurk 8. Habitat classification 39 Dr K. Cbarrnart 9. 'Ihe Data Protection Act and the managementof computer systems 44 D.A. Roberts 10. Consultancy work 47 P.J.E. Copson

hsters arxl displays 50

iii PREFACE

This voluare is a collectron of four semrnar papers and the reports of 10 worksbops, from the lnaugrural Conference of the National lederation for Biological Recording (N^8BR).'Ihe Conference, held in Cambridge over two days in April 1985, was attended by over 80 people drawn from a wide variety of locations and disciplines, but aII with an involvement or interest in the collection, management,clissemination and use of biological information about our environment. 'Ihe volume takes its title from the seminar, but all tbe workshops were bighly pertinent to the topic, dealing as they did with the practical aspects of records and the problems and priorities of those involved witb recording. In his lntroduction, Geoff Stansfield has briefly described how the National tederation for Biological Recording came into being. rllhether tbe federation has a future depends not only on tbe eommitment and energy of its officers, but also on the support of its membersbip. It is only by expressing a eorporate view, tbrough the Federation, chat tbe needsfor biological recordingr at aIl leveIs, wilt be clearly heard. As conference organizers and editors, we have been fortunate in having the support and enchusiasm of our contributors. Weare very grateful to them all for presenting their papers, or convening tbeir workshrops, and for preparing written sommaries (with only a minimum amount of harassment from us). we should also express our (and their) gratitude to the anonymous note-takers at eacb worksbop who beiped collate the discussions. lUany otber people deserve thanks: tbe Steering bmmittee of tbe rr{ational Federation for Biological Recording, chaired by Charles Copp, who belped us plan the meeting; Llywela Hopkins of The Museum Documentation Association (rvlDA),who dealt with most oi the admin- istration of the meeting; Jayne Abblitt of tbe Biological Records Centre (BRC), wbo prepared much of tbe publicity for the meeting; Sheila Green and the domestic staff at Fitzwilliam CoIlege, Cambridge for providing an excellent venue; and Anna Mackay-Smitb of IvIDAfor typing tbese proceedings.

Paul 'I. Harding D. Andrew Roberts Biological Records Centre It:seum Documentation Associ ation Abbots Ripton Cambridqe

JuIy 1985

IV @NIR.H]IM.S

Eilitors

P.'I. Harding, Head of tbe Biological Records Centre, Institute of '-terrestrial Ecology, tvlonksWood D

Introduct.ion

G. Stansfield, l,ecturer, Department of MuseumStudies, University of Leicester, I05 Princess Road East, Leicester LEl 7tG.

Seninar

R.G. Ellis, Head of Vascular P1ants Section, r\ational Museumof Wa1es, Catbays Park, Cardiff CFI 3NP. Dr R.J. Keymer, England Fie1d Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, North- minster House, Peterborougb PEI lUA. Dr F.H. Perring, General Secretary, Royal Society for ',lature Conserva- tion, 'Ihe Green, Nettleham, Lincoln tu\2 2NR. G.L. Radford, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology' Bangor Research Station, Penrhos Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2W. htrrksbop Oonveners

H.R. Arnold, Biological Records Centre, fnstitute of I'errestrial Ecology, ivtonksvfood Drperimental Station, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2LS. Dr (. Cbarman, Head of Science Division, England Headquarters, Nature Conservancy CoirnciI, r\orthminster House, Peterborough PEl lUA. C.J.T. Copp, Assistant Curator cf rlatural ilistory and rnformation '-fechnologyOfficer, City of Bristol Museumand Art Gallery, Qaeen's Road, Bristol BS8 lRL. Mrs P.J.E. Copson, Keeper of L'iatural iiistory, Warwickshire Museum, Market Place, Warwick CV34 4SA. I.rvl. Evans, Assistant Director (i\iatural icience), Leicestershire Mruseums,Art Galleries anrXRecords Service, teicester Museum,96 i\ew Ita1k, Leicester LEl 6'ID. Dr A.G. frwin, Keeper of r'ratural History, Norfolk tutuseumService, Castle liuseum, Norwich NRl 3Jii. D.A. Roberts, Secretary, '-[ne MuseumDocumentation Association, Build- ing 0, 347 CFrerryHinton Road, Cambridge Ctsl 4DH. Mrs S.M. Turk, Extra Mural Researeh Fellow, Department of .EXtra Mural Studies, University of Exeterr "Shang-ri-La", ReskadinnicK, Camborne, Cornwall TRl4 OBH. L.S. Way, Bristcl Regional Environmental Records Centre' City of Bristol Museumand Art Gallery, Qreen's Road, Bristol BS8 lRL. V hsters

Balfour-Browne Club, 20 Angus Avenue, Prestwick, Ayrshire KA9 2ilZ. Dr S.G. BaIl, Nature Conservancy Council, r\ortbmrnster House, Peterborough, PEI IUA. Eiologica1 Records Centre, Institute of lerrestrial Ecologry, r\atural Environment Research CounciI, llonks Wood Experimental Station, AbbotsRipton,Huntingdon,CambridgeshirePEi72LS. Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre, City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, Q"reenrsRoad, Bristol BS8 IRL. Oornish Biolcaical Records Unit, University of D

VI ACRONYI'IS

BCG BiologY Curatorsr GrouP BRC Biological Records Centre BSBI Botanical Society of the Bribish Isles CSD Chief Scientist Directorate (NCC) DPA Data Protection Act 1984 EEC European t;conomic Connu.rnity ED.J Ecclogical Data Unit ESA H:vironnentally Sensitive Area Fv'lAG Farming and Wildlife Mvisory Group 'Ierrestrial ITE fnstitute of Ecology MAFF l{inistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food MDA lfuseum Docunientation Association MSC Irbnpower Services Conmission NCC Nature @nservanry Council NERC Natural Environment Research Council NFtsr1 National Federation for Biological Recording r,iNR National Nature Reserve rWC National Vegetation Classification RStiC Royal Society for Nature Conservation SSSI Site of ipecial Scientific Interest WCA Wildlife and Countryside Act i981

vI1 OT\IFERENICEPARIICIPATIIIS

Abblitt, Miss j.M. BRC, Abbots Ripton Abbott, Ivlrs P.P. Ieeds App1eby,Miss Claire E. WilLshire Biological Records Cenire Arnold, t4r itenry R. BRC, Abbots Ripbon Awty, i4s Jane Sonerset frust for Nature Conservation Ball, Dr Stuart G. NCC, Peterborough Bel1anr1z,Dr L.S. GLOSCA'I,Gloucestdr Eennett, Ms leresa NCC, Peterborough Berry, Professor R.J. Universicy CoIlege tondon Bradley, Mr rti. Ieicestershrire Museums Bratton, rvlr John tsRC, Abbots Ripton Brinklow, Ivtr R.K. Dundeei{useums and Art Galleries Carey, }tlr G. BRERC,Bristol Charman, Dr Kevin NCC, peterborough Clarxe, Richard SouthdownsConservation project, Lewes Collins, l,lr Douglas CPA, Walthamstow Collins, Mr Philip St. Albans MusersnsService Copp, ltlr Coarles Bristol lfuseum Copson, l,lrs Pam Warwickshire irt:seum Davies, tvlr l,lartin Shropshire County rrfuseumService Dawson, Dr Dave tondon Boroughs Ecology Unit Ellis, Mr Guryn Botany Department, National rvl.rseumof wales Ely, l,1r William Rotherhram EVans, Mr l.M. teicestershire l{:seums Service Eversharn, l,lr Brian BRC, Abbots Ripton Foster, Dr G.i\. Balfour-Browne Club, prestwick Game, Dr M. tcndon Boroughs Ecology Unic Garland, Mr S.P. Bolton rt:seum Garside, rvlr Adam Dundee ivhseumsand Art Galleries Green, Ms Jacqui cambridgeshire and rsle of EIy Naturalist 'Irust Greene, l{rs D.M. NRC, Abbots Ripton Halfpenny, Flr. G. Stoke-on-'Irent Harding, lrlr PauI BRC, Abbots Ripton Heath, Mr Jeremy Colcbester lt:seum Hopkins, Mrs L. i\4DA Huckbody, Ivlr Andrew Shropshire County M,rseumService Irwin, Dr A.G. Norwich James, MII.J. North Hertfordshire tfuseumsService Jones, Iltr S.G. i\4DA Key, Dr R.S. NCC, peterborough Kirby, Dr Peter NCC, peterborough [.eon, rt{iss Christine Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Iott, Mr D.A. Leicestershire lt:seums Service lbthias, Dr J.H. Leicestershire ivX.lseumsService McDonnell, Miss Liz sornerset rrust for Nature conservation Mclean, Dr Ian F.C. NCC, Peterborough Mendel, Mr Howard Ipswich ltrseum Palrner, r',lrs Denise Dorset Environmental Records Centre Parry, l"lr Cbristopher Urban Wiidlife Group, Birmingham Pitkin, Dr P.M. NCC,Edinburgb

viii Plant, I*!r Colin Passnpre Edwards M.rseum Preston, Mr C.D. BRC' Abbots Ripton Radford, rvir G.L. fTE, Bangor Reid, Dr Gordon McGregor Hornirnan ltrseum Riggall, Mr J. r,iCC,Peterborough Roberts, Mr D.A. M)A Sandford, l4r l{artin Suffolk Biological Records Centre Scruby, Miss lt{ary r\ational Trust, Cirencester Sbeppard, Dr D.A. NCC, Peterborough Shirt, Dr D.B. BRC, Abbots Ripton Snith, Mr Robin Chesbire County Planning Department Stansfield, Mr. G. Leicester University Stowe, Mr 'I.J. RSPB,Sandy Sykes, l,Irs Nan Thorton Dale, L'iorth Yorkshire Syrnes,l,lr Roger G. !'lildlife and Biology Dept. (MAFF), Bristol 'fait, Dr A.I. East Sussex County Planning Department 'Ionpsett, rYrs Pamela E. Cornish Biological Records Unit 'IurK, lt4rs Stella l,t. Cornisn Biological ti,ecordsUnit Veal, Ms lowana Cambridge Walley, l4r Gralram Nottingiram i\atural History ltrseum Way, rvlr r,awrence BRERC,Bristol WbaIIey, Dr Paul Britisn lluseum(Natural History) Wilkins, Ftr John Sonerset -trust for lJature Conservation Winspear, illr Richard l,lelbourne, Derbyshire viright, l,1r Adam Herbert Art Gallery and Museum,Coventry

tx INIROU'CIIOI{

G. Stansfield Chairnnn, tlational Federation for Biological Recording

Biological recording is not a new activity. It has its origins in the work of the amateur Victorian naturalists who painstakingly and met- iculously assembledcollections of animals and plants, recording their finds in diaries and field note-booxs. Wbat is new, is the recogni- tion that a well organised system of biological recording is an essential pre-requisite of conservation planning and is also a very valuable resource for beritage interpretation. 'Ine growtb of tbe biological recording movement and its coordination at a national level through sucb schemes as the Botanical Society of the Britisb Isles' (BSBI)Atias of the Britisn Flora and tbe naLional Biological Records Centre (BRC)has been well documented and described elsewbere, but tbe present level of activity and clneern needs some explanation. Tnere bave been several moves to improve the co-ordination of bio- logicat recording and to put the movement on a firmer organisationai and financial footing. In 1973, cbe Leicester Conference"Centres for Environmental Records" (Stansfield, 1973), sponsored jointly by tbe Department of MuseumStudies of Leicester University and tbe BRC failed to achieve its objective of having the biological recording function recognised as a top-tier local authority responsibility in the reorganisation of local government in 1974. A similar conference in Scotland, BIOREC1975, did little more than draw at.tenLion to the problems and review the present situation (SommervilIe' 1977). In the 1970s a series of articles appeared describing the operation and recording systems adopted by various reeord centres, and in tbe early 1980s the Biology C\rrators' Group (BCG)published the results of surveys of biological record centres (Harding and Greenwood,1981; Greenwoodand Harding, L982i whiteley, 1983). In 1984tbe BCGfelt that it was time for a new initiative. There nad been a tremendous growtb in the amount of time and manpower being devoted to recording. Museumshad been able to take advantage of qovernment sponsored ivlanpowerServices scbemes, as also had county naturalists trusts, someof which, with their growtb in membershipand with the support of the rrrature Conservanry Council (NCC), had begun to computerise tbeir records. Many national societies were also enbark- ing on new recording scbemes so that communication and coordination between the various schemes and orqanisations had become a major problem. lhe seininar beld in l9o4 at Leicester, "BioloEical recording and the use of site based biological information" (Biology Curators' Group, 1985), although wideranging and rather diffuse, did arrive at some fairly prediccable conclusions which set the scene for the presenL movement. Tbe seminar confirmed tbe widely beld view rthat the present situation, both nationally and loca1Iy, for biological recording, storage and retrieval of data was unsatisfactory' and it drew attention to the problems of standards and finance. Although the serninar produced few construccive proposals' it did lead to the setting up, at the instigation of the BRC, of an ad hoc group, drawn frorn tbe BCGand other interested organisations, co find meansof improving the situation. It is a tribute to tbis informal group' and to the energy and imagination of Paul Harding, Cnarles Copp and Lawrence Way in particular, that the Biological Recording Fbrum held at Chelsea College, london, in Aprit 1985 was so well attended, witb more than 100 dele- gates drawn from all sections of the biological recording community. The two-day Forum was arranged around seven themes, tor eacb of which a discussion paper was prepared and circulated in advance. A report of the Forum has been published (Copp and Harding' 1985). The Forum led to tbe formation of a steering committee (with members from the previous group), whose brief was to maintain the momentumand prepare a draft constitution for presentation to the inaugrural meetinE of a properly constituted new organisation. Tbat organisation, the i\ational Federation for Biological Recording, hosted a seminar "Biological Recording in a ChrangingLandscape" and a series of workshops at its inaugural meeting in Cambridge on 15th and l6tb April 1986. Papers from tbe seminar and workshops form the contents of this volune. It is now felt tbat the time is right for a determined attempt to set up a properly organised and financed system for biological recording at both the national and regional level. Several factcrs support this view. It is now accepted by the main political parties that the conservation of the environment is a crucial issue facing Britain at the present time. Many sections of the eommunity, and most impor- tantly the farming community, recognise that farming strategies and 'Ihe techniques must take account of the need for eonservation. environmental and nature conservation movement bas become a powerful and coherent force and has succeeded in alerting public opinion to tbe issues involved. Also, the demand for information about our natural heritage for public enjoyment and interpretation has reacbed an unpre- cedented leve1. It is recognised tbat the most effective way of achieving conservation objectives is though a partnership between the official and the voluntary movement. It is the view of the f'ederation ihat the money and other resources devoted to a well-organised and properly financed system of biological recording would be cost effective by resulting in better informeC decision-making and planning.

References

Biology Curators' Group, 1985. Biological recording and the use of site based bioloqical information. BCGr\ewsletter, 4(2), Supplement. Copp, C.J.T.and Harding, P.T. (editors), 1985. Biological Recording Forum 1985. BCGSpecial Report' No.4. Bolton: BCG. Greenwood, E.F. and Harding, P.1., 1982. Survey of local and regional biological records centres - analysis of results. BCGNewsletter' 3(2), 108-114. Harding, P.T. and Greenwood, 8.F., 1981. Survey of local and regional biological records centres, preliminary analysis - inventory. BCGNewsletter, 2(I0), 468-478. Sommerville, A., 1977. A guicie to biological recordinq in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Wildlife Trust. Stansf ieId, G., 1973. Centres_for envi!qq[g_49_Uecords. Vaughan Papers in Adult Education, 18. University of Leicester. nhiteley, D., 1983. A survey of species recording schemesin locaI biological records centres. BOGt'lewsletter, 3(3), 370-408. BIOTGICAL RffiDIilE TN A CflAIGTTG IAIDSCAPE Seurinar ctraired $ Professor R.J. Berry

THE NE,EDFOR BIOItrICAL RMRDING TrcAI

F.fl. Perring fn tbe 40 years since the second world war, changes bave been taking place in Britain's countryside which, most would agree, have been barmful to wiidlife. With the exception perhaps of the control of some pesticides and the improved water quality of some rivers, these changes continue to tbe present day. It is against that background that the upsurge in biological recording in Britain has taken place. fts origins can be traeed to the BSBI schemewhich started in 1954, but significantly at that time it was cal1ed the Distribution Maps Scheme. Tbe desire was for accurate information; aII rec"ords from 1930 to 1960, when the recording phase of the scheme ended, were regarded as "recent". OnIy after the transfer of the BSBI data to the tsRCin 1964, at a time when concern about effects of farming on wildlife was growing, was the importance of the data' as a basis for assessing change' apparent. The Red Data Books for Vascular Plants of 1977 and 1983 were a consequenceof this other use of the data. t'low in 1966, we find ourselves having to face a new situation: the trends of the last 40 years are either going to be reversed or to go in new directions. The most important of the events taking place is agricultural over- production and the growing unwillingness of tbis or any other British government to continue to pay farmers to produce food we no longer need. Mitk quotas were introduced two years ago and it is only a matter of time before steps are taken to control cereal production' eitber by quotas or by price reductions, or by a combination of the two. The effect of tbese on farming practice wiII vary, for example: a) Qrotas - all farners will have to reduce production by

reducing output per acrei changing to other crops; taking sone land out of production.

This would lead to similar cbangestbroughout the cereal growing areas and would reduce threats to marginal land of ccnservation interest from agrrcultural improvements such as ploughing and drainage. b) Price controls - only larger, more efficient, units would be able to compete, leading to

larger, highly mechanisedfarms would strive to increase production and eff iciency; small farms on less productive land would be unable to compete and would eitber cease growing cereals or cease farming altogether. This would lead to polarisation of landscapes with, for example, even greater intensification on farms in East Anglia and mucb less intensive farming in the west.

Whicbever method is cbosen, though probably a combination of the two, agrieultural land is going to be taken out of production. This will accelerate from l9E8 onwards, which is as early as the European Ec.onomicCommunity (f:iEC)and the British Government can aet. 'Ibe latest calculation is that 158 of arable land wilI have to be taken out before we are rid of surpluses. To put that in c-ontext, it means the equivalent of the wbole of the former county of Lincolnshire (Vice-counties 53 and 54 to us biologists). Someof the consequencesalready being talked about which would affect wildlife are, in terms of cultivation practices:

changes in plant breeding from yield increase to pest and disease resistance - witb less need to use expensive pesticides, chus lowering production eostsi fallowing or non-cropping of beadlands around fields, leading to Lhe encouragrementof permanent pasture at the hedge margin. Consequently the spraying and burning of bedge- bottoms and ditches would end; fallowing of whole fields for green manuring; change from autumn- to spring-sown crops with longer periods in stubble.

In addition, changes of land-use will increasingly occur:

to new arable erops, especially for food oiIs, leading to manymore fields of flowers; to forestry. '-this change coincides with the Forestry Commission's new Broadleaved WoodlandpoIicry with increased grants for planting native hardwoods. If this is to be economically successful, ic may be necessary for cooperation between adjacent farms to produce large enougb units. There remains the problem of loss of income, for say 10 years, which may mean this is only an option if the farmer already has unexploited woodland as a cushion against financial problems. to recreation, for example, Ietting for horses and donkeys, caravan sites, etc.

'Ihis process may well be encouraged by fiscal incentives. 'Ibe current cost to tax payers, of buying and storing surpluses, totals €650 million per year. The county could afford to pay the farmers of the 1.5 million acres no longer needed for agriculture, €I00 per year not to produce food. The costs would then be only €150 million; a saving of €500 million per year. Tne British C;overnmenthas already pusLredthe EEC some way in that direction and this principle is already accepted for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). However, the six ESAslikely to be adopted initially are far too few. We need fiscal incentives to concentrate on some areas of new landscapes, where conservation interests ean be integrated with other land uses so that large areas are created. However,the opportunity to 'set-aside' land should be available to all farmers wbo want to, within a limited budget: perhaps a two-tier system with higher payments to BSAs, could be developed. Undoubtedly tben, what a senior Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (IvlAFF)off icial has described as 'Greater changes than any since the War'are going to be a major factor for wildlife over the next decade. In addition, other cbanges are taking place:

protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The increased budget and staff of NCCmeans that a larger percentage of land will be better protected; growth of Farming and Wildlife Advisory Groups (FWAGs). There are now over 30 Farm Conservation Advisers; growth of nature eonservation trusts. Trusts add 100 . reserves per year and bave an increased ability to manage over 1500 reserves using staff funded by tbe Manpower Services Commission (ltlSC); growth of country parks and tbeir management for conservation; urban and parish wildlife movement; general change in peoplers attitudes to wildlife brought about by the media and conservation organisations.

A11 this together means that tbe landscape and townscapes of Britain are at a turning point. It. is therefore vital in my view that we actively record tbe wildlife of Britain now (which may mean in a period of less than five years) as a basis for studying tbe effect of tbe immensechanges predicted. '1'be conservation reasons are abund- antly clear, but as biologists tbis prospect must surely also generate a sense of excitement. Gigantic 'experiments' are about to occur wbicb will provide a feast of facts for the forseeable future. Have we in tbe biological recording movement got our knives and forks and other hardware (or software) ready to enjoy the feast now? To coin a pbrase f seem to have beard somewhere else recently - l6morrow's too Iate. BOIAT{ICAf,SOcIgry OF THE BRTTTSETST.FS IIOAII.IORTIIGSCflEITE

R.G. Ellis fntroduction

Ibe first edition of the Atlas of the Britislr F'lora (Perring and 'editions' Walters I 1952) was published in 1962; althougb new \rttere published in 1976 and 1982 these contained revisions of only about 320 rare taxa: the bulk of the work is now out-of-date and the BSBI has decided not to allow further reprints. 'Ihe BSBI was aware that great cbanges nad taken place in our flora since 1962 and believed it would be timely to set up a new Atlas project in the near future. The Records Committee of the Socrety therefore set up a new Monitor- ing SchemeSub-Committee which met for the first time on 20 December 1983. In the course of several meetings the Sub-Committee reeognised that a new Atlas should combine four main groups of taxa, the collecting of data for which would have to be made in different ways:

Red Data Book species - already under more or less continuous surveillance; critical taxa - requiring the involvement of a limited number of specialists; increasing and decreasing taxa; all otber taxa. ft was also recognised tbat the most urgent need was to eommencea study of the increasing and decreasing taxa, and to do it in such a way that the BSBI could conLinue to monitor change regrularly, independent of any longer term Atlas project. 'Ihe proposed scheme described below bas been accepted by BSBI Council as a step towards a new Atlas in the 1990s and the beginning of close monitoring of possible changes in the British and frish flora. It has also been accepted by the NCCas a scheme worth funding and they have agreed to finance it for a period of tbree years.

Aims of tbe scteue

'Ine aim rs to survey the flora of a sample of tbe l0 km squares in Great Britain and Ireland (approximately IOt of the total), so as:

to provide, by comparison with the results of the Atlas l-0 km square survey (1954-59), an objective assessment of the species which have cbanged in frequencry over the last 25 to 30 years. Species showing a marked increase or deerease would later be surveyed comprebensively to produce maps for a new Atlas; co provide a selected network of 2 x 2 km squares (tetrads), from within the chosen 10 km sqJuares, to be used in future, in addition to the 10 km squares, to monitor changes in the flora. (This will probablv not be feasible in lreland.) Operation of Lbe Sctrgre

following statistical advice, the 10 km squares for Great Britain have been chosenby taking as a starting point the rsles of scilly square (SV91) and taking every third square north and east to cover Great Britain- Tbe starting point for rreland has been taken as the mosr south-westerly square of the frish Grid and proceeding as for Great Britain. AIl coastal 10 km squares so selected wili be surveyed regardless of the amount of land in tbe square and regardless of its treatment in the Atlas. This selection of m km squares meets tbe requirements for a broad geographical spread, contains aIl major habilat types and a good amount of coastline. Every vice-county is also inc1udld, with usually tr'so to tbree squares in each. Recording of the 10 km sqluares will be open to aIl members of the BSBr and will be co-ordinated by tbe vice-county recorder. Each square will be recorded on at 1easr six days spread over the two year period of tbe scbeme, with visits in sprin!, summer and autumn. Ail native, naturalised and casual species witt be recorded, as well as generally recognised infra-specific taxa and hybrids, by presence or (The absence. occurrence of taxa recorded during tbis slrvey will be compared witb data collected from tbe same rb tm squarjs in tbe 1950s.) New field record cards wiII be available tor the four countries (England, rreland, scotland and wales), and nomenclature ,rbe will foIlow clapbam, Tutin and warburg (19g1). samethree tetrads, A, J and W, have been cbosen within each of tbe 10 km sguares selected above, rollowing standard BSBI nomenelature. If one ihould faIl entirely in the sea it will be ignored, but not replicetl by another. There will be no opportunity for recrcrders to select teLrads different from those namedabove. Recording of tbe tetrads will be confined to BSBr vice-councy recorders or their appoinLed representatives. Recording will be oi presence and absence of taxa, together with notes on Iand-use and habitat and wbere appropriate, population counts of species of local interest. It is hopedthrat each tetrad will be visitld for at least half a day eacb season and that careful records wiII be kept of the dates and route followed, so that surveys in future years iatO y"u, intervals) could be madeat the same timL and coveriig more or less the same ground.

Organisation of the Sctrene

A steering commictee will be set up, responsible to the Records Committeeof the BSBI' which will be in overall control of the scbeme. National co-ordinators witl .be appointed for England, rreland, Scotland and Wales. The co-ordinators will be voluriteers, but they will be given financial help with travel and subsistence. In lreland, scotland and flales they will work in close co-operation with the existing regional BSBf committees.

Tbe functions of the national co-ordinators will be to:

pronote the schemewichin their areas; recruit recordersi coordinate tbe activities of recorders so that a satisfactory coverage of all I0 km squares is achieved; ensure tbat all record cards are vetted for taxonomie accuracy by tbe relevant vice-county recorder before tbey are forwarded to the SchemeOrganiser.

A full-time Organiser will be employed for three years, starting work six months before the beginning of field recording. 'Ihe duties of tbe Organiser wiIl be:

preparation of the detailed plans for the Scbeme, instructions to vice-county recorders, field recorders, etci preparation of computer files containing the records made during the Atlas survey in the sample squares' and distribution of these records to national co-ordinators and vice- county recorders; checking tbe non-taxonomic data on tbe incoming rec.ord cards (eg. grid reference, vice-couty, date and recorder). Input of tbese records onto eomputer and checking the reeords, once input, against the original record cards. A data processor employedon a sbort-term contract will help the SchemeOrganiser with the input of records during periods of peak activity; circulation of the interim results of tbe schemeto national co-ordinators and vice-county reeorders after one year of field-work; presentation of tbe results of the schemeto the Steering Committee and preparation for publication.

Ihe SchemeOrganiser and data processor wiII be employed by BSBI with funding from NCCand will be based at tbe BRC.

Iine scale

The fieldwork will be carried out over two years, L987 and 1988' and the results will be published as soon as possible after tbis. Close scrutiny of the results and comparison witb previous data will enable a list to be drawn up of those species shownto be increasing or decreasing in range and it is envisaged that preparations for a full scale recording scheme, involving all I0 km sqluares' would then taxe pIace.

Referencres

CIapham, A.R., Tutin, T.G. and Warburg,8.F., 1981. Excursion flora of the British fsIes. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge universityPress. Perring, F.H. and Walters, S.Fl., L962. Atlas of the British flora. london: r\e1son.

Discrr.ssion

Berry There are several methods of sampling a proportion of squares. Perhaps NFBRshould produce gruidelines. Evans What should be done with existing tetrad records, such as collected for county floras? Ellis This is a totally new survey, and no back-dated records are to be used. Evans Sbould old records be completely ignored? El1is OId records could be used to guide people where to look' but all plants would have to be rediscovered to qualify for inclusion. - There was currently a national Badger Survey, based on a sample of I km sCluares, also funded by NCC. Turk Someof the squares chosen by BSBI appear to be nearly all sea; these were not mappedin tbe original BSBf scheme. Ellis Tbe same criteria are to be used in the new scheme. Turk Is tbe total number of squares considered the same? Ellis Yes. fs tbere any weighting to ensure inclusion of uncommon babitats? Ellis 'Ihere is not, but all major habitat types are represented in the sample. Tbis may mean that most ccmmon habitats would be over- represented. Ellis Agreed. Certain species would be surveyed in detail and tbat list would be added to during tbe survey. Radford The ITE survey was not fully random. 'Ihere is a lot of survey work going on which perhaps should be dove-tailed togetber. Berry 'Ihis highlights tbe complexity of sampling - one could not really point to an area and say "There is an area - survey it". AbI E@MGTCAL DATA T'NIT

G.L. Radford

'Ihe need to undertake biological recording bas been dramatically underlined by Perring, using current estimates of habitat change taking place in the countryside. We have heard about the BSBI initiative to resurvey tbe vascular flora of Britain as one example of how voluntary effort is being enlisted specifically to help document ctrange in species distributions. Within the liatural Environment Research Council (NERC),and particularly witbin tbe Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE), there is coneern to eneourage this type of recording, and also to help consolidate a wide range of existing biological and environmental data, so tbat these are available for comparison with more recent information as it becomesavailable. Amongthe sixteen researcb programmescurrently identified within f'IE, one is expressly concerned witn survey and monitoring, and includes the BRCprojects. These and otber projects in the programme were reviewed by ITE in order to design a strategy for survey and monitoring. The two principal recommendationswere:

that the Institute sbould have an adequate basis for monitoring future cbanges in the natural environment, over the country as a whole; ELrat tbere should be a framework for data storage such that compatibility and accessibility are assured.

As a result, a project to look into the feasibility of setting up an Ecological Data Unit (EDU)was begrun. fts main objectives have been:

to assess the feasibiiity of establishing an adequate monitoring capability for detecting change in the natural environment, witb special reference to species distribution and abundance; to examine the implications of providing greater compat.ibi- lity between, and wider access to, the data collections available to ITE.

A working definition of monitoring witbin the context of EDUis 'biological recording with tbe specific aim of detecting changesin the distribution and abundance of species and their habitatsr. The geographical scale is primarily national, but will extend to interna- tronal and regional levels, wben appropriate. The time scale needs to be in the order of five to seven years, as a balance between what is likeIy to be effective in the context of lan&use planning, an'JyeL practical in terms of survey organization and funding. The type of data to be handled varies, but essentially they are qualitative and quantitative expressions of species occurrence' supported by a range of contextual environmental data, such as geology, soils' climate' 6l-- Under tLre first objective, the initial requirement is to be aware of what data already exist relevant to biological monitoring. A number of fragmentary lists of data sets have been ccmpiled, but there is no comprehensive catalogrue of current data holdings witbin ITE. EDU is tberefore compiling such a catalogrue, Iisting the main data sets' botb

l0 for internal use and as part of a common-interest venture between NERC and the Agriculture and t-ood Research Council. A register of permanent vegetation plots used by IlE has been compiled, and is awaiting publication (HiIl and Radford, in press). It. is hoped that its appearance will generate sufficient interest to promote the compila- tion of a more broadly based regrster, covering all locations used in long-term biological research. One approach from EDUwill be to use these sources to provide an indication of what scope there is for repeating selected surveys as a meansof detecting change. Of particular interest, for example, is the Rural Land Use Change Project, which is currently providing estimates of the extent and distribution of changes in types of land eover and land use between 1978 and 1984. A repetition of the survey work in or about 1990 would be very useful, particularly in conjunc- tion with the BSBI resurvey. A second approach will include fresb initiative in monitoring' eitber in collaboration with otber organizations, sueh as exists with the NCCin the case of tbe Butterfly Monitoring Scbeme, or as an independant venture, particularly for methodological trials. Tbe kinds of issue to be tested are:

wbat organisns should be selected for special survey? how sbould they be sampled in space and tise? within what bounds of accuracy can results be obtained frorn practical survey methods? how should voluntary effort be enlisted and directed to best effect?

The second objective of EDIJis to improve awareness of and access to relevant data. In addition to discovering what data actually exist within the scientific community, by extending tbe kind of catalogues mentioned earlier, their availabitity for abstraction and analysis must. be known. 'Ifre following questions are relevant:

in what pbysical medium, coding and data format are data sets available? what administrative constraints on tbe use of tbe data are tbere (copyrigbt' licence to use' etc.)? wbat scientific and tecbnical constraints are there (incom- plete data, anomalous or unrepresentative samples' etc.)? what casts are entailed? to wbat extent can the data be integrated with existing holdings from both scientific and technical viewpoints? what implications for subsequent data management are there (is the record structure complex, can fresb copies of the data easily be obtained, is it possible to acquire updating records, etc.)?

The roles of EDU bere are to identify and promote standards for commonly used data iLems, and to establish a basis for integrating data drawn from a wide range of sources. fn summary, tbe EDUis intended to provide a referral system and data Source for biological monitoring, and a foeus for more general aspects of data management and access for ecological research. Com- munication with those involved at regional and local levels of

11 biological recording and data managementwill be of vital importance to tbe successful outcome of EDU, and the establishrment of a r\ational Federation is a most welcome forum for this discussion. Referenoe

Hi11, M.O. and Radford, G.L. (in press). Reqister of permanent vegetation plotq. fiuntingdon: rnstitute of Terrestrial Ecology. Discussion

Copp It would be a good idea to put communication with otber data- users and gatherers into tbe job description for EDU. was some work already being done? Radford There has been a tendenry to confine the work of EDUto witbin NERC. At tbe moment it probably was not a priority task to go outside NERC. Berry Tbe Department of tbe Environment have been supporting the ESRCdata storage systems at Essex university, which may involve NERC. 'lurk rf local BRCscould find out what was going on within the eounties, then the NFBRshould know what is going on nation- wioe. There is a lack of communication witb bodies sucb as the v{ater Authorities, bolding data which nobody else knew about.

L2 st BStEtfAllD rslllwtriG rN ltE ritan RE @[E;ER\rArffi qrNcrl

Dr R J Keyrer

Introduction rvly predecessor as leader of tbe E:gland r-ield Unit (EFU), presented a paper on the work of tbe NCCin babitat recording to the BCGin i984 (Bines, 1985). I do not want to go over tbe same ground again, but the pbased approach to survey work Bines outlined is still followed by NCCand I wiIl briefly describe this approach for those who are not familiar with it.

$rrvey objectives ard ptrases

NCCbas three rnain objectives for survey work:

to determine the location and extent of babitats and sites; to determine tbe quality of individual sites; to provide detailed information to facilitate site manage- nent.

For these objectives suitable methods have been designed which we refer to as PhaseI, fI and IIl. These methods have been refined in recent years and may be available in draft form, if not in print. Phase f is a habitat mapping system using a standard classification on an area basis, normally a district or a county. 'Ihis standard classification has also been adopted by tbe Royal Society for Nature Oonservation (RSNC)(see pages 39-43). NCChave a Phase I Handbookin draft whicb it is boped to produce this year. The end product of this work is a series of maps for the area covered. 'Ihese maps identify tbe babitats present, from which area measurementscan be made allowing a resouree statement to be compiled. Phase I survey is therefore the starting point for all other types of survey. Phase II is a system for surveying selected sites within a habitat type in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of their importance for nature conservation. This approach identifies the different plant communities present on sites and collects information on tbe presence and abundanceof species using quadrats, normally two quadrats per vegetation-type located subjectively in areas which are representative of the community-type. The data can tben be analysed to define more precisely the community-types present. This approach to babitat survey has been facilitated by the contract which NCChas placed with lancaster University to produce a National Vegetation Classification of all the plant communities occuring in Great Britain. Completed chapters have now been reviewed by NCCfor a number of tbe main babitat types while the entire eontract is scheduled for completion by 1989. Phase fff describes tbe wide range of site surveys required to provide detailed information for the development of managementplans, Lo establish a baseline for vegetation monitoring. Ibe specific objectives of these detailed surveys, and the methods of data collection whicb are employed, are potentially so many and varied that it is not practical to specify standard methods.

13 NCChas issued a Focus publication on botanical survey and monic- oring methods for grasslands which describes in detail this phased approach to grassland survey (Smith et dI, 1985). Tbe approach described is generally applicable to otber habitats, altbough modifi- cations to the details of the method would be required. r\CC has produced a standard method for the survey of ditcb vegetation (Alcock and Palmer, 1985) and has draft metbods for the survey of most other habitats in various stages of production.

Ertent of sunrey coverage

In England, the present situation regarding the extent of Phase I eoverage is tbat about 40t has been or is being surveyed. However, only about IOt of tbis area at present has resource statements available. Most surveys to date have been, at least in part, funded by IvISC,but this poses problems over the retention of trained project leaders beyond the 12 month period that IIISCsponsors. To overcome this problem, NCC is funding project leaders in certain areas during this financial year. r'fuinerousPhase II surveys of specif ic habitats bave been carried out in particular counties or regions. In 1979-80 an attempt was made to collate this information togethrer witb information on ail other surveys in England. A computerised system was developed using keywords on an Olivetti computer, which woulci allow one to search for particular types of survey in specific areas. Since 1980 the system has not been maintained, but it is hoped next year, with the provision of microcomputers to the NCCRegions, thaL we can fill in tbe information for the missing years and establish a system whicb will be updated by the Regions themselves. Details of Phase Iff surveys whicb have been carried out on rrlational Nature Reserves (NNRs) shouid be included in the Event Record system. This system is currently being revised to provide a more precise classification which will greatly simplify the extraction of informatron. 'Ibe amount of money spent on survey work has declined in recent years, due to the need to implement the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA). During tbe last few years about €I00 000 per year has been spent by Ehe Regions and England Headguarters on external contract survey work in England. In addition, some surveys have been commissioned centraily by Great Britain Headquarters and some regional staff may have been able to do limited amounts of survey work. llrnitoring

At tbe present time NCCis at t.he stage of beginning to formulate a strategy for monitoring and to this end bas recently appointed a monitoring ecologist to thre Cnief Scientist Directorate (CSD). NCC requires information on monitoring at various levels in order to meet its statutory duties. These levels are:

quantitative changes in the extent of habitats in the wider countryside; quantitative changes in tbe extent of habitats on individual s ites; qualitative cbanges in hapitats on individual sites.

l4 'Io expand on these, the first level provides tbe information we require on habitat loss in tbe wider countryside. The second level provides this information at a site level, but rrte also require lnformation on the occurrence of potentiaily damaging operations witb- out NCCrsprior consent wbich may not involve habitat loss. The third leve1s need to know whether tbe consent notices tbat we are issuing under the WCAare resulting in the maintenance/enhancementof the scientific interest of sites. r{ore specifically, where NCCbas entered into managementagreements with owners and occupiers, possibly involving considerable financial compensation, there is a similar requirement to know that the objectives of the managementagreement are being met.

Qrantitative ctanges in the extent of babitats in the wider cpuntrlf- side

NCChas an on-going project, tbe tiational Countryside Monitoring Scheme, to collect information on cbanges in the extent of habitats. This approach involves the automated measurement of habitats present on pairs of aerial photographs taken in tbe I940s and 1970s on a county by county basis. A stratified sampling approach has been adopted so tbat a 108 random sample is selected, stratified according to the major land-use types present in a county. This is designed to identify changesof 10E or more within 95t confidence limits. The project has only recently becomeoperational, with the report for Cumbria almost completed. 'Ihe project in England is scheduled for completion by 1991. A different approach to provide this information in the future could be the repetition of Phase J surveys, but by then the use of satellite imagery will probabiy fulfil this requirement. Satellite imagery has the great advantage that images are obtained every 15-18 days, although a proportion of these will be obscured by cloud cover.

Quantitative ctranges in the ortent of babaitats on irdividual sites

A11 SSSIs in England have been mappedprior to renotification under tbe WCAusing NCC'sstandard habitat classification. This is the same classification as used in PhaseI surveys. Limited information on changes could therefore be obtained by repeating tbis survey work, or by the use of aerial photograpby. fnformation on Lhe occurrence of potentially damaging operations can also be obtained by NCCRegional staff on regular visits to sites using standard proformas. More general information could also be collected on such visits, for example by tire use of photograpby. Voluntary conservation bodies also bave an interest in providing NCCwith information when they suspect sucn operations have been carried out illegally. Aerial pbotography and satellite imagery could also be useful for tbis purpose, while tne monitoring of site quality may indicate tbat potentially damaging operations have been carried out without consent from NCC.

Q'ralitative ctranges in babitats on individral sites

fn order to investigate changes in vegetation in any babitat' a unit of vegetation will need to be accurately described. Pbase II survey

15 of sites would produce maps showing the location of the different plant communities presenC, within which quadrats could be recorded. ihe regular reeording of permanently marked quadrats (comprising a specie-s list, estimales bf abundance and possibly measurement of siructure), and possibly permanently marked transeets across boundaries between signiticJnt plant communicies, will allow information on changes in the quaiity of the vegetation to be collected. However' at present, little attention has been paid to the way in which sucb data Lan be analysed to produce information of value to those setting site managementprescriPtions. apart from qualitative changes in the general vegetation, information will also be neededfor other criteria which are used for the selection of SSSIs. fn practice, this means assessing -c,han-gesin the occurrence of aggregations of species and of individual species' Tbere are standaiO tecfrniques available for counting/monitoring aggregations of species (commonbird census, counts of coastal waders and of *ilfowl, butterfly transects) and individual speeies, altbough it is likely that study itandard methods will have to be modifieo. Ir any changes wLrich might take place in the plant cominunity and its componentspecies are to be underltood, it is vital that details of managementregimes and events on monitored sites are themselves r""oid"d. Thii in itself may well be tbe most difficult aspect of such work and may necessitate tbe use of NNRsfor the initial development worK. eosjiUty a different approach to vegetation monitoring would be more efficient, for example using particular groups of species with cbaracteristic life-forms and life cycles to indicate changes in different factors occurring on a site. t tiave not discussed gualitative changes in babitats in the wider countryside, but it is likely that irrCCwill have to turn to others to pio"iti" the broader environmental data to put local changes in a regional and national context. As funds for survey work are always likely to be limited it is important that duplication of effort is avoided and that interested p"iti"= can use data held by other organisations. The use of more consistent methods is therefore essential to enable comparable results to be produced.

References

Alcock, M.R. and Palmer, M.A., 1985. A st.andald method for tbe survev of ditch veqetation. CSTNotes No 37, Nature ConservancY Council. Bines, T.J., 1985. The work of the Nature ConservancYCouncil. a) babitat recording. BCGNewsletter' 4Q), supplement, Pages 15-18. Smith, f .R., WelIs, D.A. and Welsb' P., 1985. Botanical surveY and monitoring methods for grasslands. Focus on Nature Conservation, 10. Nature ConservancryCouncil.

I5 RF;ffiTS BY I,iMKSEOP ONVENERS

hDRKSHOP1: PRIORITY TAXA

A.G. Imin

This workship examinedthe potential of priority taxa as a meansof using the limited resources of biological records centres more effi- ciently. Most of the discussion eentred on the value of data for conservation decision-making. Records can be used:

to identrfy sites of conservation value; to provide information to assist in tbe correct management of sites; to provide locaI information which is used to build up a picture of the national status of particular species.

'Ibe first two functions are usually executed by tbe comparison of lists of species. These may be straigbt lists, with or without anec- dotal comment, or they may be weighted lists using Red Data Book categories or a more sophisticated scoring system. Foster mentioned the proposal to introduce minus values for some water beetles wbose presence indicates a particularly poor site! Irwin suggested that for any one type of habitat, a list of priority taxa could be drawn up so tbat effort could be concentrated on tbem. For fresbwater, tbe obvious candidates are water beetles, stoneflies, dragonflies and macrophytes. One participant felt able to identify good parkland sites purely on licbens and click beetlesl The reason for selecting taxa (priority taxa) in tbis way is to avoid the possi- bility of overlooking those interesting and important habitats which are next to useless for birds, butterflies and bigher plants. It is these three groups which are priority taxa at present and they seem likely to remain so. Tbe reason for tbis is that they have been well surveyed, they are relatively easy to identify and are popular with amateur naturalists. They also have a high public profile. A distrnction was proposed between priority taxa which are popular groups good for public relations and key taxa which may be less popular but, are of more value for conservation value assessment. Otber groups becoming increasingly popular are bats and dragonflies. Dragonflies in particular owe their recent revival to tbe publication of Hammond(1977) and the connection between good Iiterature and useful taxa is fundamental. Hoverflies are another example of a group that is des-tined to be popular beeause of a book (Stubbs and Falk, 1983) with good colour plates. This is just as well because dragonflies have limited value as priority taxa, not only because they are restricted to fresbwater, but also because in some parts of the country tbe dragonfly fauna is so impoverished that no sites appear to bave eonservation value. The same is true of grasshoppers which may be priority taxa in the south of England but certainly not in the nortb. Local policy must be determined by tbe fauna as well as by Ioca1 expertise.

L7 Apart from taxonomic groups of organisms, other priority groups were suggested for consideration. Indicator species including relic species are obviously important, though clearly one must Survey water beetles or rnosses aJ a wfrote to determine whetber particular species are present. Turk pointed out that inter-tidal transects were surveyed for tixed rather than mobile organisms of a wide range of taxa. Another 'behavioural' group which can be easily and regrularly surveyed comprises tbose insects whicb cometo li9ht traps (e9. moths, Iace- wings, ichneumons and caddisflies). Tio furtber groups of species are in need of special attention. One contains those species which are under globaI threat. It'Ianysuch species have been shown to occur in continental Europe, but their c6"nce" of survival tbere may be very slim. Any species or subspecies apparently endemic to the Britisb Isles deserves our closest attention. There are habitats and habitat mosaics within Britain whicb are unique and we must record (to conserve) tbe plant and animal communities which live there. We cannot assume that these species will survive in other parts of the wor1d. Other priority taxa are those wild flowers and butterflies which are available for purchase by nature lovers everywhere. We cannot rely on r\CCbeing informed about introductions, and chaos in the recording of natural populations of these taxa is probably not far away. The question of wbat not to record (low-priority taxa) was raised. Tbe general c.onsensusseemed to be tbat a list of mesostigmatid mites would find space in the paper archives, but not on a computer file. We do not wish to discourage ttre study of obscure groups' but we must be careful not to cpmmit limited resourees to information which may have limited use. Similar1y records of birds just flying over a site should be given low priority. Rather, ornithologists should be encouraged to do censuses of breeding birds and surveys of feeding and rooscing areas Lo provide information tbat will be much more valuable. Irwin suggested that species on tbe edge of their range should have low priority because they were difficult to conserve and were probably doomedto disappear for climatic reasons. Tbe idea was rejected on the following grounds:

the Large Blue Butterfly reintroduction provided excellent publicity for conservation; species at the edge of tbeir range often have very specific habitat requirements and change in status can indicate subtle environmental changes; these species are of great interest to the amateur natura- Iist and they will continue to record them anyvrtay.

Some participants felt Lhat this irxlependent trait of amateur naturalists probibited the use of priority taxa on the basis that they would not be told what to study. frwin's experience was that amateur naturalists are often very anxious to "do Something useful" and will happily start working on a new taxonomic groupr particularly if there is additional encouragement. Tbis migbt include an identification worksbop or the provision of a namedreference collection with access to the relevant literature. Approaches could also be made to the local nature conservation trusts to discuss what to record where and why. Finally, one practical measure which the conveners hope to pursue

t8 was a 'Wbich' report on taxonomic groups. This guide will be pub- Iished so that records centres can judge for themselves which groups are likely to give the best returns for their effort. National scheme organisers and otbers will be asked to award their group ratings for attractiveness, usefulness, avai labIe 1iterature, referee service, etc., and we sbould be able to suggest some 'best buys'. we can also provide warnings about groups wbicb lack tbe BRCkitemark. These usually have an insecure nomenclature and are taxonomically unsafe!

References

Hamrnnd,C.O., L977. Ibe dragonf lies of Great Britain and Jreland. Iondon: Curwen Books Stubbs, A.E. and Falk, S.J., 1983. Britain hoverflies. Icndon: British E:tonrological and lla@iety.

I9 hBKSEOP 2: CREAIEDEABTTATS f.M. E\rans

Much of the effort in biological recording (and conservation) in this country has been focussed on semi-natural babitats. In parts of Iowland Britain, however, 95? or more of the land surface may consist of 'man-made' or 'ereated' habitats. The recording and evaluation of such habitats is usually regarded as primarily a problem for the ecrclogist concerned with urban or industrial areas' but it is as much one for those concerned with the countryside. The convener illustrated this point with an account of the view from his study window in an east Leicestershire village. This enqcmpassesthe following features:

his neighbour's house (with a brood colony of pipistrelle bats ) ; a large dead elm (the likely source for the first I-eicestershire rec-ord of tbe beetle Aulonium trisulcum); a parishr boundary hedge (with hazel, otherwise rare in this parish); a field pond (rumoured to contain great crested newts); on the skyline, a fox covert (containing wood anemone, an ancient woodland indicator-species).

A11 of tbis landscape was man-made, and, witb the exception of the parish boundary hedge, none of it was more than 200 years old. All Lhe featut'es mentioned are of biological interest, most are of some significance for wildlife conservation. The moral of this example is thit recording and evaluation must encompass tbe total environrnent' from city centres to mountarn tops. The relording of created habitat presents a number of problems if technigues are borrowed un-modified from tbose devised for semi- natural habitats. Tbey can, however, be adapted- Tbe first problem is that of defining the recording unit or site' wbich the Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, L977)describes as 'any area oF land large or sma1l, for which prescribed boundaries can be drawn on a map Lo define a single geographical unit'. Given large enoughscale maps (1:2500 or t:i250), this is not a practical problem' evelr in urban areas. ft was suggested tbat individual gardens in suburban areas constitute a habitat continuum and should not be regarded as sites in their own right. Srnce, bowever, biological records from such areas can and should be precisely localised' and since the managementof one garclen may differ drastically from that next door, it wls agreed Lhat tbey did comply with the definition. The second problem is that of describing the nature of the siLe and the plant and animal communities it supports. This is particularly acute in tbe case of urban sites. Classifications sucb as tbat adopted by tbe NCCand the RSNC(NCC/RSNC, 1984) (see page? 41-43) do not really cope, since most created habitat ends up in the illdefined categories I (Rock exposures and waste) or J (Miscellaneous). Shimwell (1983) provided a conspectus of urban vegetation types, which was expandedby the work of Handley (1984) in St Helens and Gilbert (1983) in Sheffield. These provide a good starting point, but concen-

20 trate on the vegetation, Sor for instance, animal communities inbabiting buildings are not covered. Many of us have adopted prag- matic solutions to this problem, but there is a demonstrable need to agree and define key concepts in this area. A third problem is that of deciding what to record (ie. which species). A major part of tbe discussion centred on ,introduced' or 'alien' species, however these terms vrere defined. As a practical policy, it was concluded tbat all species with significance in the communities present should be recorded, irrespective of tbeir origins. with the help of research on the past history of sites and tborough event recrcrding, however, distinctions may be drawn between species that were relicts of past land uses (eg. former argricultural land on urban fringes), tbose that had arrived unaided, and those that were the result of activity aimed deliberately at species diversification, so that evaluations may be based on tbese distinctions.

E\raluative criteria

As in the case of habitat classification, any evaluation systems designed for semi-natural habitats and to be employed aL national level will give trouble wben used for created habitats and at a local level. It is possible, bowever, to use a number of the criteria listed in Ratcliffe 1977), especiatty if it is appreciated that they may be used independently of one another. Criteria sucb as size and fragility are relevant and usable; naturalness and typicalness are less so. ft was agreed that the most useful was diversity, at both community and species level, ignoring for the purposes of tbe exercise the origins of that diversity. fc was also agreed that, althroughthe social value of sites was a valid evaluative criterion, especially in built-up areas, it was one that should be operated independently of more strictly biological criteria. A further practical criterion, based on biological records, tbat should be used independently, is a judgement of whether a site is maintainable in a desirable state of diversity, given that many sites rapidly progress towards woody vegetation dominated by a few species. itlaturalness was a coneepL that came in for some discussion in relation to created babitats. Wewere reminded, for example, tbat man-madeaquatic babitats in urban and industrial areas, sucb as canals, often scored considerably higher on biological diversity tban rivers, which might be considered to be more 'natural'. We were also reminded that Ratcliffe Q977) lists 'potential value' as an evaluative criterion. One of the benefits of the survey and evaluation of existing created haoitat was tbat the experience enabled one to advise on habitat creation and the managementof the results. Regrettably, gardens are dismissed in Ratcliffe (L977) in one sentence, and their evaluation raises problems which have yet to be seriously tackled, if only because of the paucity of comparative daLa (see, for example, Owen and Owen, 1975). One last point raised was the range of biological diversity in urban areas, on sites tbat hreresociaIly, if not obviously biotogically, significant. Any evaluation scheme used in such areas may well have to take into account siLes ranging from SSSI at one extreme to close- mown ryegrass swards at the other. fn conclusion, tbe workshop was agreed on the general need to continue to communicate and sbare the scattered experience in the

2T recording and evaluation of created habitat, and on tbe particular need for the development of a classification system for such habitats that toor all the features of biological interest into account.

References

Gilbert, O.L., 1983. 'Ihe wildlife of Britain's wasteland. NewScienList, 9"1, 824-829. HanAtEy, J., 1984. Unpublished appendix (No. 4.) to report on tbe operation of Groundwork Nortb-west. NCC/RSNC,1984. Habitat classification and description. Unpublished. Owen, J. and Owen, D.F., 1975. Suburban gardens: England's most important nature reserve? frvironmental Conservation, 2, 53-59- Ratcliffe, D. (ed.), 1977. A nature conservation review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shimwell, D.W., 1983. A conspectusof urban vegetation types- Duplicated report. School of Geography, University of Manchester.

22 $ffiKSFP 3: THE TEIIDENT DATA

C.J-T. 6p fntroduct.ion

Even a cursory consi.deration of biological recording and ecological survey wilI indicate that tbere is a 1ot going on. Howeffective is this recording and are we making the most of the available data? It seems that much potentially useful information never gets beyond the individual observer or, in organisations, tbe project for wbich thre information lyas orginally gathered. For major users of data' nature eonservation trusts, record centres, planning departments, aII too often it is more convenient to set up yet another I{SC survey team rather tban tackle the task of tracing, obtaining and assessing what has already been done. Tbis is because much existing knowledge is 'bidden' from irnmediate access, sometimes by organisational PoIicy' sometimes through accident or difficulties in communication. fn many instances it is not in a form readily usable by others. During the worksbop an attempt was made to idenLify who were the major holders of data, what sort and quality of data there were and whether they could be more generally used. The question was asked, does it matter if we cannot obtain data and whose job it is to coordinate the work and disseminate the data? As is often the case' the workshop raised more questions than were answered. As an introduction to the problem, the convener gave a list of some of tbe organisations whicb hold data and comparedthem as viable sources of information from the records centre and planning points of view (Irsted in tbe Appendix). This was followed by a presentation by Dr R. Symes of MAFF, an organisation frequently thougbt of as high in tbe 'hidden data' stakes, on the wort

SSSI notification - advice on agricultural aspects; land and water services - special babitat surveys; wildlife incident investigation scheme - eg. pesticide misuse; protected species licences - usually birds or badgers; introduced species - usually manrnals; inforrnation on pesticides; bat specialists; small mammalsurvey of farmland (in association with the MammalSociety); surveys of pest species, sucb as rabbits - on a county basis. fntormation collected on a casual basis is also kept. fn BristoI, a computer record is kept of any enquiry that comes in. In 1985, 2536 enquiries were logged from the South-Western Region. It is possible to plot maps from tbis database (eg. of reports of moles or badgers). The results of some surveys have been published in society journals.

23 Site related data can be made available, but is not usually published in that form. The South-Western Region was said to be the best organised section from the recording point of view, but more ecologists were being appointed and inore interest in systematic recording was likely to develop in the future.

t{trat is tbe inqnrtance of 'biddenr data? - l*ro needs it?

Planning. Effective planning requires ready aceess to alI the relevant information on a site basis. Tnis information needs to be validated, interpreted and put in context. Too often decisions are made on insufficient data collected in too much of a hurry.

Distrihrtion strdies: national recording scbemes. The level to which they are tapping tlre full resource varies according to the popularity of the group. Some schemes dealing with difficult groups may prefer to have fewer top-class recorders than many average recorders.

Conservation. Detailed information needed for choice of sites for scheduling or cronservation work. Also detailed knowledge of species biology and distribution needed for species conservation.

Collectors and naturalists. Where to go and what to see? Lack of readily available information on other groups tends to push the maj- oricy towards birds, butterflies and flowers. This is also true of species conservation.

tftrat can be done?

Can a strategy be developed to improve data availabiiity? Does it need a different approach in different circumstances (eg. when dealing with organisations or individuals). Organisations can operate to a poliry but individuals need a personal approach. It is necessary to estabLish what sort of information and also which species are the most important before too much effort is put into inappropriate activities? It is important for the disparate groups to get their own houses in order. For instance, tbe NCChas carried out many surveys and has many more ongoing. An attempt bas been made to catalogue these surveys and cross-link them with keywords, but tbis has since lapsed. It was boped to renew this work on a new compr:ter in the future. The BRC was also criticised for its minimal distribution-style records and lack of feedback, although it was acknowledged that considerable efforts were being made to change botb. One of the suggested reasons for the problem of'bidden'data was that of communications, which it was thought could be solved by tbe injection of money. AII to often, priorities are too short term and this goes against a solution. Time was felt to be an important element. ft was even suggested that 'old' data should be ignored and that recording should start again in a better, universally acceptable' forrnat ! This latter eommentprompted a discussion on what is being recorded, particularly tbe old "species versus site" dichotomy. The NCCand planning authorities, it was stated, were interested primarily in sites, not on species mappedby squares. ft was generally agreed

24 that, where feasible, reccrds should be derived from as small an area as possible and that data could then be summarized for mapping purpose=. Another criticism ranged at many sources of recrcrds' particularly tbose beld by locaI biological records centres, was that records rarely gave any adequate estimation of abundance and that sources were not flexibte in their approach to tbe data. Urban areas for instance, needed a sociological aspect to their site assessment in addicion to plain lists of species.

Oonclusions

The general conclusion of the workshop was that there was indeed a great deal of data 'frozen' within the system, but that many were also incompatible with the needs of otber possible users. fn many cases it did not matter if data were not immediately available as long as they were stored safely, their location known and they could be indexed. There was a need for a greater degree of cooperation and compatability between different interest groups and a longer term perspective Ert into tbe planning of any new recording projects. These are all things which the NFBRcould be instrumental in bringing about.

25 APPETiDTX

gftrere are the rhidden' data?

Oentrally futed organisations

Nature Conservancy Council. Regional offices and national headquarters. l"luch of tbe survey work is carried out by contract staff and some is commissioned. Special surveys include:

invertebrate site register; development of National Vegetation Classification; ancient Woodland surveyi c-oastal survey. ltot a problem, apart from need for co-ordinated approach to its data.

Natural Environment Research Council. Research stations witb widespread interests. fncludes fnstitute of Terrestrial Ecology, Fresbwater Biological Association, Marine Biological Association, Scottisb Marine Biological Association.

National l4rseums. research results; collections; records centres at Cardiff (now defunct) and Merseyside.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, lr7itdlife Department. r{ew reguirement to take conservation into account will result in appointment of biologist/conservation officers and presumably generate more surveys.

Ministry of Defence. Where are data about its land boldings beld? MODConservation Groups' co-ordinated by PL(Lads) 3, compile data on site basis for selected sites.

Ministry of 'I'ransport. Surveys prior to major projects often commissionedfrom commercial organisations, normally considered confidential.

Producers arrl services

Water Authorities. Water quality and monitoring including fish data rarely held by rec.ords centres.

Central Electricity Generating Board.

British Gas Corporation.

British CoaI.

25 Irhjor tarrilwrrers

rrlational I'rust. :ii::ri:i:,;s":r"*H:i.?:,:irencesrer: daraavailable, arrhousb sire

Wbodland lrust. !{hat data?

Nature conservatron trusts. often major holders of data, sometimes sometimes functioning as record centres, competi,ng with/ignoring rocal carried - ,.1".a centre. surveys often out by trlSCteam". Not,i,"r1r"1111i-nIo5r.* ,t,iaden, subject to varying ot data, views on ir,u sensitivitv Ir data. Irhjor holders of data Biological Records Centre I I,IE, Monks Wood. Dataavailable ffi::;irilfa on requesr,bur howmuch sers our andin

National Recording Schemes(include major societies, €9. BSBI). Most run in colraboration with BRc.- How many of there data ooes if varv get back ;:.:?;:*'"H,area? rrom e;;; ro sroup? Howare rhe

Iocal reeords cenEres. very variabre in size, area covered., services Need for - provided and quality. standardisation and Ltter ileiil. by MSC Like trusts, oiten run teams. Some are data ,black holes,. Iocal natural history societies. often major contributors to recording scbemes. one of the easier of data if individuars approached (bur ffjiJ,"." see nores on indivi_ ,trusr Britisb for Ornithology. and nesting aaia - do these il"r$ringing ever get back to tbe source

Other societies

Marine Conservation Society. fnvolved in much recording.

groups witb specialist interests, such ffitt"r"":ter as wildf lowers,

Omrercial organisations

Do commercial survey and ecorogicar assessment organisations pose threat to the records network? a Tbey can rrire recorder and of dara, bur are rhesJerfectiveiv c.ol1ect a H:.t"#Tnt lost, exceprto rhe

27 Ioca1 autborities

County ecologists.

Conservation sections of planning departments.

Parks and open spaees departments.

E:vironnental health off ices.

FWAGofficers. Usually in planning departments, but becauseof their relationship wiLh farmers the data are often considered to be confidential. t[.rseums. Collections - big problems witb cataloguing, identifications and age of specimens. Useful historical sources and essential archive for vouchers in new surveys. Often the site of a local records centre.

Ehrcational bodies

Universities and polytecbnics. Field trips, study courses, student and staff research projects. How much of tbeir data are validated or retained?

Schools. As above, but can be readily involved in simple recording schemes.

Field Studies Council. How rnany data are validated or retained? l{anporrer Service &nmission scbeses

Surveys organised by many of tbe above bodies, often with little provision for the long term integrity of the data. Widely variable in standards and provision for validation or dissemination of the information collecteci. Many are very good and are a major source of new records. Some are excellent at record dissemination. Unfortunately, others are a major source of duplicated effort.

Irdividuals

Individuals are often a major source of 'hidden' data. There are bundreds, possibly thousands, of local c"ollectors,/naturalists, some of whom are acknowledged experts, whrosit on a lifetimers data in a form which is irretrievable or to whicb they are unwilling to grant access. Local people often know more about the history of change in an area than visiting 'professionalsr. How can this knowledge be tapped? Women'sJnstitute groups have proved an invaluable source of belp (eg. Phase 1 survey) in some counties. Farmers often have a detailed awareness of their land and are frequently good observers, expecially of mammalsand birds. How can contact be made and prejudiees overcome? Holiday-makers. Naturalists have holidays - how can their easual observations be captured?

28 IiORKSEOP4: EAliDtsffi Fm, BTOLGTCAL RffiDrfG: PIAMS FOR.A IoDUTAR tsANDtscNKAND PRGRESSWTTE SELECTED TINilJLES t.S. Way fntroduct.ion

The 1985 Biological Recording Forum (Copp and daroing, 1985) expressed a need for a handbookfor biological recording. The production of a handbook was seen as a fundamental priority of the NFBR. Tbe workshop considered the following format and modular structure for the bandbook.

Formt

Handbook to be modular, with some sections updated annually or on a longer time period. All modules and r'IFBRephemeral publications to f it into a durable cover. 'Iext highly structured and indexed to ensure quick access to specific areas of information. Techniques set out as illustrated instructions with worked examples.

lbdules Renewal rate

1. Biological recording strategy for tbe Once only United Kingdom

A response to the l,iCCpublication Nature Conservation in Great Britain. A document to establish the essential role of bioiogical recording in nature eonservation.

2. Biological recording in the United Kingdom Periodic

A 'glossy' aimed at all users of biological records to introduce them to organizations, roles, rec.ord sources and alleged information networks. To provide a collective image of a fragrmented and unknowable resource.

3. Network contact addresses Annual

Organizations holding biological records indexed by type, location (and taxon). To include the BRC national recorders, Iocal nature eonservation trusts (boloing more tban reserve data), Iocal records centres, i\CC regional offices and officers, county ecologists,/planning departments collecting biological data.

4. Policies Per i odi c addi t i on,/repl acement

Policies developed by NFBRfor adoption by all recording organizations. To cover data release, acceptance and impar- tiality. An attempt to provide a common response to

29 enquiries and to prevent the creation of hidden data.

5. Producing valid records Once only

Hcw to record in a credible way, irrespective of the type of survey conducted. lrlinimum records, project, personal or critical species vouchers and the sanctity of the gr-glnal record.

6. Survey register Annual

A biIl-board for aIl national and regional surveys. To detail tbe nature of survey, duration, wbo is responsible and fate and aceessibility of the data. An annual review of progress,/changes to surveys. An alternative to the grape- vine.

7. Taxonomic Iistings Periodic additions

Codes, Red Data Book status, species requiring vouehers for reliable determination, codes of collecting practice' species affected by legislation. AII exist separately and could be usefully listed together against taxon.

8. Historic records Once only

flow to treat bistorical records - transcriptions' priorities and sourees.

9. Site recording Feriodic additions

t'lucb scope for republishing internally circulated documents or epbemeral circulars.

I0. Institutional records Periodic additions

An account of the record boldings, reguirements and functioning of institutions or organizations of regional or national scope (eg. Water Boards, NCC,MAFF). A statement of accessibility and format of records held.

The role of a 'handbook' in the development of biological recording was tbe dominant theme of the workshrop. The need for standards' adoptable methodologies, training, communication, publicity and po1icry can, in part, be satisfied by publishing information, out will not solve all current ills. The published word is undemandingand easily ignored. The debates about the handbook higblight the lack of a strong coordinating influence within biological recording and many of the proposed modules cannot be abtempted until this is established. The workshop could see the value of a handbook, although not all modules met with fulI approval. As short-term priorities, it was recommendedthat modules 2, 3 and 5 were produced. The most important areas of concern debated during the workshop are noted below.

30 A standard

Tne handbook offers a chance of making better use of the limited resources available to biological recording. Biological records are potent.ially useful to a wide range of recorders and recording institutions and published guidelines may help to prevent tbe collection of records which, tbroughr unnecessary restrictions on information content, are of little general use. The idea of a 'minimum' record is surprisingly still much debated and though already in print (Copp and Harding, 1985), there is still a demand for a published statement on the standard whrich records sbould meet.

Moptable rethodologies

Using the theme of making good use of limited resources, many saw the need for survey methods, record processing and storage methods (both manual and computerised) to be made available through pubtisbing. For biological recorders beginning new work, the availability of ready-to- use methodologies makes sense as it ensures quality of work, economy of effort and compatibility of surveys and of organisations. The problems lie in the development of credible methodologies worthy of adoption. A system developed by one organisation to deal with a particular situation, while having many elements of general application, is unlikely to cope well with more widespread use. Tbe demand is great and existing products are rapidly being adopted and may, as a consequence, become standard by default. Methodologies for publications will need an overview established by consultation and must be able to exploit the pooled resourees and expertise of all concerned.

Training

During the consideration of standards and methodologies it was often stated that many elements of biological recording are available either as published or internal documents. To use this resource, 'information packs' targeted at new recording schemesand developing record centres could be quickly assembled and would avoid the trme and c'ost of republishing the information in a new format. The information pacKs would serve as training material by giving new biological recorders an idea of what is being done and how. Travel money to encourage biological recorders to visit related instituLions to study working practice should be sought.

&smrnication

Tbe need to increase communication between biological recorders is one of tbe central ideas of the handbook. The production of the handbook will have to be consultative to facilitate its use by tbe more estab- lisbed recording institutions. Some handbook modules, especially 3 and 6, are designed to make for easier communication between reeorders by providing details of what is going on and who is involved. There are many examples of two or more organisations, or individuals, tack- ling virtually identical tasks in isolation from each other.

31 Hublicity

A different communication problern is that of establisbing the role of biological recording within British natural history. Information bas to be supplied to funding bodies, professional biologists, naturalists and the public. Appropriate media should be chosen for each target group and the services of a public relations firm migbt be sought. Modules I and 2 bave some publicity value, but their development highligbts the need for a consensusand policy within biological recording.

Policry

Recording strategies, record collection, recording survey methods and data release could all benefit from t.he development of guidelines. Should guidelines be policy or recommendations? The status of guidelines depends on the credibility of the handbook, tbe relevance and practicality of the guidelines, and the availability of funds to support organisations implementing the guidelines.

Reference

Copp, C.J.T. and Harding, P.T., 1985. Biological_Recording Forum 1985. Biology C\rratorsr Group, Special Report No 4. Bolton: BCG.

32 hHKSEOP 5: TNTOLIIEMENIrN PIANNTIG: S]IfiARY OF OITIRTBUIIOIIS

f .M. Brans

Tbe volume of the traffic in information between individuals or institutions generating biological records and users is increasing. This traffic poses a number of questions for intermediaries, such as biological record eentres, who gatber records, store, filter, evaluate and communicate them to planners and other users such as the general pulclic, research workers and educationalists. 'Io tbe question, do the planners need us, tbe answer, in the present climate of public opinion on environmental matters, must be an unequi- vocal yes. However, it sbould be realised, by even the most dedicated conservationist, that ecological factors are only one of many constraints involved in tbe determination of planning issues and often, neeessarily, a minor one. Given that there is a need, in what form and in how muchdetail is information most useful to the planners? The answer depends, obviouslyr on the use to wbicb it is to be put, from strategie planning at one extreme, to the determination of individual applications at lbe other, via the gamut of types of plans and planning issues. The basic requirements are:

information relating to sites with precisely defined boundaries; descriptions of habitat couched in non-technical terms; estimates of ecological value expressed in accordance with a simple system of grades.

Where the planners are major users of services, ther: these basic requirements largely dictate methods of gathering, storing, evaluating and eommunicating information. "Alert maps" are tbe key to unambigruouscommunication. They should be at a large enougb scale to show site boundaries reasonably accurately and are usually colour-cooeo by habitat type and grade. R. Smith (Cbeshire County @uncil) displayed the impressive results of a county-wide survey carried out by the county trust and then digitised and computer-mappedby his staff. It lrrasagreed that this was an ideal solution, given the necessary resources. There was wide agreement that a tbree-tier site-grading system was realistic and practicable, the tiers being variously designated, in decreasing order of importance: county,/metropolitan, district,/borougb and parisb,/1oca1. ft was recognised that there were grades superior to these (eg. regional, national and international), but it was felt that the iitCCwas best placed to deal with those levels. The special problems of the conurbations were acknowledged, one of wbicb was the need to take social factors into account, at tbe most basic level by demonstrating areas of environmental deprivation. Clusters of sites (aggregate sites in the Nature Conservation Review) are another prob- Iem. ft was empbasised tbat surveys and "alert maps" needed periodic updating, either generally, on a ten-year rolling programme, or in response to particular needs.

33 The workshop then crcnsidered the multifarious relationships between suppliers of biological information, intermediaries and users. Ic was acknowtedgedthat, for historical reasons, nearly everyoners situation was different. Some intermediaries were located in conservation trusts, some within planning departments, some in other parts of local government, such as museums. Others were, in title at least, rndepen- dent, though often funded from some' if not all, of these types of organisations. ft was affirmed that evaluation was a task for those with appropriate ecological training and experience, wboever their employers might be. Wbere biological record centres existed separately from county trusts, it was agreed that there would be, of neeessity, a duplication of effort in tbe response to planning authorities, but that this was a small price to pay for the independence. Ideally' those responsible for processing biological information for planning purposes and, in particular, for making evaluations, should be as independent as possible, to maximise objectivity and to reduce the possibitity of pressure being brought to bear, either within IocaI government or by outside groups. ft was of paramount importance tbat they should be recogrnised aS 'honest brokers', making information on particular issues available in an even-banded way to all parties. Where resources allowed, it was agreed that museums,in view of tneir traditional skills and responsibilities, were well suited to carry out these functions. Their long-standarding relationship with the amateur naturalist was a point in their favour, as also was their co-ordinative role in species recording, which is essential for effective site evaluation. '.Io provrde the sort of services the worksbop had been discussing was expen-ive of resources. On the vexed issue of whether organisations independent of planning autborities could and should charge tbese authorities for information, it was agreed that, although desirable' tbis had not often proved practicable. ft was pointed out, nowever' that organisations might well be able to charge other users' especially commerical ones. The workshop addressed itself, finally, to the question of general ecological advice to planners, in the particular contexts of derelict land restoration, habitat creation and land management. ft was agreed that biological record centres had a role to play in this area, but that tbe relevant expertise was quite drstinct from tbat required for biological recording and site evaluation. Since resources were limited, it should be rememberedtbat such work could be very time- consuming. It was important that those involved in such work kept the centres informed of their activities, at the very least for tbe benefit of posterity.

34 I0RI(SEOP 6: THREA'ISrc mGA[IISllS

H.R. Arnold

Introduction

'Ihreats to organisms can conveniently be divided into two types: intentional and incidental. fntentional threats include deliberate destruction of organisms or groups of organisms, such as may occur in "hobby" collecting, "scientific" collecting, "pest" or "weed" control; and sport. Recorders may feel that sending records to a central body will increase the risks to "their" sites. fs there any evidence that this is a real problem? Does anyone know of local or national data banks being used to find localities? Don't such people have their own sources of information (and possibly better records than data banks)? Incidental threats include destruction of babitats for housing, agriculture, industry, etc. Here, where thre importance of a site is not known, where perhaps notbing at all is adequately documented about an area, is wbere lack of records has a real impact. Developers are bardly Iikely to be impressed if, when tbey ask about a site, tbe reply is "I don't know if it's important - give me i8 months and I might be able to te1l you". Of course, if recorders are withholding records because of fears about security, there will always be someoneto say "But of course that meadowwhich has just been bulldozed was important - it was the only site in the crcunty for the Spotted so and so - f've been watching tLrem for years".

Srmry

Collecting and its dangers, or alleged dangers, was discussed at some length. The general consensus was tbat collecting posed little tbreat to most organisms, but it was recognized that there were important exceptions. For example, eertain rare species may be very vulnerable; and certain sites, because of their accessibility or notoriety, might be visited by too many collectors. 'I'be damage that commereial exploitation migbt cause was mentioned. Populations were mucb more likely to be at risk from habitat I destruetion, and tberefore it was vital that distributions should be I I accurately known, so that important sites could be pin-pointed and protected. I The workshop recognized that collectors are perceived as a threat by t"l some naturalists, and it was suggested that the Federation should produce an article explaining tbe function of records centres and the importance of records for the managementof both species and reserves. Records eentres will always need to bold a 'confidential' file on particularly sensitive sites or species and potential recorders should know that tbis facility is always available (but, of eourse, it should not be used indiscriminaLely). Movements of species and even entire habitats, from tbreatened areas, was also discussed. Some well publicized examples had apparently not worked, and this approach was seen as a danger to conservation. If the idea of 'savinq' babitats becamefixed in the

35 minds of potential devetopers, it might weaken the case for protecting sites. fi must be made clear that movementof habitats is very mucb a 'Iast ditch, attempt to preserve species, and is experimental (until if ever, such tecbniques are developed to the stage wbere they work!). AIso, it is practicable with only a limited range of hab:'tat types. Ot-her problems discussed were tbe mis-managementof reserves (eg. the prediliction of nature conservation trusts for digging ponds in any damp area), and uncontrolled introductions of sometimes exotic and unluitable species. ft was felt that most of the problems could be solved by education.

35 hDRKSffiP 7: SPrcIES lBllE' @DES AlilD \IERNACUIAR - "THB ll)l{H{CtATt RAL NIGAII.IARE' s.lrl. Turk

'lfrrat do rre crall it? fibat did they call it?"

It was agreed that what 'we' eall it and what 'theyr called it should be reconcited with the appropriate synonomy' and that generally only the most recently-recognised synonyms need be included. However, it is often desirable to also include in local lists those synonyms tbat have regional significance. Tbe idea of listing alI synonymswas considered unnecessary, althougb it is guite possible with microcomputers, even with tbe prospect of the species said to have the largest number of synonyms (the dipteran Dcorista rustica which boasts 34). ft was noted, in passingr and there was no dissent, that specialists are often more resistant to name changes in their own group, although they will readily accept them in other groups. ft was suggested that continual revision of individual names was not essential, provided it was done after a major publication.

"Does it need (or deserve) a vernacrrlar name?"

Popular names often enshrine facets of folr-Iore and have implications for lingruistics, including place-name studies, as well as being useful in interpreting old records in diaries, etc. Workshop members were unanimous in believing that they should not be lost, in alI their regional variety. However, tbere was a strong majority opinion that they should never be deliberately invented, but should arise spont- aneously in response to a need, as happens commonly in applied entomo- logy. If there were irresistable pressure to find a popular name (as, for instance, in some museumriisplays, or semi-popular books where the majority of species had such names) they should be chosen sensibly - and specialists were best fitted to do this. Turk stated that tbe intense interest in natural history in the past few decades would inevitably be reflected in the growth of sucb names, and was part of the historical proeess: for instance, correspondents in the Newsletter of the Marine Conservation Society have been seeking suggestions or approval of suggestions. Avoidance of ambiguity was obviously paramount; but at family and qeneric level, and in some groups at species level, it was ful1y accepted that vernacular names provide useful links in eommunication with those - even biologists - outside particular specialisations. Indeed, tbe inclusion of vernaeular and dialect names was considered a useful adjunct to a reeording system, especially since many common names bave a long bistory and therefore a greater stability nationally tt'ranthe equivalent scientif ic names. (Dadd's attempts in 1976 to instigat.e an arbitary system of stabilising scientific names, was evidently stilI-born). Standardisation in the more popular groups such as birds, mammals, freshwater fisbes and butterflies, has enabled commonnames to be used on some of the versions of BRC field cards. A discussion ensued on the value of producing lists with rec'ommended vernacular names, as had been done for vascular plants by Dony' Perring and Rob G974), or lists with aII known vernacular and dialect

37 namessuch as exists for birds (Swann1913; Lockwood, I984). The basis of this for fauna has been produced by Gozm5ny(L979) in his massive two-volume work, listing the names of 20 000 European animals, cross-refereneed from the scientific names (first volume) to the vernacular names in six langruages(second volume): it is a tour-de-force of codification. FoIlowing eacb recommended(defined as the one in most commonuse) commonname, are alternatives, including dialect names. Unfortunately he did not have tbe space to list the 10 000 sources tbat be consulted. Would a bibliography of national lists and eventually local lists of commonnames be a useful step towards making such work known?

"Hon many culgrrter code nrders does it have?"

The existence of syno-numbers would seemto increase the nightmare qualities of nomenclature, since there are now a number of private systems as distinct from bhe BRCcoding. Plant (PassmoreEdwards Museum)explained how tbey had formed a comprehensive systematically- related database of numbering of groups, allowing for ready addition of new species; this was tbe largest coded species listing outside tbe BRC. However, Ball (NCC), who gave a succinct illustrated account of his database and Greene (BRC)said that numbers were essentially internal affairs and correlation was a simple matter either by cross- reference of number or name. Greene described the coded synonymic cbeek lists being produced by BRC in collaboration with various specialists or specialist publications (eg. vascular plants, Lepidoptera, Diplododa, Chilopocla and tbe huge tbree volume, fully- eross referenced list of British beetles, by David Shirt: this even included commonnames where such exist!).

References

Dony, F.G., Perring, F. and Rob, C.M., L974. Enqlish names of wild flowers. A list reeommendedbv the Botanical Soc itish GTes. Bffi Gozmb:y, L., L979 . Vocabul ar i um nominum ani maI i gm_lfuropgg__Egpgg! linquis redactuq fuaapes fZZ pp; volume 2 1016 pp. iockwood, W.B., 1984. Oxford boor of British bird names. Oxford: o.u.P. Swann, H.K., 1913. A dictiona birds. tcndon: WitfierUy ana Co.

38 9ORK^SEOP8: HABTTATCIASSTFICATTSI

K. Charmn

The place where an organism lives, its habitat, is made up of biotic and abiotic components. Most "biological recorders" include some babitat information when recording the occurrence and abundanceof species. Any classification used is artificial and designed for a particular purpose. There is no "current" form of classification, it is merely a convenient way of splitting up a continuum into recognisable and describable units. Tbe features which are important in providing a habitat classification for one purpose or group of organisms are unlikely to prove ideal for another. However, given that the time, manpower and money available for survey and recording is always going to be limited, it is tbe duty of all biological recorders to collect information in a way that contributes to a common database and is of use to others. Wnat is reguired, tberefore, is a standard system which is flexible enough to cater for as many of tbe specialist requirements as possible and yet is easy for all biological rec"orders to apply. For sometime, NCC,with the help of otbers, has been developing a mapping scheme, based primarily on vegetation, but including some physical and managementfeatures, to define the distribution and abundance of elements of the nature conservation resource in the countryside (Phase 1 surveys). The classification developed is bier- archical (see Appendix) and tbe system is designed Lo be compatible with the rlational Vegetation Classification (NVC)which will provide the more detailed levels of vegetation description. !,lost recorders present at the workshop did record some habitat information. iuany of the categories they used had been evolved by the ::dividual and there was, therefore, a wide variety of methods and :.assifications used. The majority of those present agreed that a s:ardard system of habit.at classification was desirable to aid the -nmunication, use and evaluation of other people's data by as wide a variety of users as possible. ft was, bowever, recognised that individual speciaList requirements needed to be catered for within a commonframework. There were severe limitations in the use of the NCC phase I classification for this zurpose (and it bad been designed with different objectives). The NCCsystem could be improved and it would not be sensible to re-invent the wheel wben parts of an existing hub, spokes and rim were satisfactory. Some of the weakest elements of the Phase I classification were in tbe urban,/created sections whicb needed reviewing in the ligbt of recent experience. Hierarchical classifications do have certain advantages, but prcvision needed to be made for crosslinks and over- lapping categories (eg. wet "overlays" for grassland and woodland). There were also problemsof consistency within hierarchical Ievels. Since the i'lCCsystem bad been designed to map habitats of significance for nature conservation, certain elements of information would be explicit in mappedinformation (eg. size, location, railway Iine' etc.), but would not be apparent from an item of information on a record card. Tne NCCsystem does not take sufficient account of land- use history, management,soi1s, strueture and artificial,/created babitats and consideration needs to be given to recording those

39 features which affect zoological interest. Biological recorders are often interested in describing the micro habitats where individual species oceur, therefore tbe rather broad categories of Phase r survey classification are difficult to use to describe narrow niches. Somedifficulties could be overcrcmeby building up a description using standard terminology rather than using a "pigeon bole" classification, then there would be no limit to the amount of information given about each unit. A combination of both approaches, using a hierarchical vegetation classification (from broad babitats to NVC communities) as one dimension, qualified by standard descriptive terminology to cover environmental and management dimen- sions, might perhaps offer a solution. Tbe Workshopconcluded tbat the r\CCPhase f classification should be reviewed in the light of recent survey experience and minor modifica- tions made to produce a "standard" babitat,/vegetation classification. In addition, the group recommendedtbat a general-purpose classification incorporating detailed information of use to specialists sucb as land-use history, management, structure, soils, etc., should be developed. Standard systems of classification would be of benefit to specialists, record centres, generalists and conservationists. The views of all membersof the NFBRconcerning tbese proposals should be sought through tbe conference report and newsletter.

40 APPETiDTX

NG habitat classification arr:l reference codes

A. ltioodland and 1. Woodland Broad-Ieaved l. Semi-natural Scru.b Coniferous 2. Plantation I{ixed 2. Scrub Denser/ 1. Acidic continuous 2.Neutral Scattered 3. Basic 3. Parkland and Broad-leaved scattered trees Coniferous 4. Recently- Broad-leaved fel led Coniferous woodland

B. Grass I. Acidic Uni Upland Marsh 2. Neutral Semi-improved 2. towland 3. Caleareous fmproved UpIand I.[arshr/lrtarshy Iowland Grassland

C. TalI Herb and Bracken I. Continuous Fern 2. Scatcered 2. Up1and spp ricb veg. 3. Otber Tal1 ruderal Non-ruderal

D. Heathland Dry dwarf Acidic UpIand shrub heath Basic Iowland z. Wet dwarf Upla shrub heath 2. Iowland 3. Lichen/i]ryo- phyte heath 4. IWcntanebeath,/ dwarf forb Dry heath/ acidic grassland npsaic

re, F [4cre Sphagnum B bog and Spring 2. Raised bog 7. Wet bog without Sphagnum 8. Dry bog witn- out Qpbeglgm q Basin mire I0. Valley mire il-. Bare peat 2. Flush and I. Acidic flush Spring z. Basic flusb 3. Bryophyte-dominated spring

41 F. Swamp, l. Swanp I. Sing1e-species I llarginal and | Inundation r,.+:?i'.*I 2. Itlarginal and , 1. I{arginal Inundation I 2. Inundation I

water 2. t'lesotrophic 2. Ponds, etc (0.5ha | '3., * 3. Oligotrophic Lakes 0.5-5ba | 4. Oystrophic Large lakes ) 5ha t4.'5. r 5. l4arl Canals and ditcn I 6. Brackish 16. Reservoirs 2. Running f 1. Rrtrophic 1. Spring and small water .2. Mesotropbic I stream (Im wide I l. ofigotrophic i2. Streams and , 5. lhrl . rivers 1-3m wide r5. Brackish 13. Rivers )3m wide

H. Coast bcl 2. Shingle/ Green algal beds cobbles Brown algal beds Boulders,/rocks 2. Saltrnarsh Dense,/ Spartina continuous Other spp 4. Scattered -l I Inland fr siltmffirrf I dune interfaee i 3. Shingle/gravel 4.Rocks,/bolders 5. Strandline vegetation I 6. Sand dune I. Fore dune 2. Yellow dune 3. Grey dune 4. Dune slack Dune grassland 6. Drne beathlano 7. Dune scrub

IYraritine Unvegeta hard cliff Unvegetated soft cliff 6. Crevice,/ledge I. Bird cliff vegetation vegetation 2. Other vegetation 4. Coastal grassland 5. Coastal heathland

42 I. Rock 1. Natural Inland cliff ffi exposure Scree 2. Basic and waste 3. Limestone pavement Cave Otber acidic l. I{rcuntain top exposure 2. Riverine 3. Other 9. Other basic l. l4ountain exposure 2. Riverine 3. Other 2. Artificial 1. Qrarry and waste 2. Spoil 3. lline 4. Rubbisb tip

J. lvliscellaneous Cultivated,/ 1. Arable disturbed 2. Anenity grassland 3. Ephemeral,/ short perennial 4. Introduced sbrub 2. Boundary 1. Intact hedge naEivespeclJsJ 2. Defunct hedge rich 3. iledgerow witb fz. oqr,er- J trees I 4. Fence I 5. WaIl t_ 5. Drtcb 11. Permanentlywet' i2. Seasonally wet 1 Earth bank 3. Built-up Building Agricultural areas Industrial 3. Donrestic Caravan site Sea wall 4. Bare ground 5. Other habitat

43 tiffiKSEOP 9: THE DATA PROtffirSl ACI AID 1tsE MAr.lAGEttlEMOF @I.IPUTERSISIEUS

D.A. Roberts

I'be workshop concentrated on the implications of the Data Protection Act 1984 (DPA), with the deadline for registration under the Act rapidly approaching at the time of tire Conference. Steven Jones (MDA)outlined its principles and implications and Charles Copp (Bristol City Museumand Art Gallery) described the effect of the Act on a single institution. Contributors from tbe floor commentedon both progress and indifference elsewhere. Jones noted that the Act has not appeared from a vacuum, but was the culmination of a process going back over ten years, involving tbree private membersbills, two !{hite Papers, two major reports and finally the current Act. The reason for all this activity stems from the fear tbat. many people have of data on computers being misused in some way. While non-computerised data may also be misused, tbere is little doubt that computerised systems with their ability to store vast amounts of data and to c-onnect previously disparate data offer greater scope for misuse. The Act was past when it was, and in the form it was, to allow tbe United Krngdom to comply with provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (promulgated by tbe Council of Europe). If the United Kingdom did not ratify this convention, it faced a ban on data transfer from other European countries. The Act does four nain things:

sets up the office of tbe Data Protection Registrar whose job it is to oversee the Act and enforce its provisions; creates the Data Protection Register. This is a central register giving details of all data users and computer bureaux wbo hold or process personal data; ereates eigbt Data Protection Principles to which users of automated personal data must conform; gives individuals the right to inspect data relating to them.

The Act contains a number of definitions whicb are central to an understanding of it's workings. A summary of some of these terms is given here:

Data refers to information held in a form in wbich it can be ffiessed automatically. Computer held data are included in this definition, but data on other automated systems may also be included; Personal data refers to data (as defined above) that relates to alivTng lndividual from which that individual may be identified. rt does not matter if the information held is trivial or freely available elsewhere. D

44 a Data subject is an individual who is the subject of personal data. Companies and other corporate bodies are not individuals and so eannot be data subjects; a Daua user is someonewho eontrols the use and contents of peisonat data. Data users may process the data themselves or they may instruct oehers to process it on their behalf; a Computer bureau is someone who processes personal data on behalf of another person (who would be a data user). Tbe MDAis an example of a c.omputer bureau.

It is important to note tbat the Act does not cover aIl data or even all personal data. Nor does it cover all data held on computers. It only covers personal data neld on comElter. The Act requires thaL all Dat.a Users and Computer Bureaux must register certain details with the Data Protection Registrar who will then publish these details in tbe Data Protection Register. Data Users are required to register the following details:

the name and address of tbe Data User; a description of the personal data held by the data user and the purpose for whicb those data are held; tbe source of all personal data held; all disclosures made of personal data beld; the names of any countries to wbich personal data is transferred.

Computer Bureaux are only required to register their name and address. The data, etc., have to be described only in very general ways. The registration forms offer a series of numeric codes, each of which relate to a commoncategory of data, purpose' source, ete. In some cases these standard codes will be guite adequate to describe the data held. In otber cases Data Users will need to amplify tbe standard codes witfr a written description. fhe eight Data Protection Principles created by tbe Act are listed in the Act itself and in other publications produced by tbe Data Protection Registrar. They are designed to ensure that tbe Personal Data used by Data Users has been obtained fairly, is only used for registered purposes, is not excessive, is accurate and up to date, is not kept for longer than is neccessary and that appropriate security measures are taken to protect the data. AIt eight principles apply to data users but only the eighth, concerning the need for appropriate security rneasures, applies to computer bureaux. From II November 1987 the subject access provisions of tbe Act come into force. From this time Data Subjects will bave the right to see any data held about them by a data user who will be able to charge a fee (subject to a maximumfee to be set by the HomeOffice). Failure to comply with aspects of tbe Act can attract a range of penalties. Processing personal data without registering is a criminal offence under the Act whicb can be punisbed by fines and' in some circumstances, crcnfiscation of the equipment used. fncorrect registration is also an offence, as is failure to notify tbe Registrar of a clrange of address. If the Registrar feels that, in processing personal data, a data user is not conforming to the Data Protection Principles, then he may issue an enforcement notice requiring the Data User to conform to tbe Principles. Failure to obey an enforcement

45 notice is also an offence. 'Io ensure that you do not fall foul of tbe DPAyou should:

read about the Act. 'Ihe Registrar has produced a number of booklets about the Act which can be obtained from the address below; decide if you should register. ff neeessary, obtain obtain advice from professional or advisory bodies such as the I"IDA; register. This involves completing tbe registration forms which are available from Crown Post Offices. The MDAhas produced a booklet wbich offers advice on how best to c"om- pete the somewbat c.omplexforms (Jones and Roberts, 1985); ensure that you process personal data within the Data Protecbion Principles. You may want to review the following areas when considering if you conform to the Principles: data use; limiting disclosure; pbysical security; aecess control; allocation of passwords, keys, etc.; contingency plans; disposal of waste paper; monitoring of security.

RegisLration is only the firsl step in complying with Act. Careful monitoring of tbe use of computerised personal data will be needed to ensure continual cornplrance withr the Act. In describing experience at City of Bristol Ivluseum,Cbarles Copp referred to the problems resulting from a situation wbere the museum had local responsibility for tbe managementof a range of microcomputers, including aspects such as security, data maintenance, accommodationrequirements, etc. The implications of the Aet were now being felt in addition to longer-established constraints such as Health and Safety regulations. After a build-up of facilities in recent years, tbe museumnow bad over 50 computer users and ten different machines. Copp was responsible for the museum's policy concerning system access, use, etc. As part. of the preparation for DPA registration, all users had been required to register with the co-ordinator and to describe their types of use of each system. Draft registration forms were prepared by the co-ordinator, based on the information supplied by the users. A certain amount of help was given by the city council's data protection officer. The resulting registration submission included a single part A for the museumand gallery, supported by separate parc Bs for different application areas (mailing Iists, catalogruing, etc.). Tbe latter were c-omplementedby more detailed internal records retained by the coordi- nator.

Office of tbe Data Protection Registrar Springfield House, hhter tane Wilmslow Cbeshire SKg 5A)(

Reference

Jones, S.G. and Roberts, D.A. (editors), 1985. Tne Data Protection Act and museums: implications for collection am Occasionai Paper, g

45 TIORKSEOPI0: ONSULTAIICYtiIXK (Users and uses)

P.J.E. Oopson

lThe summary of this worjcshopreflects the experiences of its participants and therefore is laid-out as precis' of tbe individual contributions. nds.l

Participants:

P. Abbott B.c. Eversham C. Appleby M. Game J Awtry S.P. Garland R.J. Berry D. Palmer M. Bradley P. Tborpsett J.rl. Bratton L. Way P.J.E. Copson A. Wright

Actess and presentation - I*to, Eqr, Sbould there be a ctrarge?

Participants agreed to consider 'consultancy' in its broad sense, including all the ways in which records centres and others with biological records made their holdings available to users of all kinds. The range of working practices of those present included:

inbouse use only at present, but could in theory be macle more widely available (a trust); use mainly by tbe NCCand local authorities (various); visits by appointment (various); telephone enquiries (various) ; 24-bour public telephone enquiry service (a museum); flexible (discretionary) public access to primary data (various); open public access to secondary data (a museum).

Came Some users, such as professional environmental consultants, request large amounts of data from Greater London Ecology Unit; they may wish to use these data for more than one client. The Unit is currently requesting guidance from borough councils on release of data to sucb people and charg- ing policy. Data bave frequently been released to the voluntary sector, who are required to specify tbe uses to which the data will be put, and to agree not to pass tbe data on to a tbird party without consent from tbe Unit. bVersham .fhe f low of data from customers onwards needs to be monitored closely. since most data are given freely, the originators have an interest, if not a right, to know where the information is going. Alsury county public records offices have probably faced this problem already and produced tbeir own gruidelines to solve il. Game rt would be easier for an individual centre to defend its enforcement of a policy on access to its data if this were part of a national policry. !{ay A draft policy is needed as soon as possible, for all holders

47 of biological records, not just local records centres. Any individual or society that holds records has the capability to act as a consultant.

Interpretation, veracity of data, liability

Two forms of consultancry may be defined. First, making raw data available, perhaps by letting tbe customers abstract from the database for themselves. Secrcnd, assessments based on putting a batch of recorCs into a wider contort and using one's judgement of the completeness and accuracy of tbe available data. This may be more than the average customers can do for tbemselves. rn such work, value judgements are inevitable. It is important to separate the roles of a database and of expert witnesses evaluating the content of the data. Model guidelines on tbe interpretation and the supply of expert opinion may be useful. Gare Somecustomers may want the whole of the raw data so tbey can add their own assessmenL to it. They may, or may not, choose to use the advice of the centre. Berry The British Trust for Ornithology, the Linnean Society' the British Ecological Society, etc., all have databases of different sorts. Eacb is available as a resource, but generally has a set of interpretation laid upon it by the organisation managing it. The manager bas a duty at least to attach a set of explanatory notes, cautions and provisos regarding the details of data-gathering. Copson Whenadding riders to a data-set, the date of tbe enquiry and the origin of data should be given. The centre should keep a record of user enquiries and dates. way Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre received 48 enquiries in tbe last two months, so the documentation and qualification of them all can be a major task.

Aaquisition of data, confidential records

PaImer Having had some difficulties with contributors of records regarding how widely these may be made available to outside customers, the Dorset hvironmental Records Centre now has a published and widely-circulaLed policy on releasing d_ata- inis is given both to the eustomer seeking data and to everyone giving records to the centre. My records wbich are exempt from the policry on release, through extra confident- ialir.y being requested by tbe originator of the records, will have the specific conditions stated clearly at tbe time of acquisition. Copson Care must be taken that the security mechanism used for confidential rec-ords does not result in tbe information being later overlooked when it is most needed. way A centre needs to make a clear case for its being a trust- worthy repository for information, and can then argrueLhat it is shouldering the responsibility to ensure that rec.ords are properly used, thus removing the burden of judgement from the original recorder. This implies also a system for vetting

48 users of data. Guidelines on tbis are needed; they could also include suggestions for conditions of acceptance of records. Record.sthat are too secret are of litt1e value and can be dangerous. Copson How far are centres and tbeir staff liable for the information they give out? Berry Supplying raw data should be safe enough. Giving professional advice necessitates insurance. Evidence given at public enquiries, etc., could have serious eonseqluences, hence the importance of making it clearly conditional. If ident-ifications may be mistaken this should be stated unam- biguously when the data is provided.

Oontract. rcrk

Palrer Tire Dorset Environmental Records Centre has undertaken contracts for a number of organisations. rt is important to bave an explicit and clearly-worded contract with a client before any work is done. The Centre has adopted a clear policry on tbe release of information in order to maintain the confidence of the client, the planning authorities and tbe contributors of the information. WhiIst being able to provide comparative distribution data, it is insured with a professional indemnity cover for past and present staff and trustees. The Landscape rnstitute's terms of engagement and scale of charges are used. MSCstaff cannot be used to make financial profit for the centre, so care has to be taken over which staff process tbe contracts.

@neral discussion on the subject of copyrigbt it was generally agreed that it must be the identification part of any record which is subject to copyright. erobGlns of copyFlght may need to be looked into further.

49 MTERS AIu) DTSPTAYS

BIOTffTCAL RffiDS CEI.ITRE (BRC, tr4cnksWood)

Publications: Examples of BRCpublications including atlases. Codedchecklists: Information on BRC'scoded checklists of plants and animals with examples of a complete synonymized checklist and associated record cards and alpbabetical and numerical indices.

BIOTGICAL RMRD PROCESSOR. (DrSGBall,NCC)

A computer program written in UCSDPascal to allow storage and retrieval of species records on a small computer with limited storage capacicy. The program is currently running on Apple II with 54K RAIvI and 2 x 140K capacity disk drives but just under 9000 recrcrds/disk can be handled.

"WEIRE GETTTIG IHERE! (Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre, Bristol Museum)

Someexamples and an explanation of Lhe ways that Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre organizes and accesses its information sources. Specific areas to be covered will include computing, enquiries, publications and the central index.

ORNTSE BIOIOGTCALRMDS UMT: SAIIPI,ESFRCIT{ ITS DAIA BANK (CtsRU,Redruth)

'Ihe items displayed are selected from our data bank. Samples of One Species Cards show how they are cross-referenced to 10 km squared sheets for the faunal and floraI groups. Site records are in alpha- betical order within grid squares, whilst surveys which include many groups are marked on special charts. Tbe backboneof our system is the ever growing 9000 item bibliography of Cornish natural history, indexed under group, subject and habitat as well as 10 km squares: its existence enables sources on One Species Cards to be given by author,/ date.

DORSETEM/TRONMEANAL REOMD.S CEIilRE - PUBf,TCATTOI{S (DERC,Dorchester)

The Dorset Environmental Records Centre opened in 1976. ft comprises a Natural History and C'eological Section. The Natural History Section consists of two inter-related storage systems.

Habitat information/species Iists for individual sites. fnformation on the distribution of species of plants and animals within tbe county.

Ihe Centre has been designated a Geological Locality Records Centre witbin tbe National Schemefor C,eological Site Documentation. Natural History information is mainly collected from records in the

50 field (from beginners to experts). Special recording projects are organized often Iinked with the production of our identification leaflets. These projects direct recording to a particular species or habitat and help fill gaps in our store of information.

TEE II{'SEUI{ DOCTIMENTA|TIONASSOCTAiITGI (M)A, Cambridge)

Display of recent publications about museumdocumentation including reports on the Data Protection Act and systems in museums. lEE NAIrOllAt TRUSI: REORDII{G Fm. NAII]RE @rISEns/AtrION (National Trust, Cirencester)

Display of biological record caros used by the National Trust as a visual statement of the data collected during the biological survey of each property and as computer input forms. The survey team comprises boE.anists and entomologists, and we also attempt to collate available informatron from otber sources - NCC, riraturalist's lrusts, etc.

S:IAFFOREETREBTOTffICAL RrcMDS CENIRE (City ivluseumand Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent)

Display posters, recording forms and publications relating to environmental recording in Staffordshire. Details of tbe computerized data compiled during the Stoke-on-Trent Ervironmental Survey (SUIES, 1982- 1984) displayed.

SUErcIK BIOIOGTCAf,R N CENIRE ( Ipswich lt:seum)

Display describing the work of tbe Suffolk Biological Records Centre. Various leaflets and sale items produced by tbe SBRC.

I{A'IER BEEII,E RE@RDITGAM) THE BALEOUR.BROTiNECTI]B (Balfour-Browne Club, Prestwick)

Activities of tbe Balfour-Brown Club include mapping the distribution of British water beetles and analysis of site date. The Club greatly benefits from stronq links with continental water beetlers.