Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research Review Report 2009

Report of the Review of the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research

JUNE 2009

CENTRE FOR PLANT BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH REVIEW REPORT 2009

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Findings: 2

Recommendations: 4 Role and function of the Centre: Future directions Partnership and governance arrangements Operational Matters Outreach/Extension

INTRODUCTION 7

Terms of Reference 7

BACKGROUND TO THE CENTRE 8

History of the Centre 8

Previous reviews 8

Responses to the reviews 9

Summary of current operations 9

REVIEW APPROACH 10

Briefing materials 10

Staff survey 11

Call for submissions 11

Review Meetings and consultation 12

ISSUES ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 13

ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE CENTRE 13

PARTNERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS 28

OPERATIONAL MATTERS 33

OUTREACH 35

Executive Summary

The Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research was formed in November 1993 as a joint venture between CSIRO and Environment Australia (now the Department of the Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts) thereby providing a national focus for advancing knowledge fundamental to sustainable management of Australia’s plant biodiversity. The Centre incorporates the native plant research activities and the combined herbaria of CSIRO Plant Industry and the Australian National Botanic Gardens. The formation of the Centre created major opportunities for bringing together the databases and networks of the ANBG and CSIRO and for providing a seamless view of the Centre’s and the Commonwealth’s botanical information. The arrangement has been formalised through the signing of an Agreement between the two parties.

Detailed information about the Centre and its activities can be found at the following web address http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/.

The Objectives of the Centre are: (a) to be a National Centre of research excellence in the fields of plant systematics and conservation biology, as a basis for conservation and sustainable management and use of Australian vegetation.

(b) to develop and manage scientific collections of Australian and related floras as the Australian National Herbarium, a permanent record of Australian plant diversity, and as a source for research on these floras, and to provide the scientific authenticity of the ANBG.

(c) to provide a national focus for and play a role in national botanical database management, and to represent and promote Australia internationally within the botanical database management field.

(d) to pursue research, education and training relevant to Centre programs and objectives.

(e) to ensure that the two parties add value to each other and the Centre, through their differing backgrounds and disciplines, and, through the Centre, serve the Parent Bodies and stakeholders, including the Living Collections of the Parties; and

(f) to maximise the benefits flowing from applications of Centre Intellectual property.

The Centre was reviewed in 1998 followed by the renewal of the Agreement until 31 December 2009. Both parties agreed that a formal review occur before the expiry of the current agreement. The finding and recommendations below arise from a review of the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research carried out in May 2009 by an external review panel.

The Review has clearly confirmed the valuable role performed by the taxonomic and related research undertaken by the Centre, supporting nationally critical decision making on biodiversity conservation.

Detailed findings and recommendations point to specific instances of the value of the Centre and identify areas for improvement in its operation over time.

Findings:

A. The fundamental rationale for the Centre as a strategic collaboration between the CSIRO and the Department centred on the consolidation of research collections and associated activities remains valid.

B. The joint venture partnership on which the Centre is based itself adds value to the activities and character of the Centre delivering significant benefits back to the partner organisations with the total benefits representing value significantly greater than the sum of the inputs.

C. Outcomes of the taxonomic and related research by the Centre are often critical inputs to decision making on complex biodiversity conservation issues.

D. The role and scope of activities at the Centre have narrowed in recent years from the original Mission, with a marked reduction in conservation genetics and population ecology work.

E. There is a lack of clarity in the identity and current scope of the Centre’s activities. The absence of an Annual Report and confusion relating to the physical location of the Centre and its relationship with the Australian National Botanic Gardens contributes to this.

F. The Draft Strategic Plan 2005 - 2009 documents activities in a very general way, rather than providing strategic guidance and identifying flagship projects.

G. The Centre has a strong international reputation for excellent scientific research, particularly in the fields of systematics and botanical information management.

H. However, there is a need to increase the number of specialist research staff to build the research science capability required to address biodiversity science issues of national importance, particularly: • systematics and its applications; • population genetics and ecology; • biodiversity information analysis; • restoration ecology; and • innovative taxonomy protocols and practice.

I. The Centre is an exemplar for how collections can be managed and made available to the community through Australia’s Virtual Herbarium and other electronic media and the integral connection between research and collections.

J. The Australian National Herbarium Collection has high national and international value and there is a need to maintain the high standard of curation currently in place. Concerns about the availability of long term storage and appropriate infrastructure for the Collection need to be addressed.

K. As well as state-of-the-art curation, it remains important that core high quality science capacity resides with the research collection to facilitate its use and contemporary curation, so that its economic and other value is fully appreciated

and enhanced.

L. While there has been an extended period of concentration on water and climate change issues, there is now renewed recognition of the importance of biodiversity within partner organisations, as evidenced by the recent establishment of a biodiversity theme in the CSIRO and in the internal review of biodiversity programs in the Department.

M. The Centre is a leader in projects such as the Taxonomy & Research Information Network and Australia’s Virtual Herbarium. The Centre has an excellent relationship with State and Territory Herbaria. These relationships and the Centre’s collaborative international leadership role are pivotal to its future.

N. Volunteers and Honorary Associates play an important role in the activities of the Centre and add significant value to the nature and effectiveness of the organisation.

O. The involvement of graduate students and the student internship program provide a valuable introduction to plant biodiversity research for interested students and represent a valuable source of specialist expertise to support future scientific effort both in the field generally and also potentially enhancing Centre staff capability.

P. Successful collaborations using the resources of the Centre include the wide use of the photographic collection as an educational resource and source of images to illustrate publications as well as the recent ‘Art and the Bryophyte’ venture which culminated in a very successful exhibition at the Australian National Botanic Gardens.

Q. After reviewing the provisions of the current Agreement and 2008 Board papers as well as meeting with the Board Chair, Board members and Director of the Australian National Botanic Gardens the panel felt that the effectiveness of the Centre could be enhanced by strengthened governance arrangements particularly: more external input to Board deliberations; more frequent and strategically focused meetings and clearer links with the ANBG.

R. While considerable effort has gone into addressing the issues raised and recommendations from the previous review of the Centre, some matters raised remain outstanding.

S. Greater recognition should be provided within the Centre for scientists who contribute to policy development.

T. The Centre should continue to develop and encourage application of its research, through mechanisms such as Taxon profiles and related outreach.

3 Recommendations:

R1. The Director of National Parks and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation should negotiate renewal of the joint venture for a period of ten years, with financial support maintained at a minimum of 1999 levels, in real terms.

R2. An Annual Report for the Centre should be prepared and consideration given to joint publication with the Australian National Botanic Gardens.

R3. The Board and management of the Centre should review the scope and clarify the strategic direction of the Centre activities.

R4. That any unresolved issues arising from the staff survey should be considered and if possible resolved by the management team at the Centre.

R5. The Centre should increase the critical mass of specialist scientific research staff by at least the equivalent of two new ongoing salaried positions to secure capabilities for the medium to long term.

R6. The Centre should explore longer-term opportunities to integrate the Herbarium with other relevant research collections.

R7. The Centre should be clearly identified in the management plan of the Australian National Botanic Gardens as its significant research arm.

R8. Stringent criteria be applied to assess the involvement of the Centre in externally funded contractual research projects, ensuring consistency with the Centre’s objectives and Strategic Plan.

R9. An infrastructure plan for the Herbarium should be developed to ensure appropriate housing of the existing Collection, improve the quality of facilities, with capacity to grow the Collection.

R10. The Board should give consideration to the outcomes of the Valuing Biological Collections project and its application to the Herbarium.

R11 The Centre should consider the acquisition of GIS research capabilities, including both spatial and biology capabilities.

R12. The Centre should continue to develop strong relationships with international institutions in regions of interest to Australia, e.g. Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor, China and the Pacific Islands.

R13. The Centre should continue to provide leadership on national and regional matters within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) framework.

R14. The Centre should not be constrained by either the herbarium collection or physical location and affiliation of its staff. The Centre should retain its focus on the systematics and taxonomy of nationally significant groups (and applications of that science to real world problems) but give consideration to a greatly expanded role in population genetics and ecology(see recommendation 5).

R15. The Centre should expand its role as a broker or facilitator of scientific research.

R16. Centre reports should include stronger acknowledgement of associate members, as well as other partners and collaborators of the Centre, and include any contributions associates make to the core capabilities and mission of the Centre.

R17. The Centre should further develop collaborative relationships with universities such as the Australian National University, increasing a commitment to creating opportunities for graduate students to undertake research in the Centre. We encourage continuation of the summer internship program as one way of disseminating information and recruiting students to do further work in the field.

R18. In addition to the Partnership Agreement a Service Level Agreement be developed between the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research and the Department for an annual commitment of funds for research notionally based on a clumping up of project specific funding provided in recent years.

R19. The ownership and copyright of the photographic collection should be clarified by formally transferring it to the Centre as a logical step in the integration of the research collections and in recognition of its relevance to the herbarium collection.

R20. The Board of the Centre should be expanded from 4 members and an independent chair to 6 members and an independent chair. That the Board comprise: o 1 independent Chair; o 2 representatives from the CSIRO; o 1 representative from the Director of National Parks; o 1 representative from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; and o 2 members with relevant expertise from the fields of systematics, population genetics and ecology, biodiversity policy, restoration ecology and taxonomy. The independent chair and expert external members should be appointed for a term of three years. The partners to the Agreement (CSIRO and DNP) should appoint the Chair and expert external members.

R21. The Director of the Australian National Botanic Gardens should be invited to attend for relevant agenda items and discussion at Board meetings.

R22. The Board should meet at least four times a year working through a structured agenda linked to Executive meeting agendas and corporate planning cycles to provide strategic direction and guidance.

R23. Additional secretariat support be provided to the Board and Executive.

R24. Future appointments of Director of the Centre should be funded 50/50 by the joint venture partners and recruited through a joint panel process.

R25. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of having one person as the Director of ANBG and Director of the Centre, co-funded by the partner organisations.

R26. The remaining discrepancies between terms and conditions of employment of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts staff should be addressed as a matter of urgency, particularly in relation to equity of remuneration, progression and promotion.

5 R27. The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts should consider using the opportunity provided by the current negotiations for the agency wide Collective Agreement to address the residual inequities in employment terms and conditions.

R28. Given the proposed ten-year term of the agreement, it is appropriate that the Board commission a workforce management plan for the Centre to guide human resource planning and decision making.

R29. The Centre should consider ways to further increase scientific research capacity through the recurrent-funded Post-Doctoral Fellowships. (see Recommendations 5 and 14).

R30. The Centre should monitor users of its on-line and other information services, using the results to inform a strategy to enhance programs and activities.

R31. There should be improved integration with the Australian National Botanic Gardens to raise the profile of the Centre, including greater use of the botanic garden ‘shop-front’ to promote science and the preserved research collections.

Introduction The current Agreement between the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) for the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research (CPBR or the Centre) ends in December 2009. It was agreed by both parties that a review be conducted prior to the expiry of the current agreement to assess the current operation of the Centre, its programs and activities.

Terms of Reference Role and Function of the Centre

The purpose of the review was to address the following key questions:

• Has the Centre fulfilled the Mission and Objectives identified in the current Agreement? • Do the functions and activities of the Centre duplicate or complement similar services delivered by other levels of Government? • Is the organisation well positioned strategically in terms of Government policy including maintaining and restoring natural capital, protecting biodiversity, tackling priority weeds, and biosecurity? • Is the current governance and business model efficient and effective for both Parties?

The review was intended to help inform the Parties in the development of a new Agreement and provide guidance to the Parties for future planning.

Governance arrangements

The review was to consider the governance arrangements for the Centre, in particular:

• The partnership arrangement and the extent to which it delivers value to both Parties, including - strengths and weaknesses - opportunities to enhance the partnership - alternative management models, if appropriate - adequacy of guidance and flexibility for the effective operation of the Centre

• Functioning and effectiveness of the Board, including - Alternative arrangements if appropriate - Composition and membership - Engagement of Parties

• Functioning and effectiveness of the Executive

Program Performance and Service Delivery

The review was to assess the Centre’s performance and delivery in each of its main operational programs:

• Systematics research • Conservation and population genetics research • Collections, curation and herbarium-based services

7 • Botanical data management • Education, publicity and community liaison

Is the Centre performing well, are its activities relevant and innovative and delivering quality products and services? Do the Centre activities provide value for money? Does the Centre have appropriate performance measurements?

Background to the Centre

History of the Centre The Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research was formed in November 1993 as a joint venture between the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (now the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) thereby providing a national focus for advancing knowledge for sustainable management of Australia’s plant biodiversity. This brought together staff, herbarium collections and research programs previously within the Division of Plant Industry, CSIRO and the Australian National Botanic Gardens.

The first agreement was signed on 22 November 1993 and the second agreement commenced on 1 January 2000 and continues until 31 December 2009.

The Agreement covers • joint venture arrangements between the CSIRO Plant Industry and Director of National Parks, • the management structure including Board membership, functions and powers, • role and function of the Director and Committees • intellectual property • research and training.

Previous reviews The board requested a review of the Centre after five years of operation in the initial seven-year agreement. The review was conducted in July 1998. The review team comprised:

Professor Pauline Ladiges (Chairperson), Head of School of Botany, University of Melbourne

Professor Brian Huntley, Chief Executive, National Botanical Institute, Kirstenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa

Dr Patrick Brownsey, Senior Collection Curator (Natural Environment) and Manager, Collection Development, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa

Dr David Coates, Principal Research Scientist, Western Australia Department of Conservation and Land Management.

The review resulted in a continuation of the agreement between the CSIRO and Environment Australia (now DEWHA) for another ten years.

Responses to the 1998 review The 1998 review made 24 recommendations to the Board of management, of which 20 were implemented by the Centre Executive. Many of these were acted upon within the 18 months following the review report. Those not implemented were explored and have been revisited in the current review. These covered issues such as the appointment of specialist research staff, the leadership of the Board, the Strategic Plan and the profile of the Centre. A table summarising recommendations and responses is attached (Appendix A).

Summary of current operations The Board of Management consists of the independent Chair, Professor Derek Anderson; two representatives from CSIRO, Dr Jeremy Burdon and Mr Donald Hobern and two representatives from DEWHA, the Director of National Parks, Mr Peter Cochrane and Mr Malcolm Forbes as well as the Director of the Centre, Dr Judy West.

The operational management of the Centre’s program is through the Centre Executive Committee chaired by Dr West. The program is composed of four main groups: Systematics and Evolution (Joe Miller), Botanical Informatics (Jim Croft), the Australian National Herbarium (Brendan Lepschi) and Communications and Outreach (Murray Fagg).

The staff is made up of 56 people, seconded from the two parent organisations. Currently there are some 37 CSIRO employees, 11 engaged on externally funded projects and 19 full or part-time DEWHA employees. In addition, a number of scientific associates and volunteers as well as interns undertake activities and play significant roles in the delivery of the program. The supervisory and management structure involves several cross- management arrangements, whereby staff employed by one party to the agreement manage and supervise staff employed by the other party.

The Centre participates in a number of multi-institutional partnerships across Australia and internationally. These include Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (AVH), the Taxonomy Research and Information Network (TRIN), the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (CHAH), the CSIRO Biodiversity Theme, the Australian Tropical Herbarium (ATH), the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS), national and international informatics collaborations and global scientific collections. The Centre brings the national view to the partnership of CHAH. Over the life of the Centre, members of staff have participated with colleagues in other herbaria on working groups and in developing policies and protocols, and coordinating projects such as the Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) and the Australian Plant Census.

9 Review approach The Chair and panel members were appointed in March 2009. In consultation with the Chair, the review secretariat worked with the Centre Executive to prepare background materials relevant to the review which were circulated to panel members at the end of April.

The Panel met at the Centre from Monday 11 May to Wednesday 13 May inclusive.

The panel conducting the review consisted of:

Mr Brian Gilligan (Chair) Former Director-General, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1998 – 2003), Brian has undertaken program evaluations and reviews for the Australian Government, other Australian jurisdictions and international agencies. He is currently Chair of the Board of the Tom Farrell Institute for the Environment at the University of Newcastle and an independent member of the Audit Committee for Director National Parks.

Professor Sue Serjeantson Recently Executive Secretary of the Australian Academy of Science and honorary President (2000 – 01) of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, an ex-officio member of the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (2000 – 01) and President of the National Youth Science Forum. From 1994 – 97 Sue was Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies and Deputy Vice- Chancellor, Australian National University. She was until recently a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain.

Dr David Coates Senior Principal Research Scientist, Program Leader Flora Conservation and Herbarium, Science Division, Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia. David is a member of the Western Australian Threatened Species Scientific Advisory Committee, the Western Australian Dieback Consultative Council and is Vice President of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation. He holds adjunct positions at the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University.

Dr Tim Entwisle Director Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust since 2004. In 2007, Tim was appointed the 12th New South Wales Government Botanist and is also an Adjunct Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Sydney.

Briefing materials The package of briefing material provided to the panel members for information before the meetings with Board members, staff and others included: • the Terms of Reference, • background information on the Centre, • the structure and management of the Centre, • an organisational chart, • information on the Board and Executive management, • the current Agreement, • Draft Strategic Plan 2005 – 09, • Executive Summary from the 1998 Review, • Board responses and Progress on 1998 recommendations, • Reports by each group leader on operations and issues,

• Information on staffing trends, • Capability review November 2008, • Recent publications list, • Information on outreach and communications, • Information on intern programs and students at the Centre, • Results of a staff survey • Submissions from external stakeholders • Other submissions from Centre staff.

Staff survey The staff survey was designed by a group of staff at the Centre, broadly based around the questionnaire from the 1998 review. The questions were updated to be more relevant to the Centre’s activities, the concerns of staff and the Terms of Reference for the 2009 review. The survey was conducted online over a two week period in April 2009. There was a total of 31 responses to the survey.

The responses were collated and presented back to the staff, to the Centre Executive and to the Review panel. Comments and suggestions were drawn out to present the review panel the issues that are of most concern to the staff. The review panel had further discussion on these issues with staff at the Centre. The full responses will be presented to the Executive to work on operational issues of concern.

Call for submissions From March 2009, external stakeholders were asked to contribute to the review. The Chair of the panel invited parties to make a submission on the role of the Centre and the relevance and quality of the products and services to which they were familiar.

This invitation was extended to: • Australian Biological Resources Study, • Australian National Botanic Gardens, • Australian National Botanic Gardens Library, • Approvals and Wildlife Division, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, • Land and Coasts Division, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts • Policy Coordination Division, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, • Australian Conservation Foundation, • Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria, • Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, • State and Territory Herbaria, • Harden Murrumburrah Landcare Group, • Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW, • Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, • NSW Department of Primary Industries, • Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, • Greening Australia, • University of Sydney, • James Cook University, • University of Queensland, • University of New England, • The University of Melbourne,

11 • Harvard University Herbaria, • ZE Botanischer Garten and Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem (BGBM), • The Natural History Museum, London, • Missouri Botanical Garden, • Herbarium Bogoriense, Indonesia, • Landcare Research, New Zealand, • National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution • Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden University branch, • California Academy of Sciences, • GBIF Secretariat

Written submissions were received from: • Australia’s Virtual Herbarium • Professor David Cantrill, Chair, Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria • Ian Cresswell, Science Director, Wealth from Oceans Flagship, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, Hobart • Dr James L Edwards, Executive Director, Encyclopedia of Life, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute • Dr Jim Peacock, CSIRO Fellow • Kew Gardens, UK • John R Hosking, NSW Department of Primary Industries • Anne Duncan, Director, Australian National Botanic Gardens

The following stakeholders were invited to roundtable discussions:

ANU Dr Adrienne Nicotra, Senior Lecturer (Honours Convenor), School of Botany and Zoology Professor Graham Farquhar, Environmental Biology Group, Research School of Biological Sciences Professor Mike Crisp, School of Botany and Zoology Professor Jack Elix, School of Chemistry Professor Geoffrey Hope School of Pacific Studies

CSIRO Dr David Yeates, Senior Principal Research Scientist Division of Entomology Dr Andrew Young, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Plant Industry Dr Linda Broadhurst, Research Scientist, CSIRO Plant Industry Dr Leo Joseph, Research Director and Curator Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Dr John La Salle, Head, Australian National Insect Collection CSIRO Division of Entomology Dr Bob Godfree Research Scientist, CSIRO Plant Industry

Review meetings and consultation The panel met in Canberra at the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research on 11 12 and 13 May 2009. On Monday 11 May the panel had extensive discussions with the Executive Group of the Centre including, Dr Judy West, Jim Croft, Dr Joe Miller, Greg Whitbread, Murray Fagg and Brendan Lepschi. The panel also received presentations about specific aspects of the work of the Centre from Chris Howard on the Bulahdelah by-pass orchid

project; Richard Watts on lantana population ecology; and Christine Cargill on Cryptogams.

The met separately with representatives of the two parties to the Agreement, Dr Jeremy Burdon, Chief, Plant Industry, CSIRO, Mr Peter Cochrane, Director of National Parks and Malcolm Forbes, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts and also met with Professor Derek Anderson, Chairman of the Board of the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, receiving advice on governance and the operations of the Board.

In addition to meeting with the Centre Executive as a group the panel met with individual program leaders. Ms Anne Duncan, Director of the Australian National Botanic Gardens also met separately with the panel. Having offered to meet with any individual members of staff who wished to discuss the review, the panel met with Dr Mark Clements who provided advice on his research project and related issues.

Separate roundtable discussions were held with: representatives from the Australian National University; representatives from various Divisions within CSIRO; and with postgraduate students working at the Centre. The full program of meetings is at Appendix B.

Issues analysis and Discussion

ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE CENTRE

FINDING A: The fundamental rationale for the Centre as a strategic collaboration between the CSIRO and the Department centred on the consolidation of research collections and associated research activities remains valid.

The first agreement of the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research amalgamated the plant specimen collections of the CSIRO and the Australian National Botanic Gardens into a consolidated Australian National Herbarium. This resulted in a permanent record of Australia’s plant biodiversity. The combination of the two collections brings together valuable resources for the research conducted at the Centre and elsewhere and continues to be a functional and constructive means of information and resource sharing.

In interviews with both parties to the Agreement there was consensus that the arrangements for the Centre should continue and that the next Agreement should be for at least 10 years. This position was also supported by the Chair and other members of the Board. It was noted that funding levels from DEWHA had not changed since the original agreement which in real terms meant a decline in the contribution from DEWHA, while funding levels from CSIRO Plant Industry had reduced primarily over the last two years.

Centre management also supported a continuation of the arrangement with a reasonable time period being 10 years.

Every person and organisation interviewed by the panel acknowledged that it would be an extremely retrograde and impractical step to split the Collection into the component parts.

13 Recommendation 1: The Director of National Parks and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation should negotiate renewal of the joint venture for a period of ten years, with financial support maintained at a minimum of 1999 levels, in real terms.

FINDING B: The joint venture partnership on which the Centre is based itself adds value to the activities and character of the Centre delivering significant benefits back to the partner organisations with the total benefits representing value significantly greater than the sum of the inputs.

FINDING C: Outcomes of the taxonomic and related research by the Centre are often critical inputs to decision making on complex biodiversity conservation issues.

Issues regarding the current partnership arrangement and the extent to which it delivers value to both Parties were raised by the Parties themselves in discussion with the review panel, external stakeholders and Centre staff. Consensus of opinion was very strongly that the consolidation of the two herbarium collections is beneficial for both Parties. Submissions to the review panel summarised the benefits of the partnership and raised the issue that these benefits may not have been clearly articulated and may not be fully exploited by the current arrangement and contributions.

It was acknowledged by the partners that the outcomes of Centre research continue to play an important role in biodiversity conservation decision making helping to clarify nomenclatural and taxonomic matters underlying complex and sometimes contentious conservation issues.

Five become one – the role of herbarium collections and nomenclatural information in determining the conservation status of Tasmanian Epacris

Provision of accurate, reliable taxonomic and nomenclatural information is a key component of activity for the Australian National Herbarium. During 2004, the ANH played a key role in the assessment for the potential listing of Epacris franklinii on the EPBC Act. Plants now treated as E. franklinii were previously referred to a number of informally named taxa, all with apparently restricted distributions. Research by Tasmanian botanists indicated these apparent ‘species’ in fact represented one taxon, E. franklinii. The ANH, in collaboration with the Tasmanian Herbarium, undertook a review of E. franklinii in light of its revised taxonomic circumscription, and found no support for the listing of that taxon under the EPBC Act.

Additionally, the ANH also undertook clarification of nomenclatural issues affecting E. franklinii, through the Australian Plant Census (APC) project. The names E. mucronulata, E. aff. mucronulata, E. aff. exserta, E. aff. exserta Union Bridge and E. “Union Bridge” had all been variously applied to populations of E. franklinii at different times by a range of different authors, resulting in considerable confusion as to the identity of the plants concerned. Effective use of the limited resources available for plant conservation is vital to ensure the survival of threatened taxa, but such action is not possible without a sound taxonomic and nomenclatural base.

FINDING D: The role and scope of activities at the Centre have narrowed in recent years from the original Mission, with a marked reduction in conservation genetics and population ecology work.

Feedback on the functions and activities of the Centre against the Mission and Objectives was received from Centre staff, Executive, the Board of management and external stakeholders.

The current Mission of the Centre is “to enhance knowledge, understanding, conservation and sustainable utilisation of Australia’s plant biodiversity.”

A range of parties, including Centre management, scientific collaborators, and external stakeholders close to the activities of the Centre noted that the scope has contracted with researchers in the conservation biology/ecology area moving to a separate program within CSIRO Plant Industry in 2007. This has left the Centre with a focus largely on systematics, taxonomy and the collections. This change in focus is seen to have limited the capacity of the Centre to fulfill the objectives for which it was originally established, diminishing the effectiveness and sustainability of the Centre, reducing its core research potential and critical mass of specialist research staff.

FINDING E: There is a lack of clarity in the identity and current scope of the Centre’s activities. The absence of an Annual Report and confusion relating to the physical location of the Centre and its relationship with the Australian National Botanic Gardens contributes to this.

While the profile of the Centre is strong within the specialist research community, more broadly and in particular within the general community it is low. There is a need for clarity within the Centre regarding the role and function of the Centre if it is to project a clear profile to the public. The review team noted the Board’s decision to discontinue preparation of an Annual Report of Centre activities and that visitors may be confused about the location of the Australian National Herbarium, its curation and associated research activities.

Opportunities to promote the Centre and its role were identified by key stakeholders but were not always seized because of resource limitations and a lack of corporate cohesion between the Australian National Botanic Gardens and the Centre. As a result information is largely disseminated to the converted or those already close to the activities of the Centre.

The absence of an Annual Report is an issue for concern and was of particular interest to the review panel. An annual report would allow the Centre to reflect on its achievements and challenges of the past year and assist in guiding strategic direction for the following year. It would also be a primary source of public information, detailing the benefits of the partnership. The review panel recommends that Centre produce an Annual Report of activities and consider joint publication with the ANBG to emphasize the linkages.

Recommendation 2: An Annual Report for the Centre should be prepared and consideration given to joint publication with the Australian National Botanic Gardens.

15 FINDING F: The Draft Strategic Plan 2005 - 2009 documents activities in a very general way, rather than providing strategic guidance and identifying flagship projects.

The Strategic Plan for the Centre does not provide a strong direction for the future activities of the Centre. A large focus of the document is on activities rather than strategies, on actions rather than high level objectives.

The current strategic plan is still a draft document and sets out the program areas and goals. The plan details goals, outcomes and implementation strategies for each of the program areas. The focus of the document appears to be the activities rather than the strategic direction of the Centre. The review panel believes that it is difficult to effectively focus the activities of the Centre without a guiding Strategic Plan. The absence of an Annual Report as a review document also impedes the ability of the Centre to maximize its outcomes.

The Centre would also benefit from a simple operational plan to support the strategic direction set in the overarching document.

Recommendation 3: The Board and management of the Centre should review the scope and clarify the strategic direction of the Centre activities.

FINDING G: The Centre has a strong international reputation for excellent scientific research, particularly in the fields of systematics and botanical information management.

FINDING H: However, there is a need to increase the number of specialist research staff to build the research science capability required to address biodiversity science issues of national importance, particularly: systematics and its applications; population genetics and ecology; biodiversity information analysis; restoration ecology; and innovative taxonomy protocols and practice.

On the matter of staffing, a detailed submission was received from Centre Management. Other information was provided directly through individual staff submission as well as from the results of a staff survey. The survey was prepared by staff broadly based on a previous survey. The panel met with interested individual staff members to discuss issues of concern.

Recommendation 4: That any unresolved issues arising from the staff survey should be considered and if possible resolved by the management team at the Centre.

Issues that were consistently raised related to staffing trends and profile; the value of associates and visitors and employment conditions.

Staffing Trends 2000-2008

50 Research/Professional Staff Visiting Scientists 40 HRFs Students (PhD, MSc, Hons) Summer Students FTEs Support Staff 30 AVH Support Staff Interns Associates & Volunteers 20

0 Oct. 2000 Oct. 2003 Oct. 2005 Oct. 2008

Staffing trends over the period of the current CPBR Agreement show significant decline in numbers in the research scientist category. In order for the Centre to maximize the scope of activities and to fulfil the original mission, research science capacity must increase. Both internal and external submissions to the review panel clearly raised the issue of a lack of specialist research staff in key areas to meet the Centre’s priorities. A restructure of programs within CSIRO resulted in a permanent reduction in numbers with a decrease in ten full time equivalent research staff from 17 to seven, between October 2005 and October 2008. In addition to this, the total number of visiting scientists went from 13 to two in the same period. This staff reduction has been primarily in the conservation biology/ecology area. This decrease in research staff has also affected the ability to supervise graduate students and interns. The number of DEWHA research program staff has remained relatively constant with a decrease from seven to six over the same three year period.

Submissions from staff noted the concern for the ageing of the workforce and the limited number of new researchers joining the Centre.

The core functions of the Centre cannot continue to be fulfilled without the appointment of additional specialist research staff. The critical mass of the scientific staff needs to be increased in order to meet the Centre objectives and to maintain the high level of quality research into the future. Many stakeholders welcome the role played by the Centre and encourage a stronger commitment and expansion of activities in this area.

Recommendation 5: The Centre should increase the critical mass of specialist scientific research staff by at least the equivalent of two new ongoing salaried positions to secure capabilities for the medium to long term.

FINDING I: The Centre is an exemplar for how collections can be managed and made available to the community through Australia’s Virtual Herbarium and other electronic media and the integral connection between research and collections.

It was brought to the attention of the panel that there may be an opportunity for an integration of all research collections, plant and animal within CSIRO. The Australian National Herbarium could provide further excellent leadership in both collections management and the linkage between collections and research. The Director of the Centre has been appointed by the CSIRO as the acting coordinator of the CSIRO Collections Theme. The digitisation of all the herbaria collections is seen as exemplifying what is an aspirational goal for other collections.

Recommendation 6: The Centre should explore longer-term opportunities to integrate the Herbarium with other relevant research collections.

The Centre performs a significant function for the Australian National Botanic Gardens (ANBG), maintaining the vouchering system, providing taxonomic and nomenclature advice, identification services and staff training. The Centre’s research is currently the only significant scientific research of ANBG. However ANBG management find that staff in other Australian botanic gardens do not recognise this association. The enhanced contribution that the living collection could make to the research focus of the Centre was highlighted by Centre management and other stakeholders. If ANBG initiate habitat restoration research associated with their seedbank, this could integrate well within the Centre if it returns to its original scope and includes population genetics and ecology or works in close association with researchers conducting this research within the Biodiversity Theme.

Recommendation 7: The Centre should be identified in the management plan of the Australian National Botanic Gardens as its significant research arm.

Staff and management of the Centre suggested the expansion of the current partnership arrangement to ensure more secure funding for workforce planning purposes and to ensure the future. It was also discussed that external funding is often reliant on research contracts that may not be strictly aligned with Centre objectives.

The application of criteria to determine the relevance and appropriateness of the Centre’s involvement in externally funded research is routine but informal.

Recommendation 8: Stringent criteria should be applied to assess the involvement of the Centre in externally funded contractual research projects, ensuring consistency with the Centre’s objectives and Strategic Plan.

FINDING J: The Australian National Herbarium Collection has high national and international value and there is a need to maintain the high standard of curation currently in

place. Concerns about the availability of long term storage and appropriate infrastructure for the Collection need to be addressed.

FINDING K: As well as state-of-the-art curation, it remains important that core high quality science capacity resides with the research Collection to facilitate its use and contemporary curation, so that its economic and other value is fully appreciated and enhanced.

External stakeholders noted the value of the Collections held at the Australian National Herbarium and the high standard of curation. Some members of the panel also had direct links to the Herbarium and provided supporting statements about the strength and breadth of the Collection. The international reputation of the Centre and the Herbarium were strongly supported by Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and other international submissions to the Review.

A joint CSIRO and DEWHA project to develop methodologies for valuing biological collections has begun. The project in conjunction with the Australian National University will develop methodologies that can be applied across the spectrum of collections.

The growth of the Collections is limited by the priorities for acquisition as detailed in the Australian National Herbarium Accession Policy. The average rate of increase is approximately 15,000 to 20,000 specimens per year, representing a 1.5% increase annually (based on the dry Collection only). It was noted by Centre executive that the degree of commitment, dedication, interest and capability exhibited by staff in the Herbarium places the Centre in an enviable position with regard to the management of its Collection. The Herbarium was expanded in the 1990s and is now nearly full. It is predicted by Herbarium management that this space will reach capacity within the next five years. Any new expansion of collection space should also incorporate the cryptogamic collections housed at ANBG.

Recommendation 9: An infrastructure plan for the Herbarium should be developed to ensure appropriate housing of the existing Collection, improve the quality of facilities, with capacity to grow the Collection,

Recommendation 10: The Board should give consideration to the outcomes of the Valuing Biological Collections project and its application to the Herbarium.

An opportunity exists to enhance geographical information system (GIS) research using the collections data to analyse patterns of diversity, endemism, and other spatial data of national importance. This would also capitalise on the Australia’s Virtual Herbarium initiative and could enable the Centre to act as a national coordinator for such data. This activity would enhance the work already begun by students and post doctoral fellows for CSIRO’s flagship Water for a Healthy Country. Advantages include improving links across Herbaria in Australia, covering work not being done elsewhere and would have direct application for the identification of high conservation assets for inclusion in the national reserve system and assessing other conservation priorities.

19 Recommendation 11: The Centre should consider the acquisition of GIS research capabilities, including both spatial and biology capabilities.

External stakeholders asserted the importance of the Centre’s relationships with international institutions. Representatives from Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew the Smithsonian Institute and other Divisions and Programs of CSIRO noted the important contribution of the Centre to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF); to CBD programs; to collections management and research in Papua New Guinea; and to herbaria throughout the region.

Recommendation 12: The Centre should continue to develop strong relationships with international institutions in regions of interest to Australia, e.g. Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor, China and the Pacific Islands.

Recommendation 13: The Centre should continue to provide leadership on national and regional matters within the CBD framework.

Linkages with the Convention on Biological Diversity

The Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research helps Australia meet its commitment to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through creation and provision of foundation information on identification, nomenclature, taxonomy, occurrence and distribution of indigenous and introduced Australian plant species.

Plant name, specimen, descriptive and image data, and on-line information management applications, are provided to the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) and to global projects such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the International Plant Names Index (IPNI), Species 2000 and the Encyclopedia of Life (EoL).

Key data sets include nomenclatural and taxonomic data of the Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) and the Australian Plant Census (APC), herbarium specimen data through Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (AVH), and the plant images of the Australian Plant Image Index (APII).

Data specification and management standards are critical to the success of these projects and the CPBR provides major input into international Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG) and international biodiversity data exchange standards and information management architecture and policy. Data , information and data management applications are provided free of charge under Creative Commons and Science Commons licenses for public good to enhance knowledge and understanding of the national and global biodiversity asset for the CBD primary aims of conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.

Statistics of Collection usage also support the important role that the Collection plays in research both nationally and internationally. The panel noted that support is provided in curation by both volunteers and visiting fellows who effectively provide a free resource to the Centre.

In discussions regarding the future direction of the Centre it was recommended by all that the collections and research components are both equally critical for the Centre to function and that the high quality science that is undertaken in the Centre is intrinsically linked with the curation of the valuable collections.

Concerns were expressed by both scientific and technical staff about the physical circumstances of the Collection. The building is reaching near capacity in terms of physical storage of specimens to the extent that if all specimens currently on loan were returned there would not be sufficient space to house them. Concerns about the physical fabric of the building were also raised by Herbarium staff including the poor and inconsistent quality of the air conditioning. Centre management informed the panel that this matter would be corrected with the installation of a new chiller in the new financial year.

The drawing together of all CSIRO collections, either virtually or physically, under the Collections Theme may provide an opportunity to address some of the issues regarding the physical storage of the Collection.

There is some confusion about the scope of the Centre beyond the Australian National Herbarium. The physical location of the Herbarium is on CSIRO grounds and this sometimes creates the view that the Centre is exclusively a CSIRO program. The Centre has been fostering the view that it should be considered as a virtual institution, based around the collection at the Australian National Herbarium. In consultations with stakeholders the concept of a virtual Centre was not universally understood or supported.

Recommendation 14: The Centre should not be constrained by either the herbarium collection or physical location and affiliation of its staff. The Centre should retain its focus on the systematics and taxonomy of nationally significant groups (and applications of that science to real world problems) but give consideration to a greatly expanded role in plant conservation biology, population genetics and ecology.(see Recommendation 5).

Australian Plant Name Index (APNI): building blocks for the future

The Australian Plant Name Index (APNI), managed by the Australian National Herbarium, is providing the foundation on which new national initiatives are being constructed. APNI is a dynamic database of every published plant name ever applied to the Australian flora, both native and introduced.

The Australian Plant Census (APC) is an ambitious project to produce a unified, agreed list of currently accepted scientific names for all native and naturalised vascular plants occurring in Australia. The census will eventually account for every name used in the Australian literature, including synonyms and phrase names, and provide information on the taxonomic concepts followed. APC draws data from the APNI database, and is coordinated on behalf of the Council of Head of Australasian Herbaria (CHAH) by the Australian National Herbarium.

APC will attempt to address problems which have arisen previously where different taxonomic concepts have been applied across different states. This has proved particularly difficult for conservation managers, for example when developing schedules for legislation such as the EPBC Act. In a similar manner, the latest version of Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (AVH), currently under development, will reconcile requests for plant information using names in APNI.

A more ambitious and long-term project, the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) will also use data from APNI and APC to underpin the botanical aspects of its one-stop-shop for biological information.

A map output from the new version of Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, currently under development. This version will allow mapping of infraspecific plant names and will reconcile names with the Australian Plant Name Index.

FINDING L: While there has been an extended period of concentration on water and climate change issues, there is now renewed recognition of the importance of biodiversity within partner organisations, as evidenced by the recent establishment of a biodiversity theme in the CSIRO and in the internal review of biodiversity programs in the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

FINDING M: The Centre is a leader in projects such as the Taxonomy & Research Information Network and Australia’s Virtual Herbarium. The Centre has an excellent relationship with State and Territory Herbaria. These relationships and the Centre’s collaborative international leadership role are pivotal to its future.

The expansion of the scope of the Centre as a broker or facilitator of plant conservation science could further the research capabilities of the Centre. It has the capacity to utilize national and international relationships for knowledge brokering, as it has shown in projects such as the Taxonomy & Research Information Network (TRIN) and Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (AVH). The Centre has demonstrated its ability to develop and maintain strong international relationships and can foster these to perpetuate the leadership role it carries in the region. Many stakeholders welcomed the role played by the Centre and were encouraging of a stronger commitment and expansion of activities in this area.

Taxonomy Research & Information Network (TRIN)

The Taxonomy Research & Information Network (http://www.taxonomy.org.au/) is a national research collaboration funded by the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities (CERF) program.

TRIN is coordinated through Canberra, centred around CSIRO’s biological collections (The Australian National Herbarium, the Australian National Insect Collection and the Australian National Wildlife Collection), the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) and the Australian National University. The Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research (CPBR) is the lead agency with Judy West the TRIN Principal Investigator. TRIN projects and activities extend across the country with major collaborators including La Trobe University (Wodonga), University of Adelaide and the South Australian Museum and James Cook University. TRIN contributes to national and international biodiversity information initiatives such as the Atlas of Living Australia and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

TRIN addresses critical taxonomic knowledge gaps and capacity building in key Australian animal and plant groups for effective environmental management, supporting projects dealing with taxonomic research in Australian ants, small terrestrial vertebrates, weeds of national significance and larger aquatic invertebrates.

TRIN activities create new knowledge of Australia’s biodiversity and the Network trains early career researchers. At a more general level, TRIN aims to accelerate taxonomic research and improve effective delivery to end users. TRIN is challenging the way researchers have traditionally approached taxonomy by introducing modern biodiversity information management collaboration and communication systems. A team of information management professionals and knowledgebrokers work closely with taxonomists, ensuring a sustainable legacy for the Australian taxonomic community.

TRIN is growing the network to catalyse collaboration in taxonomy research by using modern information management and communications technology, bringing together a critical mass of taxonomic activity by:

• Innovative approaches to capturing, assembling, analysing and managing information as part of the taxonomic process. • Providing freely accessible, appropriate, reliable, ready to use biodiversity information suited to the needs of users, enabling broad adoption of scientific knowledge. • Public awareness, training, capacity building, collaboration and community engagement.

In the submissions received from international stakeholders support for the Centre and its activities was universal. The Centre received positive feedback for its collaborative approach and for the quality of both the curation of the Collection and for the associated research.

An analysis of the work of the research scientists provided as part of the background briefing also provided a strong indication of the breadth of the published work with international connections.

During discussions with the Parties and other stakeholders, it became apparent to the review panel that both partner organisations are now increasingly focusing on biodiversity, following a period of policy concentration on water and climate change issues. In the CSIRO, the reorganisation of programs into themes, including a Biodiversity and Conservation Theme, highlights this change.

In DEWHA the recent completion of the draft National Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation, work on revising the Native Vegetation Framework and the establishment of a Biodiversity Taskforce all indicate action to refine policy settings.

Experience in implementing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 indicates a need to move from simply focusing on single species conservation to more strongly provide for ecosystem based decision making.

Recommendation 15: The Centre expand its role as a broker or facilitator of scientific research.

FINDING N: Volunteers and Honorary Associates play an important role in the activities of the Centre and add significant value to the nature and effectiveness of the organisation.

FINDING O: The involvement of graduate students and the student internship program provide a valuable introduction to plant biodiversity research for interested students and represent a valuable source of specialist expertise to support future scientific effort both in the field generally and also potentially enhancing Centre staff capability.

The value added to Centre activities by associates, visiting scientists, volunteers and students was raised in individual submissions and meetings that the panel held with interested parties. It was noted that these parties can both contribute to the Centre objectives and assist in developing a sustainable workforce for the future.

The CSIRO and the Centre have a long history of retired scientists returning as either volunteers or associates. Great value is added through contributions to research, mentoring staff and supervising early career scientists.

The student internship program has proved successful as a way of providing students with a better understanding of the function and importance of herbarium collections and the value of related botanical research through a short course. Courses up until this year have been oversubscribed, and the Review Team felt Australia should be able to sustain, and would benefit from, similar programs in both Canberra and Sydney.

The Panel interviewed several of the graduate students currently working in the Centre. The students were very positive about the value of the experience, the working conditions and the quality of the supervision at the Centre. The major area of concern was the isolation of students from their peers and it was suggested that co-location of students within the Centre would go some way to providing mutual peer support.

A brief submission was received from an Honorary Associate who commented favourably on personal experience of the work and management of the Centre. Panel members noted however that the links between associates and the Centre are not always

25 acknowledged in relevant publications. It was noted that not all publications by associates that fell within Centre scope were included in the outputs of the Centre.

Recommendation 16: Centre reports should include stronger acknowledgement of associate members, as well as other partners and collaborators of the Centre, and include any contributions associates make within to the core capabilities and mission of the Centre.

The physical proximity of the Australian National Herbarium to the Australian National University provides an excellent opportunity for a strong collaborative partnership. The opportunity for students to be involved in the work of the Centre is allied with the need for the Centre to promote itself as a national research institution with job opportunities for graduating scientists.

A roundtable discussion with staff from the Australian National University was held with panel. The academic staff acknowledged that opportunities exist for continued collaborations between ANU and the Centre. The Herbarium is seen as a valuable resource and rich source for research students who can contribute to centre programs and Centre staff represent a valuable teaching resource to support course work in the ANU.

Recommendation 17: The Centre should further develop collaborative relationships with universities such as the Australian National University, increasing a commitment to creating opportunities for graduate students to undertake research in the Centre. The summer internship program should be continued as one way of disseminating information and recruiting students to do further work in the field.

The staff survey and Centre Executive broached the issue of securing more stable funding for program and workforce planning. It was noted that while DEWHA is the largest purchaser of CSIRO services, the Centre has to compete for DEWHA project funding rather than having a defined knowledge creation or service delivery role. Project funding from DEWHA comes from various divisions, with a substantial amount through the Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities (CERF) program.

Project based funding does not provide the certainty which the Centre needs to commit to the ongoing employment of scientists and the investment in the training of students. Project funding also imposes additional reporting and administrative requirements which could be more effectively met through a more formalised longer term arrangement.

Recommendation 18: In addition to the Partnership Agreement a Service Level Agreement should be developed between the Centre and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts for an annual commitment of funds for research notionally based on a clumping up of project specific funding provided in recent years.

Art and the bryophyte

In 2004, The Australian National Botanic Gardens launched its “Artist in Residence” program, aimed at bringing artists and scientists together to share ideas, as well as creating links between scientific and artistic organisations in Australia. The inaugural Artist in Residence during 2004/2005 was local Canberra textile artist Julie Ryder, who collaborated extensively with ANBG Cryptogam Curator, Christine Cargill.

Julie’s work draws from the worlds of botany, cryptogams and bryophytes in particular, examining the history of botanical science, the culture of collecting as well as the systems of naming and identifying plants. Her work showcases the striking sculptural shapes, forms and textures of bryophytes through textiles, digital prints and three-dimensional objects. The collaboration between artist Julie and scientist Christine proved very successful, and culminated in a well-received exhibition at the ANBG. The success of this collaboration has since led to parts of the exhibition touring regional Australia and internationally into China.

FINDING P: Successful collaborations using the resources of the Centre include the wide use of the photographic collection as an educational resource and source of images to illustrate publications as well as collaborations such as the ‘Art and the Bryophyte’ venture.

The Australian Plant Image Index sits outside the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research. The Agreement lists the photo collection as a contribution by the Director of National Parks to the combined intellectual property owned by the CPBR. Thus the copyright of images in the collection since 1993 belongs to CPBR.

The photographic collection developed and maintained by the Communications and Outreach Program has an outstanding reputation for quality, accuracy and accessibility. The collection is intrinsically linked to the herbarium Collection and to Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (AVH).

The photographic collection is housed in the Australian National Botanic Gardens.

Recommendation 19: The ownership and copyright of the photographic collection should be clarified by formally transferring it to the Centre as a logical step in the integration of the research collections and in recognition of its relevance to the herbarium collection.

PARTNERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

Many examples were provided to the review panel of research which relies on the collection but also adds value to the Collection.

Bulahdelah Bypass Orchid Recovery Project

The Bulahdelah Bypass Orchid Recovery Project aims to address issues for the survival, sustainability and translocation of three listed threatened orchid species - Cryptostylis hunteriana, Rhizanthella slateri and Corybas dowlingii (Fig. 1) - that are present within and adjacent to the proposed Pacific Highway Upgrade on the foot- slopes of Alum Mountain at Bulahdelah. The research is being funded by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority and is being undertaken at the CPBR.

This research involves • an examination of the floristic characteristics associated with each orchid species • investigation of the pollination syndromes and species involved for each orchid species • the location, hand pollination and collection of seeds of the three threatened orchid species at Bulahdelah • the isolation, identification and establishment of the nature of the mycorrhizal relationships with each orchid species for seed germination

Using these data, alternative sites on Alum Mountain will be located for the initial translocation of plants directly affected by the construction of the Bulahdelah Bypass (Fig. 2). In addition, translocations will be performed on in vitro propagated plants of all three species.

Cryptostylis hunteriana Rhizanthella slateri Corybas dowlingii (Leafless tongue orchid) (Eastern underground orchid) (Red helmet orchid) EPBC Act – vulnerable EPBC Act – endangered NSW TSC Act - endangered

©M. Clements ©C. Howard

Figure 1. The three threatened orchid species

Project progress to date

This project has proceeded well from 2007 to June 2009. For each species of orchid, the mycorrhizal fungi were isolated and identified as being species that are similar to those associated with other terrestrial orchids. Morphological and molecular characterisation of these fungi is ongoing. Surveys for each orchid species have continued throughout each of their flowering seasons with the aim to identify plants requiring translocation. Multiple flowers of both Cryptostylis hunteriana and Corybas dowlingii have been hand pollinated with seed from these hand pollinations and seed from naturally pollinated Rhizanthella slateri collected for germination trials and stored for later use. All Cryptostylis hunteriana plants and colonies of Corybas dowlingii that will be affected have been located and marked.

A trial translocation of Corybas dowlingii was performed in September 2008 with approximately 85% of translocated plants re-emerging in 2009. It is anticipated that this species will translocate with a high degree of success.

Extensive molecular studies to determine the taxonomic status of Corybas dowlingii were initiated in late 2008. Approximately 17 kilobases of chloroplast DNA were sequenced with the aim of identifying a molecular marker to distinguish Corybas dowlingii from Corybas barbarae. Both of these species co-occur on the bypass site and when the plants are not flowering it is difficult to distinguish between the two. This molecular study is continuing into 2009.

Orchid translocation area Area of threatened orchids

Background picture sourced from ‘Bulahdelah Upgrade of The Pacific Highway Submissions Report October 2006 RTA / Pub. 06.039’ Available at: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/pacific/bulahdelah/section_6_approval_documents.pdf

Figure 2. The proposed Bulahdelah Bypass indicating the threatened orchid area and the planned translocation area.

29 Application of taxonomic information

In response to a need for better ways of tackling weeds the CPBR established a research program that addresses taxonomic impediments to environmental weed management. The goal of this research is to combine tools from traditional taxonomy, and molecular systematics and ecology, to: • Establish the taxonomic identity of weedy plants, including hybrid origins • Provide biogeographic estimates of weed origins for improved biocontrol agent discovery • Provide descriptions of the diversity of weeds in Australia, and • Provide knowledge about the invasion processes of individual weeds

Lantana (a Weed of National Significance) is a primary focus of the CERF funded TRIN weeds project, in close collaboration with biocontrol entomologist Michael Day (DPI QLD). The native range of lantana is neotropical but the origins of the weed are opaque due to a long history of horticultural breeding, and the taxonomy of the genus is poorly resolved. Genetic profiling of lantana accessions from Australia and the Americas showed that the source group for the most invasive form of weedy lantana, Lantana sect. Camara, is unlikely to represent a multispecies complex, and instead represents a single widespread species with considerable morphological variation. The results also revealed a previously unsuspected biogeographic signal underlying the patterns of genetic variation in the plant, and all Australian accessions genotyped fall within a single clade formed by native range accessions from Venezuela and the West Indian Islands, suggesting that biocontrol agent discovery efforts should be refocussed away from Mexico and towards those regions.

Population based assessments of diversity in Australian Lantana identified discrete genetic variants of the weed and revealed different population structures. At the same time phenotypic profiling showed that flower colour is a poor marker for genetic variants and varies within populations, yet colours have different spatial distributions on the Australian landscape and have differing patterns of susceptibility or resistance to biological control agents (Table). Flower colour is thus an important marker for predicting variation among plant interactions with their abiotic and biotic environments. This genetic and phenotypic information will permit greatly improved design of biocontrol agent development protocols.

Flower colour Control agent Pink PER 1 Red Orange White Prospodium tuberculatum +/- 2 - - - - (Rust) Falconia intermedia (Leaf - + + + + sucker) Teleonemia scrupulousa ~ + + + + (Leaf sucker) Uroplata fulvopustulata + + - - - (Leaf miner) Hypena laceratalis + + + - + (Leaf feeder) Leptobyrsa decora + + - - - (Sap sucker) Octotoma championi + + - - - (Leaf miner) Uroplata fulvopustulata +/- - - - - (Leaf miner) Hypena laceratalis - + + + + (Leaf feeder)

1. PER: Pink-edged red 2. +/-: Susceptibility varies within flower colour

Variation among five major Lantana flower colour varieties in susceptibility (+) or resistance (-) to attack by biological control agents. Agent specificities shown above the dashed line were demonstrated by field observations and glasshouse choice experiments, those below the dashed line identified by field observations only.

The Board

FINDING Q: After reviewing the provisions of the current Agreement and 2008 Board papers as well as meeting with the Board Chair, Board members and Director of the Australian National Botanic Gardens the panel felt that the effectiveness of the Centre could be enhanced by strengthened governance arrangements particularly: more external input to Board deliberations; more frequent and strategically focused meetings and clearer links with the ANBG.

The terms of reference asked the review panel to consider the functioning and effectiveness of the Board, including alternative arrangements if appropriate, composition and membership and the engagement of parties.

31 Recommendation 20: The Board of the Centre should be expanded from 4 members and an independent chair to 6 members and an independent chair. That the Board comprise: o 1 independent Chair; o 2 representatives from the CSIRO; o 1 representative from the Director of National Parks; o 1 representative from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; and o 2 members with relevant expertise from the fields of systematics, population genetics and ecology, biodiversity policy, restoration ecology and taxonomy. The independent chair and expert external members should be appointed for a term of three years. The partners to the Agreement (CSIRO and DNP) should appoint the Chair and expert external members.

The effectiveness of linkages with the Australian National Botanic Gardens was discussed with both the Centre Executive, the Director of the ANBG and the Director of National Parks. The integration of the living collections with the research undertaken at the Centre is an important element of the partnership agreement.

Recommendation 21: The Director of the Australian National Botanic Gardens should be invited to attend for relevant agenda items and discussion at Board meetings.

Members of the Board of the Centre commented on the irregularity with which they meet. The Centre Executive also made mention of the amount of work that goes into briefing the Board for each meeting to provide information on the Centre since the last meeting. In the absence of formal Board meetings business has been transacted out of session where necessary and through bilateral negotiations and conversations. Members of the Board were well informed of activities at the Centre but had limited opportunity for focused input to guide the strategic direction of the Centre.

Recommendation 22: The Board should meet at least four times a year working through a structured agenda linked to Executive meeting agendas and corporate planning cycles to provide strategic direction and guidance.

Recommendation 23: Additional secretariat support be provided to the Board and Executive.

The Centre Director is an employee of CSIRO and has been for the life of both Agreements. While the performance of the current Director has been outstanding, the review panel recognises that the identity of the Centre might be enhanced in the future if future appointments to the position were more clearly seen to be an appointment to the Centre as an entity rather than being seen as an appointment from one or other of the joint venture partners.

Recommendation 24: Future appointments of Director of the Centre should be funded 50/50 by the joint venture partners and recruited through a joint panel process.

In order to maintain strong links between the Centre and the Australian National Botanic Gardens, robust working relationships and effective communication must be sustained on a day-to-day basis between the Directors of two entities. There could be value in the future in consolidating the two roles into one position. This would ensure a unified profile and a coherent approach to the collections and related research.

Recommendation 25: Consideration should be given to the feasibility of having one person as the Director of ANBG and Director of the Centre, co-funded by the partner organisations.

OPERATIONAL MATTERS

FINDING R: While considerable effort has gone into addressing the issues raised and recommendations from the previous review of the Centre, some matters raised remain outstanding.

Program performance and service delivery was set out in the terms of reference for the review to assess each of the Centre’s main programs. The performance of the operational programs is considered to be exceptional, considering the limitations of staff time and other resources.

The 1998 Review of the Centre recommended (R20) that the “Board give urgent consideration to bringing staff under the one set of employment conditions.” Following this recommendation, the Director explored options with Senior Managers and Human Resource areas of both the ANBG and CSIRO Plant Industry. Consideration was given to incorporating special conditions under the next certified agreements, particularly relating to travel conditions. By December 1999, legal advice had been sought concerning Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and Certified Agreements. For DEWHA research scientists, an ad hoc committee had been established to assess performance against CSIRO reclassification criteria and allowed them access to AWAs. By March 2009 the issue was considered by management as intractable.

It was recommended in 1998 Review of the Centre that special conditions be incorporated in each partner organisation’s employment agreements. This would address the inequity in travel conditions and promotional opportunities. A summary of the progress made by Centre Management over the last ten years on each recommendation was provided to the panel and is attached (Appendix A)

Since the 1998 review, DEWHA research scientists have been assessed against CSIRO reclassification criteria and have had access to AWAs to redress inequities. Submissions from and discussion with staff employed by both organisations illustrated that there remain significant discrepancies between the employment conditions, particularly for Technical Support staff.

The remaining discrepancies in employment conditions for staff at the Centre were raised as important issues in the 2009 Staff Survey. These relate to remuneration and promotion. Other issues that were addressed but not fully resolved following the 1998 review were the strategic direction given by the Board, the identity branding and profile of the Centre, and the appointment of specialist research scientists.

Recommendation 26: The remaining discrepancies between terms and conditions of employment of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts staff should be addressed as a matter of urgency, particularly in relation to equity of remuneration, progression and promotion.

Recommendation 27: The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts should consider using the opportunity provided by the current negotiations for the agency wide Enterprise Agreement to address the residual inequities in employment terms and conditions.

Recommendation 28: Given the proposed ten year term of the agreement, it is appropriate that the Board commission a workforce management plan for the Centre to guide human resource planning and decision making.

Recommendation 29: The Centre should consider ways to further increase scientific research capacity through the recurrent-funded Post-Doctoral Fellowships. (see Recommendations 4 and 14).

OUTREACH

Who uses the Herbarium?

The Australian National Herbarium (ANH)

The collections of the Australian National Herbarium are an invaluable record of Australia’s biodiversity. The ANH holds over 1.4 million specimens, including a number of historically significant collections as well as numerous type specimens and comprehensive collections of eucalypts, orchids, cryptogams (mosses, lichens, fungi and relatives) and other ecologically and scientifically important groups. The collections and associated data are widely used by taxonomic botanists both nationally and internationally, ecologists, conservation managers, university researchers, government agencies (e.g. DAFF, AQIS, DEWHA, etc), educators, students and interested amateurs. With rapidly developing technologies for data manipulation and dissemination, and with initiatives such as Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (AVH) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA), data derived from the collections of the ANH are being used more widely and effectively than ever before. Reliability and accuracy of data is critical, and specimen curation and data verification are key components of the work undertaken by ANH collections staff.

As part of the outreach program of the Centre, the ANH offers a Student’s Botanical Volunteer Internship Program (SVBIP) annually during January and February. Running since 1993, the program is designed to allow students the opportunity for scientific work experience in the ANH and CPBR, and includes a mix of formal lectures, workshops and fieldtrips with ‘hands-on’ experience within the Herbarium. To date, a total of 248 interns from 48 different institutions have participated in the Program, and many have since secured employment in science or related fields.

Images: Interns, examining herbarium material, herbarium specimen

35 FINDING S: Greater recognition should be provided within the Centre for scientists who contribute to policy development.

FINDING T: The Centre should continue to develop and encourage application of its research, through mechanisms such as Taxon profiles and related outreach.

The profile of the Centre was addressed in the 1998 review. The use of the logo, templates and name of the Centre was increased but are not used consistently. The use of the internet was recognized as a very important communication vehicle and today the Centre has a very high web presence. The full potential of the mutually beneficial relationship with the Australian National Botanic Gardens is not being realized especially in the delivery of research services for the Gardens and a public shopfront for the Centre. The Centre needs to work with the ANBG to promote this close relationship to maximize the benefits for both entities.

Recommendation 30: The Centre should monitor users of its on-line and other information services, using the results to inform a strategy to enhance programs and activities.

Recommendation 31: There should be improved integration with the Australian National Botanic Gardens to raise the profile of the Centre, including greater use of the botanic garden ‘shopfront’ to promote science and the preserved research collections.

Appendix A

Centre Review Recommendations, Action and Progress to-date

The following information pertains to Recommendations emanating from the Centre Review 1998.

Two tables follow.

1. The first table summarises suggested actions and progress on Review Recommendations, and includes Advisory Committee responses to the Review Recommendations and an indication of actions required of the Board for each Recommendation. This table was submitted to the Board 21/12/98. Actions taken by the Board at that meeting have been incorporated in the last column and have been italicised.

There are 5 columns in this table. i. The first specifies the recommendation number and summary title. (A full list of Recommendations is found below). ii. The second column is the Executive Committee suggested Action. This incorporates staff comments. iii. The third column states the Advisory Committee’s response to the Recommendation. iv. The fourth column notes progress to date prior to Board meeting, 21/12/98. It also includes an update of progress to March 2009. v. The fifth column indicates any response(s) or actions required from the Board. Actions taken by the Board have been italicised.

2. The second table summarises Action and Progress to date.

**********

37 Recommendations made by the Review Committee

R1. The descriptors of the research programs be changed from the use of the notation “UA”etc, to aid differentiation of the Centre and to strengthen its identity

R2. The next research appointment be in the area of cryptogams. The specific area (fungi, lichens or bryophytes should relate to national priorities and gaps in Australia’s skill base and consider the views of stakeholders and client groups.

R3. On retirement of the eucalypt taxonomist consideration should be given to continued curation of the comprehensive eucalypt collection, which is of national significance.

R4. The EUCLID project be completed, with effort being directed to securing external funding.

R5. The future of the Rainforest group at Atherton be determined after the future of the TREM CRC is known; the rainforest collections should be housed where it will be of most value for future research and other uses.

R6. The Director of the Centre should relinquish the role of the UA program leadership to focus on strategic issues; another staff member should be given this position as part of their development and as part of successional development.

R7. Integrated research projects be developed between programs UA(Systematics) and UB(Conservation Biology) that utilise the systematic expertise of UA and the genetic and ecological expertise in UB.

R8. The barley research be transferred to the appropriate program in Plant Industry. As part of this transfer it should be ensured that there is no negative impact on the ability of the affected researchers to continue to contribute to their Centre-based research.

R9. If funding is available, a new research position in plant community ecology be set up in program UB.

R10. The location of workers in program UB across different buildings be addressed and a solution found to bringing them closer together.

R11. Research scientists and students involved in systematic research be required to spend a proportion of their time (perhaps 10% for staff) on curation of collections, including groups outside their immediate area of specialisation, and that for staff this be recognised in their assessment for promotion.

R12. The Centre restore its on-going identification, vouchering and databasing service to ANBG Living Collections to a mutually agreed level, and significantly reduce the backlog using additional resources in the short term if necessary.

R13. The integration of the CANB and CBG databases be completed as a matter of the highest priority, using additional resources in the short term if necessary.

R14. The Centre re-examine the Botanical Information Program, identify the highest priorities, assess the resource needs of each and carry out the projects in a realistic and planned time frame.

R15. The excellent postgraduate and undergraduate research training programs and the technical training courses be continued and the current level of excellence maintained.

R16. The existing five year Strategic Plan be developed further through wide participation (not simply consultation) of Board, staff and stakeholders.

R17. The Board give leadership in defining the strategic directions of the Centre over the next five years.

R18. The Advisory Committee be restructured to comprise two committees: • A scientific advisory group - to give inputs to the direction, evaluation and cooperative levels of the science program • A sponsorship development group - to support the Director and staff in the identification and acquisition of external funds, partnerships and other resources.

R19. Staff meetings should comprise • Regular, informal “tea and cake” gatherings and other social meetings at which special celebratory or similar announcements are made

39 • Twice or thrice annual formal staff meetings with an agenda that permits all staff to raise and have discussed issues that might need open debate and resolution

R20. The Board give urgent consideration to bringing staff under one set of employment conditions.

R21. Urgent attention be given to promoting a consistent and highly visible ownership of the CPBR logo, name and identity.

R22. A clear marketing strategy and plan be included in both the Strategic Plan and in Annual Business Plans. The existence and relevance of the Centre must be more effectively marketed to all stakeholders, to NGO’s, the media and the private/corporate sector.

R23. The staff be expected not only to contribute to the WEB but to other publicity and promotional materials, which might include popular articles, media releases, lectures, workshops, and exhibitions. These activities should be included and recognised as a component of the annual performance indicators of each staff member.

R24. The Centre work with stakeholders in the refinement of its Strategic Plan to enhance further the Centre’s national role: in its coordinating role, in setting standards, in facilitating technology transfer, and through having an integrated set of research programs in the areas of biodiversity conservation and ecosystems management.

Table 1

CENTRE REVIEW

This table summarises suggested actions and progress on Review Recommendations, and includes AC responses to the Review Recommendations and an indication of actions required of the Board for each Recommendation.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov ‘98/Dec Board Response ‘99 Recommendation Centre response to Review AC response to Review Progress on Required Board no. and summary recommendation and action suggested. recommendation. Recommendation response or of title. implementation. action. The progress on each Recommendation was updated to March 2009

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R1 Drop the ‘U’. Still use shorthand system: The AC queried if change is needed; Actioned To endorse EC Program Names Program ‘A’ - Systematics. suggested shorthand system with letters action. Program ‘B’ - Conservation Biology corresponding to program title. Program ‘C’ - Herbarium Services Endorsed 21/12/98. Program ‘D’ - Data Management Progress to March 2009 Program ‘E’ - Education

Groups now known by titles Suggest we use a single letter and the full program title in formal situations.

41 R2 Needs further consideration. AC concerned re possible reduction of Informal discussion with Board For discussion. Cryptogamic Two major issues: effort in vascular plant taxonomy. AC members suggest gap analysis research scientist (1) which group (mycology, bryology, lichens) recognised extreme lack of effort being may be appropriate. Ask Pat Board agreed appointment and devoted nationally to the taxonomy of Selkirk to convene it? Director should invite (2) funding the position. Should try for a new cryptogams and felt in view of the recent Pat Selkirk to position and seek external funding. conservation overview ( A Conservation convene a small Need to talk to AC, especially Pat Selkirk, and Overview of Australian Non-marine Progress to Dec 1999 working group to perhaps hold a workshop. Lichens, Bryophytes, Algae and Fungi undertake a gap - Environment Australia) a case could Dr Patricia Selkirk (AC member), at analysis of this issue. Working group of Judy West, Jeremy Burdon, be developed for new positions. the invitation of the Director, agreed 21/12/98 Bob Makinson and Patrick McCarthy (ABRS) to Two options were suggested if a lower to be part of a small working group to develop options paper for Board. plant systematist is to be appointed: conduct a gap analysis of expertise in (1) Soil microorganisms, esp. fungi. Australian cryptogamic botany. Bob Makinson is working closely with Pat (2) Cryptogams. AC suggest consult on this issue. Pat has sent a draft Conservation Overview, and with ABRS Survey to Bob for perusal. and CHAH in deciding the specific area for research. Progress to March 2009

Christine Cargill was appointed as cryptogam researcher and curator. R3 Already identified Senior Technical Officer The AC did not discuss this Active training taking place. To endorse EC Eucalypt curation (AVS) as filling this role (as well as other recommendation, although in R2 the AC action. duties) after retirement of eucalypt taxonomist “was not convinced of the need to Progress to March 2009 (MIHB) - training taking place over past two terminate the position of eucalypt Endorsed 21/12/98.

years and planned to continue for the next 18 taxonomist”. Senior Technician trained and months at least. mentored in eucalypt knowledge and curation. Technical Officer currently on extended sick leave.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R4 General consensus is that external funding AC considered under broader need for Various actions being initiated to To discuss. EUCLID should be won for EUCLID III. Suggest that additional resources for Centre through broaden audience for interactive collaboration between the Centre, Sydney sponsorship. See R 18. tools such as EUCLID, eg, article The Board agreed Herbarium (NSW eucalypt group), and Darwin in ‘Bush’ and ‘Australian that the issue of Herbarium (DNA) might be appropriate for AC proposed some suggestions re Landcare’ magazines. funding for EUCLID EUCLID III. EUCLID III sponsorship, including: should be discussed (1) developing joint cost-sharing project Demo subset of EUCLID I to be under the with specialists in the NT and NSW now. developed for the Centre’s web sponsorship area. (2) to seek sponsorship for the whole site. 21/12/98

EUCLID package. (3) and in marketing EUCLID to present a hands-on demonstration of EUCLID on the Web Site.

Progress to March 2009

EUCLID for all species (894) published on DVD in 2006. Currently being moved onto the internet. R5 There is a need to develop contingency plans The AC offers the following comments: Plant Industry and the Centre not To discuss. Rainforest research in the event that CRC-TREM is wound up. (1) Decide on possible termination of officially included in second round group Director, Program U Leader and relevant major systematic research future at CRC proposal. (Does not Jim Peacock to Centre Program Leaders to liaise with CRC Atherton independent of the future of preclude involvement later.) report on recent visit Director and develop strategies and different CRC-TREM. to nth Qld and options. (2) Serious taxonomic research on Jim Peacock and Program U discussions within Jim Peacock to liaise with CRC and other rainforest families will continue at other Leader (Jeremy Burdon) visited CSIRO, especially stakeholders in north Queensland. herbaria, particularly BRI & CANB. nth Qld and some stakeholders in with Wildlife & (3) If decision is taken to cease research November. Ecology. activities, then remove unicate material to CANB, so that most of the remaining The Chief has decided to support Board discussed material would be duplicate collections. the continuation of research various options (4) Discussions should be held with BRI to activities in nth Qld and we now concerning funding canvass options of combining the two seek funds and opportunities for for Rain Forest herbaria in nth Qld – the Atherton financial support. research including (rainforest taxa) and the Mareeba possibility of EA herbarium (non-rainforest taxa). The Director has had favourable support. Rain Forest initial discussions with Director of Key to be BRI re combining the two nth Qld demonstrated to BG. herbaria. 21/12/98.

43 Progress to March 2009

Atherton collection now part of a joint venture with James Cook University and Queensland Environmental Protection Agency – forming the Australian Tropical Herbarium.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R6 Suggest Randy Bayer should take over as The AC has long recognised the Discussion held with Jim Peacock To endorse. Systematics Program Leader of A - Systematics (UA). unrealistic work load borne by the Director and within Program. Research (A) Existing Program Leader (Director - West) will and the need for her to divest some of her Endorsed 21/12/98. Program Leader liaise with and ease new Program Leader responsibilities in order that she might Randy Bayer formally appointed (Bayer) into position over a period of time focus on the broader issues involved in as Program Leader for beginning in October; dependent on Chief, the promotion and management of the systematics from 1 Dec, with Judy CSIRO Plant Industry agreement. Centre. West assisting and liaising closely We strongly support the initiatives over 6 mth period. recommended by the Executive and the Centre. Progress to March 2009

Done. Bayer resigned late 2006. New appointment (Miller) made in 2008. R7 Probably difficult to expand beyond existing AC agree integrated research tends to be Consideration given to existing & To discuss. Integrated research linkages in short term; will happen with time, as driven by the needs of individual research possible future cross-program projects between individual researchers develop linkages. Integrated workers. In the development of new projects. Board agreed Systematics and research projects will largely develop from “bottom programs opportunities for integration integration to have Conservation Biology up” rather than “top down”. Need to foster further should be considered. The appointment of See additional background long-term focus. current trend of cross program inputs. Integration a taxonomist working on soil fungi and the information from EC - p 4-6 Commended Centre will increase with relocation of staff into one main appointment of a community ecologist on its efforts so far. building or all Program B staff closer to the would help greatly in establishing Progress to March 2009 21/12/98. herbarium. linkages. Moves to relocate staff to the one building will also assist. Across group interactions good Perhaps hold a symposium to explore and stimulate for some areas and individuals. linkages between systematics and conservation This occurs in particular projects, biology. for example Water for a Healthy Country Flagship and university ecology project.

R8 It is possible to split Brown’s research projects This matter appears to be in hand but we Barley funding now to June 1999. Jim Peacock to Barley research group between PI Program U and X or Y, but need to would support the outcome that results in comment. consider if advantageous to do that as this most benefits to the Centre, including Can show barley project in both work forms a major part of our utilisation efforts funding, expertise and technology programs on paper for cross- The Board agreed that - an area frequently used to justify concerns considerations. referencing. the Barley program about biodiversity and its conservation. should remain in Progress to March 2009 Program U and it will Need to consider various options re barley be cross-referenced placement and to consider all utilisation Barley program now located in into Program X. research projects. Further discussion required, other areas of Plant Industry 21/12/98. both within Program B and in PI

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R9 Need to decide the role of this position - AC believes the appointment of a Centre staff have held informal To discuss. Plant community various suggestions include: developing a research scientist in plant community discussions examining range of ecologist Contract Service Arm for the Centre, a ecology would complement other possibilities. Board agreed option ‘floristics’ type position or a position to work research at the Centre and lead to a paper should be with and augment the fire ecology or weeds. better balanced overall program of See additional background prepared. 21/12/98. research. The Centre would need to find information from EC, p. 7 Needs further discussion both within the a niche which complements other studies. Centre and with various stakeholders. Progress to Dec 1999 Await the outcome of the request to Options paper to be prepared for annual ANZECC to provide a prioritised list of An Options Paper was prepared research programs review, March/April 1999. national research needs in the field of and tabled at the Board meeting (26/8/99). conservation and plant biodiversity.

The Board agreed that at this point in A highly focused research program at the time the appointment of a Plant Centre could draw support from the Community Ecologist should not be States. made. It was recognised that some of our current research scientists in The AC also suggested appointment of a conservation biology are already plant ecologist under LWRRDC for encompassing much work that falls research on the impact of fragmentation into the area of community ecology.

on conservation of plant communities; The Board favoured an approach recognising short term nature of the which would encompass specific program. defined projects. It was suggested that short term appointments for such

45 projects would better serve our needs at this time.

Progress to March 2009

Community ecologist (Godfree) appointed – now a part of Program S “ Biodiversity and Sustainable Production.”

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R10 This is being explored within PI. The AC notes that the short term solution Proposal to redevelop two annex To note. Location of Program B (3-5 yrs) is being progressed. buildings near to the herbarium is staff being prepared for consideration The Board agreed that The Centre should take a pro-active by CSIRO Corporate Buildings it would be approach in preparing plans to cater for its Program. advantageous to locate long term needs, and should document Program B staff closer long term requirements and prepare what All Program B staff currently to the rest of the Centre plans are possible in preparation for a outside the main Centre building staff. The Board comprehensive building program. would be accommodated. discussed other options regarding space for the Centre Building Manager will Centre. The Board document long-term requirements agreed to further for research, collections and staff, exploration of the and prepare plans to incorporate space issue for the the whole collection and Centre Centre. 21/12/98. staff in the one building.

Progress to March 2009

Conservation Biology Group moved to herbarium and has now moved to other buildings on site.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R11 EC suggest good idea and should be AC noted that all taxonomic research See additional background Recommendations: 10% curation time for implemented. workers already devote 10% of their time information from EC, p.8-10 all taxonomic staff to curation. Is the system working? (1) That the Board Does not imply any particular process or approve mechanism; to be organised via the AC recognised the value of the collection Progress to March 2009 implementation of Herbarium Services Committee. if extra time is devoted to curation, and R11, in light of the noted that this would be at the expense of This has been implemented and considerations the existing research and services partially successful. Complex provided by the EC, programs. issue with short term staff (PDFs) and subject to and graduate students under satisfactory AC noted that attempts to involve other pressures and curation arrangements with research staff in the curation of families doesn’t advance their careers. the parent outside their particular interest and Still being addressed. organisations’ human expertise have been tried in many resources sections herbaria but have rarely been successful. regarding due credit to staff in AC suggests to obtain some curatorial assessment, for assistance from research taxonomists: increment and (1) Work on a needs basis up to a certain promotional level, purposes, for work (2) Priorities should be set on the type of towards institutional assistance required, goals. (3) There needs to be negotiation on which and how many families any (2) That CPBR research worker is prepared to curate, management decide, and after discussion with (4) recognition of the commitment of relevant staff, the research scientists to curation in staff involvement in R11 assessment for promotion. of fixed-term staff and postgraduate AC noted that improving the curation of students. the herbarium is a complex issue, which will probably not be solved by the (3) That in approving imposition of a blanket 10% time R11, the Board notes commitment on research scientists. that the deployment of professional Involvement of fixed term staff and Ph. D research staff on students in curation also needs to be curatorial and negotiated in each individual case. services obligations should be geared to

47 skilled identifications, problem-solving, and team leadership, in order to maximise efficiency.

Board agreed this option should be implemented for a one-year trial period. 21/12/98

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R12 Agree current rates of identification need to be AC concluded that identification and See additional background To note progress and Identification, sustained; database post now filled; need vouchering service has now been information from EC, p. 10-11 endorse procedures. vouchering and database application to be completed for restored to previous acceptable levels and databasing for Living smooth transfer of information; the working appears in hand. Database requirements Progress to March 2009 Suggest reaffirm Collections. group, Botanical Information Liaison Group need to be documented and prioritised. highest priority on

(BILG) was established some months ago as CPBR services to the ANBG provision of new ongoing liaison with Living Collections and (identification, vouchering etc) database and core Visitor Services. working well. Regularly identify applications. material. CPBR contribute to Botanical Resource Centre for The Board noted use by staff and public. progress and endorsed procedures including proposed priorities. 21/12/98

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R13 Recommendations AC agrees integration of the databases Relevant staff meeting with other To note progress and Integration of has the highest priority for IT assistance. CSIRO participants of CSIRO issues identified by specimen databases (1) Identify further means of accessing IT AC supports EC suggestions made for Biodiversity Bioinformatics Executive programming and database development additional support. It is important that a Project. Committee; to resources. prioritised list of applications that need to consider (2) Explore more deeply access to resources be developed, resources required and a Threatened Flora database now recommendations of of CSIRO Exec. Special Project on proposed time table to achieve them be also in Centre and new PDF, Brad EC. bioinformatics to assist with development of prepared. Murray, working on database for Centre applications. rarity analyses. Closer liaison The Board noted (3) Piggy back on external applications such established with TSCS of progress and issues as the Plant Name Project and the Biodiversity Biodiversity Group. and agreed EC should Group Taxon projects to acquire database and proceed to act on related technology and methodology as well as Regular meetings between IT staff suggested authority file data. and Herbarium data entry staff recommendations. (4) Develop plan to indicate applications that leading to interface and structural 21/12/98 need to be developed, resources required and enhancements to the application. proposed timetable to achieve them. (5) Acquire mirror of Atherton Herbarium data Staff using new application; and install on system. Develop mechanism to training sessions and individual ensure feedback and compatibility between the instruction being held - feedback two systems. to IT staff positive. (6) Liaise with the Biodiversity Group to achieve transparent access to the Threatened New herbarium label output being Flora database, and develop mechanisms to developed, ready by mid contribute to this database. December.

See additional background information Final database cutover mid from EC, p.12-13 January, after label output evaluated.

Continued involvement with the collaborative international Plant Names Project ensures standards and compatibility of data.

Progress to Dec 1999

49 At the Board meeting (26/8/99), the Board discussed several options put forward in a proposal and agreed that both Parties would jointly fund a databasing position for an initial one year period.

A successful applicant has been appointed

Progress to March 2009

Done in c. 2001. Atherton Herbarium database (ATH) is running from CANB server and provides a view of the data and ability to access collections for both teams.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R14 Develop prioritised list of activities with users This matter appears to be in hand. AC See additional background Note Botanical for consideration by Board and AC. supports the need for a prioritised list of notes from EC, p.14-15 recommendations Information Program existing and proposed applications - to from EC and discuss Recommendations include notes on consequences if the WWW site - some staff have where appropriate. application is put on hold or maintained at updated their information page on (1) Develop prioritised list of activities in current levels. the Web. Scientific projects being The Board noted and consultation with clients and Program D staff incorporated at program level. endorsed the for consideration by Board and AC. AC suggest charges be applied for recommendations. demands where information is providing Threatened Flora database now 21/12/98. (2) Authority file maintenance needs to be financial benefit to the client. running in the Centre. seen as core Centre and herbarium business. Initial priorities of herbarium (3) Maintenance of Web resources is core database integration, Centre business and the responsibility of all implementation, output and staff in their area of activity. training established and tracking well. (4) External access to collections and plant name data is essential as a means of reducing Parallel priority of enhanced data demands on herbarium staff time and entry and editing capacity for applications are needed to grant accreditation APNI to provide names for use in and monitor use. herbarium specimen application.

(5) Information from the Threatened Flora WWW output from APNI Database needs to be visible Centre developed for comparison and applications, and vice versa. checking; also serves for public presentation of data.

Priorities for data entry in APNI and herbarium database have been developed.

Progress to Dec 1999 See R13 above.

Progress to March 2009

Prioritise tasks continually but resources constrained and too many elements.

APNI backlog addressed and now kept up to date with new literature. APNI basis for APC – collaborative project with all state and territory herbaria. R15 Actions already taken, eg summer students, AC strongly support training program. Centre currently has 6 To note training Research and technical and ongoing. postgraduate students, 3 honours program training and 7 summer students. development.

About 20 herbarium interns are Noted with extreme expected for this summer pleasure. 21/12/98. program.

Progress to March 2009

Training program continues. Summer student program extended to whole division

51 Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R16 Involving staff in performance indicator The AC is concerned about low level of Application has been submitted to To discuss and Strategic Plan responses should bring more staff ownership. ownership of the Strategic Plan, and have Biodiversity Group for a Graduate consider options. More detailed operational plans may be made some suggestions to remedy this. Administrative Assistant (GAA) to needed as well. facilitate ownership and have Director advised Board Please see AC response. greater involvement of staff in the Centre has been Director and Executive Assistant to prepare strategic planning. successful in obtaining position paper for Board consideration. a GAA for three months Progress to March 2009 to work on Strat Plan. May need to commit some resources to obtain Board to see outside assistance for focus of Strategic Plan Strategic Plan updated to 2005; preliminary draft. then 2005 – 2009 draft; now 21/12/98. needs revision following 2009 review. R17 Director will encourage the Board to meet AC considered this to be for the Board. Board to meet before next Board To consider. Strategic directions specifically to consider strategic planning, perhaps meeting to consider strategic with some key stakeholders directions. See R16. 21/12/98.

Progress to March 2009

Not done as effectively as might be. Concerns about the engagement of Board members as a Board. R18 Board to critically consider current AC The AC supports retention of a single Informal discussion and EC To consider AC AC restructure membership. Committee according to TORs. considering options. membership and merits of Canberra- Director to discuss with Board merits of having a AC considered sponsorship for Centre based Chair. Canberra-based Chairperson projects, recognised difficulties and suggested: Board discussed (1) a staff member be identified as a relevance of sponsorship coordinator, or continuing with an (2) professional assistance be sought. AC. Chairman asked

Progress to March 2009 Director to prepare AC point out need to follow up on 1997 report on advantages sponsorship workshop. Board decided to disband AC and disadvantages of disbanding AC and AC considered current membership of to include alternative committee - two members (Landy & options for continued Feilman) terms have finished; AC suggest stakeholder current Chair remain on committee to participation. ensure continuity. 21/12/98.

AC expressed desire to hold meetings twice a year.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R19 Solicit staff feedback in more constructive AC regarded this as an internal matter. Brief weekly staff meetings To endorse EC Staff meetings fashion. associated with ‘cake day’ now actions. Complimented the Centre on the CPBR convened by senior technician, EC considering options for change of format of News. Peter Moore. Board endorsed weekly news and happenings to create less recommendations. unidirectional input and to stimulate two-way EC have proposed 3-4 formal staff 21/12/98. communication. meetings each year, with agenda and topics for discussion.

Progress to March 2009

Informal meetings continue weekly with ‘cake day.’ Formal monthly meetings held.

53 R20 Encourage Board members to explore possibilities AC supports efforts to address the issue. The Director has discussed with To discuss. Employment and identify options. Board members and explored conditions options with the Senior Managers Board recognised the Alert senior managers in both parties to the issue. and Human Resource Officers of difficulties associated BG and PI. with resolving Need to identify specific matters in which this differences in impinges on everyday work practices and staff Possibilities of incorporating promotional development. special conditions under next opportunities. Board certified agreements, particularly endorsed Suggest Board start planning for the end of this relating to travel conditions. recommendation to agreement and the start of the next. hold an HR Two major areas affecting staff workshop to explore relate to travel conditions and travel arrangements promotional opportunities. for staff of both parties. 21/12/98 Progress to Dec 1999

Legal advice has been sought concerning Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA) and Certified Agreements.

The EA Certified Agreement is currently being revised and these issues are being addressed.

Progress to March 2009

Intractable issue – Held workshop with senior HR officers of both parties.

For DEWHA research scientists an ad hoc committee was set up to assess performance against CSIRO reclassification criteria and enabled them to access AWAs.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R21 Liaise with PI Communications Group to The AC endorsed establishment of the Established Communications To endorse CPBR logo, name and develop templates with logo for overheads and Communications Committee and referred Committee, with Murray Fagg as Communications identity slides for presentations. this Recommendation to it. Chairman, to drive the Committee formation. communication and public Identify locations and banners/signs which relations aspects of the Centre. Board endorsed could exhibit CPBR logo. formation of Members include: Murray Fagg, Communications Make concerted effort to encourage staff to Paula Fitzgerald, Christine Committee and use CPBR image and logo etc. whenever Cansfield-Smith, Curt Brubaker, referred EC possible. Jo Palmer, Pam Diver, Stephen recommendations for Speer and Suzie Dietrich. its consideration.. 21/12/98. Templates etc, developed and staff strongly encouraged to use CPBR logo.

Progress to March 2009

Branding and logo done with templates developed. Staff consistently use them.

R22 Seek advice from AC and Board. AC agreed Centre needs clear marketing To be considered by To discuss. Marketing strategy strategy. Referred this Recommendation Communications Committee. Develop a budget and funding plan. to Communications Committee. Board referred these Committee to consider whether recommendations to we need or can support Annual the Communications Business Plans. Committee for consideration. Progress to March 2009 21/12/98.

Communication strategy developed with Plant Industry communications unit each year – increased outreach program with public seminars.

55 R23 Recognise importance of Web as communication AC referred this Recommendation to Communications Committee to To discuss. WEB and other vehicle. Communications Committee. consider options. publicity and Board referred these promotional materials Encourage scientists to suggest media stories. Communications Committee, in recommendations to consultation with EC, needs to the Communications Budget for and contract a journalist to write regular develop editorial and quality Committee for articles. controls for web pages. consideration. 21/12/98. Progress to March 2009

We do as much as we can to increase the profile. Very high web presence. Many VIP visitors to CPBR including political and senior party members.

Recommendation EC Suggested Action AC Response Progress – to Nov 1998 Board Response R24 Need to develop a plan of implementation - AC suggest firstly Strat Plan needs Incorporated in tasks for GAA To discuss. Stakeholders and phased stakeholder involvement. support of Board, EC and staff, and then application. See R 16. Strategic Plan to involve stakeholders at project program Board agreed with Consider bringing together limited but critical level. suggestion for group of stakeholders to work through Strat stakeholder Progress to March 2009 Plan and incorporate specific strategies and involvement of Strat

develop ownership Plan development. Done – stakeholder workshops See R16. held and many collaborators 21/12/98. included

Appendix B

Review meetings and consultation program

Monday 11 May 2009 10:00 Review Panel Panel meeting Preliminary scoping of review issues arising from written material provided. Confirmation of approach to review.

11:00 Centre Executive Panel meet Centre Executive. Overview briefings from group leaders

12.15 Lunch Discovery/Hudsons in the Gardens 1.15 – 4.00 Centre Executive Staff briefings and presentations Chris Howard: Orchids Richard Watts: Lantana Christine Cargill: Cryptogams

4:00 – 4:30 Derek Anderson Chair of the CPBR Board

4:30 – 5:00 Jeremy Burdon Venture partner issues - CSIRO

5.30 – 6.30 Board Members, Roundtable discussion: Peter Taylor, The future of the CPBR Mark Lonsdale, Anne Duncan 7:00 Board Members Informal discussion over dinner Peter Taylor Mark Lonsdale

Tuesday 12 May 2009 Morning Review Panel Breakfast meeting – review program update

9.00 Murray Fagg

10.45 – 11.30 Mark Clements

11.30 – 12.30 ANU Roundtable Discussion Dr Adrienne Nicotra Prof Graham Farquhar Prof Mike Crisp Prof Geoffrey Hope Prof Peter Kanowski

57 12.30 – 1.30 Lunch Discovery/Hudsons in the Gardens

1.30 – 2.30 CSIRO Roundtable Discussion Dr David Yeates Dr Linda Broadhurst Dr Leo Joseph Dr John La Salle Dr Bob Godfree

2.30 Graduate Students

3.30 – 4.15 Anne Duncan ANBG Linkages

Evening Centre Executive Drinks at the Centre

Wednesday 13 May 2009 9.00 – 10.00 Peter Cochrane Venture Partner Issues – DNP

10.00 – 11.00 Malcolm Forbes DEWHA Board Member

Review Panel Panel dialogue on report structure, issues, follow-up, possible findings and recommendations.

2:30 – 3:30 Centre Staff Afternoon Tea – preliminary feedback to staff.