DOCSLIB.ORG

Developing a Mammal Monitoring Programme for the UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developing a Mammal Monitoring Programme for the UK BTO Research Report No.223 Developing a mammal monitoring programme for the UK M.P. Toms, G.M. Siriwardena & J.J.D. Greenwood (Part III.A.1 written by S.N. Freeman & G.M. Siriwardena) July 1999 A report by the British Trust for Ornithology under contract to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Contract No: F76-01-241). British Trust for Ornithology,The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU. Registered Charity No. 216652 M.P. Toms, G.M. Siriwardena & J.J.D. Greenwood (Part III.A.1 written by S.N. Freeman & G.M. Siriwardena) DEVELOPING A MAMMAL MONITORING PROGRAMME FOR THE UK A report by the British Trust for Ornithology under contract to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Contract No: F76-01-241). Published in July and 1999 by the British Trust for Ornithology The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU, U.K. Copyright © British Trust for Ornithology 1999 Report to be cited as: Toms, M.P., Siriwardena, G.M. & Greenwood, J.J.D. (1999) Developing a mammal monitoring programme for the UK. BTO Research Report No.223. BTO, Thetford. ISBN 1-902576-19-5 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. BTO Research Report No.223 July 1999 CONTENTS Page No. List of Tables ............................................................................................................9 List of Figures........................................................................................................... 11 List of Species Covered............................................................................................ 13 Key References......................................................................................................... 15 PART I. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF UK MAMMAL MONITORING...... 17 1. WHY SUCH MONITORING IS NEEDED ................................................ 17 1.1 What is monitoring?................................................................................... 17 1.2 The status of British and Irish mammals................................................. 18 1.3 Objectives of mammal monitoring ........................................................... 19 1.4 Aims of mammal monitoring .................................................................... 20 1.4.1 Information .................................................................................... 20 1.4.2 Geographical scope.......................................................................... 21 1.4.3 Habitat information......................................................................... 22 1.4.4 Monitoring range............................................................................. 22 1.4.5 Monitoring abundance.................................................................... 24 1.4.6 Demographic rates........................................................................... 26 2. THE BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT PROJECT .............................. 27 2.1 Current mammal monitoring in the UK .................................................. 27 2.2 MMR proposals .................................................................................... 27 2.2.1 What species?.................................................................................. 28 2.2.2 What is to be measured?................................................................ 28 2.2.3 Integration across species .............................................................. 28 2.2.4 The three-tiered structure and the Master Squares ................... 28 2.2.5 The seven-year cycle....................................................................... 28 2.2.6 Rich Interest Kilometre Squares .................................................. 29 2.2.7 Focus Zones .................................................................................... 29 2.2.8 Manpower and costs....................................................................... 29 2.2.9 Utilising existing ancillary schemes .............................................. 29 2.2.10 Setting up the MaMoNet................................................................ 31 2.2.11 Sampling with partial replacement (SPR) ................................... 31 2.3 Aims of the current project ....................................................................... 31 2.3.1 General aims and species to be considered .................................. 31 2.3.2 What is to be measured?................................................................ 32 2.3.3 Integration across species .............................................................. 32 2.3.4 The Master Squares ....................................................................... 33 2.3.5 The seven-year cycle....................................................................... 33 2.3.6 Rich Interest Kilometre Squares .................................................. 34 2.3.7 Focus Zones .................................................................................... 34 2.3.8 Manpower and costs....................................................................... 34 2.3.9 Utilising existing and ancillary schemes....................................... 34 2.3.10 Setting up the mammal monitoring programme......................... 35 2.3.11 Sampling with partial replacement............................................... 35 3. HOW THE MONITORING OF MAMMALS IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF BIRDS .............................................................................................. 37 BTO Research Report No.223 July 1999 1 3.1 Mammals are less easily detectable than birds........................................ 37 3.2 Identification............................................................................................... 37 3.3 More species-specific techniques are needed for mammals than for birds........ .............................................................................................. 37 3.4 Availability of personnel............................................................................ 37 3.5 Diversity of existing inputs is greater for mammal monitoring............. 38 3.6 There is no commitment to long-term monitoring of mammals............ 38 3.7 Mammals are generally less mobile than birds ....................................... 38 3.8 Many mammals occur in many different habitats .................................. 39 PART II.........CONSIDERATIONS OF DESIGN AND STATISTICS .............. 41 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 41 1.1 Why revisit these issues?............................................................................ 41 1.2 Statistical nicety or practical pragmatism? ............................................. 41 2. THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLING ....................................... 43 2.1 Generalising from samples....................................................................... 43 2.2 Sources of imprecision in sample surveys............................................... 43 2.3 What population is of interest?................................................................ 44 2.4 Randomisation .......................................................................................... 46 2.5 Species restricted to special habitats of limited extent.......................... 47 2.6 Systematic surveys.................................................................................... 47 2.7 Study sites chosen by the observers......................................................... 48 2.8 Sampling at more than one level ............................................................. 49 2.9 Many small samples or fewer larger ones? ............................................ 50 2.10 Stratification: general............................................................................... 50 2.11 Focus Zones may be strata....................................................................... 52 2.12 Stratification by observer availability..................................................... 52 2.13 Statistical power........................................................................................ 53 3. THE TEMPORAL DIMENSION TO SAMPLING ....................................... 55 3.1 The importance of historical continuity of sample sites........................55 3.2 Partially replacing samples...................................................................... 56 3.3 Building on previous surveys ................................................................... 57 3.4 Within-year variation............................................................................... 58 4. NOTES ON STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION........................................ 61 4.1 Estimation and hypothesis testing........................................................... 61 4.2 Remarks on appropriate statistical models............................................ 61 4.3 Post-stratification, regression and other modelling as means of increasing precision and understanding................................................. 62 PART III.......MULTI-SPECIES SCHEMES ....................................................... 63 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 63 BTO Research Report No.223 July 1999 2 A. EVALUATION OF EXISTING SOURCES OF DATA................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Direct and Indirect Contribution Made by the Wildlife Trusts to the Health and Wellbeing of Local People
    An independent assessment for The Wildlife Trusts: by the University of Essex The direct and indirect contribution made by The Wildlife Trusts to the health and wellbeing of local people Protecting Wildlife for the Future Dr Carly Wood, Dr Mike Rogerson*, Dr Rachel Bragg, Dr Jo Barton and Professor Jules Pretty School of Biological Sciences, University of Essex Acknowledgments The authors are very grateful for the help and support given by The Wildlife Trusts staff, notably Nigel Doar, Cally Keetley and William George. All photos are courtesy of various Wildlife Trusts and are credited accordingly. Front Cover Photo credits: © Matthew Roberts Back Cover Photo credits: Small Copper Butterfly © Bob Coyle. * Correspondence contact: Mike Rogerson, Research Officer, School of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ. [email protected] The direct and indirect contribution made by individual Wildlife Trusts on the health and wellbeing of local people Report for The Wildlife Trusts Carly Wood, Mike Rogerson*, Rachel Bragg, Jo Barton, Jules Pretty Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 8 1.1 Background to research 8 1.2 The role of the Wildlife Trusts in promoting health and wellbeing 8 1.3 The role of the Green Exercise Research Team 9 1.4 The impact of nature on health and wellbeing 10 1.5 Nature-based activities for the general public and Green Care interventions for vulnerable people 11 1.6 Aim and objectives of this research 14 1.7 Content and structure of this report 15 2. Methodology 16 2.1 Survey of current nature-based activities run by individual Wildlife Trusts and Wildlife Trusts’ perceptions of evaluating health and wellbeing.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildberkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire
    Winter 2020 Berkshire, Buckinghamshire Wild & Oxfordshire FARMING FOR WILDLIFE The truly green revolution poised to speed nature’s recovery WHAT’S IN A NAME? The magical relationship between language and nature WINTER WILDLIFE Heroic hedges Discover the wildlife that thrives in our hedgerows Farming and wildlife HAMBLIN/2020VISION MARK Welcome 10 They are compatible! Your wild winter Ready for nature’s recovery The best of the season’s wildlife and The pandemic continues, but with talk of a ‘green where to enjoy it on your local patch recovery’ there could yet be a silver lining that puts people and the environment first. These are unprecedented times and with the RIC MELLIS RIC Agriculture and Environment Bills currently making their way back through Parliament, nature’s recovery now rests in the hands 3 Wintertime wonders of politicians. We have been fighting hard alongside other Wildlife Trusts Wildlife wows this winter to ensure that the bold promises made on securing a future for wildlife come to fruition. We continue to lobby for the best possible outcome. Thank you The Agriculture Bill could transform our countryside. BBOWT will We achieve more by working facilitate this truly green revolution at the local level, offering the as one. Your membership helps expertise and vision for a landscape rich in wildlife, for all to enjoy. In fact, fund vital conservation and we’ve already started and this autumn launched our new Land Advice campaign work that protects vulnerable birds. Discover what Service to help farmers and landowners manage their land in a more else we are achieving together nature-minded way.
    [Show full text]
  • English Nature Research Report
    LOCAL'REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS Plan name c. "K;IOL'JJ:: Ref. No Area $,:rev countv Regton CC.JTH LAST Organisations involved SJrrey WT Coordinating Surrey County Council Coordinating E-gltsh Nature Funding ~5x3 source of information 7#*/AG Source of information Eiv Age C:k WWF-UK and Herpetological Consewation Trust Purpose Outline long term (50 yrs) vision for arEa set targets for existing work Identify priorities Coordinate partners Audience Local CouncillorIdecisionmakers Timescale First draft Contact Jtil Barton IDebbie Wicks Surrey Wildlife Trust 01 483 488055 -~"__--_I-___"___- I --_I--.-- - Plan name Unknown Ref. No. Area Greater London Region SOUTH EAST Organisations involved Role London Wildlife Trust Coordinating London Ecology URlt Coordinating ENIEA Coordinating 3TCVIRSPB Coordinating WTINat.His. Soc. Source of information Tne above make up the steering group together vvlth another Six Purpose Outline long term (50 yrs) vision for area Set targets for existing work Identify priorities Coordinate partners Audience General public Conservation staff in paltnerirelated organisations Local CouncillorIdecisionmakers Mern bersivolunteers Timescale Unknown Contact Ralph Gaines London Wildlife Trust 0171 278 661213 __-______-_I ~ ---^_---_--__-+_-- +"." ---I--7-_-_+ 01 '20198 Page 27 LOCAURECIONAL BlODlVERSlTY ACTION PLANS Plan name UnKfiOVIC Ref. No. Area ilmpsnire county Region SCUTH EAST Organisations involved Role Hampshire Wildlife Trust Caord!nating Hampshire County Council Coordinating Local Authorities Funding Engllsh Nature ' Env Age Source of information RSPB Source of information CLA NFU CPRE.FA.FE Purpose Set targets for existing work Identify priorities Coordinate partners Audience General public Local CouncillorIdecision makers Timescale First drafi Audit planned summer 1998 Contact Patrick Cloughley Hampshire and IOWWildlife Trust 01 703 61 3737 -___ , _____.__x """ ____---I_--_____-__I ___-_I ---_ ~ "....
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Years of the Wildlife Trusts: a Potted History
    100 years of The Wildlife Trusts: a potted history 1912-15: Charles Rothschild and the move to protect wild places On 16 May 1912, a banker, expert entomologist and much-travelled naturalist named Charles Rothschild formed the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves (SPNR) in order to identify and protect the UK’s best places for wildlife. The SPNR would later become The Wildlife Trusts. At that time, concern for nature focussed on protecting individual species from cruelty and exploitation, but Rothschild’s vision was to safeguard the places where wildlife lived – the moors, meadows, woods and fens under attack from rapid modernisation. In 1910, at the age of 33, Rothschild had bought 339 acres of wild fenland in Cambridgeshire, which later became the SPNR’s first nature reserve. From its base at the Natural History Museum in London, the SPNR started putting Rothschild’s vision into practice. By 1915, Rothschild and his colleagues – among them future Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain – had prepared a list of 284 special wildlife sites around the British Isles they considered ‘worthy of permanent preservation’, and presented this to the Board of Agriculture. The list of potential reserves included the Farne Islands and the Norfolk Broads in England, Tregaron Bog in Wales, Caen Lochan Glen in Scotland, and Lough Neagh in Ireland.1 However, despite Rothschild’s efforts he became ill and the list was not adopted by government. It would take many more years for the protection of wild places to make it onto the statute. 1920s-50s: The National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act and the birth of local Wildlife Trusts Rothschild died early, in 1923 at the age of 46, and stewardship of the SPNR passed to another visionary – a retired gemologist from the Natural History Museum named Herbert Smith.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptation to Climate Change Sustainable Local Economies Abundant Wildlife Healthy Cities and Green Space for All
    A living landscape A call to restore the UK’s battered ecosystems, for wildlife and people Adaptation to climate change Sustainable local economies Abundant wildlife Healthy cities and green space for all Updated with 100+ Living Landscape schemes So much of the UK now is packed with development Fenton/BBC Beatrice and wildlife is in retreat. There are many fine nature A LIVING LANDSCAPE reserves but our future must be to integrate human and natural communities and restore a better balance. This document lays out exciting and important new plans. Professor Aubrey Manning OBE President of The Wildlife Trusts Matthew Roberts. Cover picture: St Ives and the river Great Ouse, Cambridgshire, Dae Sasitorn/lastrefuge.co.uk Dae Cambridgshire, Ouse, Great river the and Ives St picture: Cover Roberts. Matthew Where will our water come from? When will our land use become truly sustainable? How can our environment adapt to climate change? What would it take to rebuild a wildlife-rich countryside? Why are so many people disconnected from nature? Priestcliffe Lees nature reserve, owned by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: a treasure chest of local biodiversity. The Wildlife Trusts see such places as nodes from It’s time to think big which plants and animals can recolonise a recovering landscape To adapt to climate change, the UK’s wildlife will need to move Driven by local people and aspirations, The Wildlife Trusts play along ‘climate corridors’ up and down the country, or to shadier a leading role not just in developing the vision but in mustering slopes or cooler valleys. Wildlife has done it all before, after the the support that can allow communities to drive their own last ice age, but this time the change is faster and there are change.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Annual Report and Accounts 2017-18
    Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Annual Report and Accounts 2017-18 Protecting Wildlife for the Future Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Annual Report & Accounts 2017-18 Registered charity number: 207238 Version: 29/08/2018 16:07:45 Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts CONTENTS for the year ended 31 March 2018 Page Overview of the Year and Policy Report 2-3 Trustees’ Report 4 - 22 Auditor’s Report 23 - 24 Accounting Policies 25 - 27 Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities 28 Consolidated and Society Balance Sheets 29 Consolidated Cash Flow Statement 30 Notes to the Financial Statements 31 - 46 Page | 1 Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts OVERVIEW OF THE YEAR AND POLICY REPORT for the year ended 31 March 2018 Overview of the Year took up the challenge. Derby University’s research demonstrated that this daily contact with wildlife was The year kicked off with a General Election which the leading to a statistically proven and lasting Prime Minister had hoped would boost her majority improvement in people’s health and happiness. to ease the passage of Brexit talks. It did exactly the More people shared moving, personal stories about opposite and the Conservatives had to win the their relationship with wildlife and how it’s changed support of the Democratic Unionist Party to form a their lives through our My Wild Life campaign. Government. We supported Trusts in the lead up and follow up to the Election as they encouraged The Heritage Lottery Fund was subject to candidates to support laws for nature’s recovery. Government review this year and a consultation on Only the Lib Dems and Greens did so specifically but its future role and priorities issued.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue No. 86.Qxd
    PUBLICATION NATURE GROUP COMMITTEE INFORMATION OFFICERS Chairman:- Robert Hawkesworth FRPS ‘The Iris’ is published by The Nature 5, Ravensdale Drive, Wollaton, Nottingham, Group of the RPS three times a year. NG8 2SL. Tel:- 0115 928 1050. Vice Chairman:- To be advised Copy and publication dates are:- Secretary:- Margaret Johnson LRPS Spring Issue. 53, Mapperley Orchard, Arnold, Nottingham, NG5 8AH. Copy Deadline - 23rd January Tel:- 0115 9265893 E-mail: [email protected] Members receive by 18th March. Treasurer:- Trevor Hyman LRPS 3, Northcourt Summer Issue. Lane, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 1QA. Tel:- 01235 - 524909. e-mail:- [email protected] Copy Deadline - 23rd May Members receive by 15th July. Winter Issue. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Copy Deadline - 23rd September Programme Co-ordinator:- Nick Jarvis ARPS Hive Cottage, 5 Milton Road, Willen, Milton Members receive by 15th November. Keynes, MK15 9AB. Tel 01908 607257. e-mail:[email protected] CONTRIBUTIONS on all aspects of David Osborn FRPS 19, Mount Street, Cromer, Nature Photography and Natural Norfolk, NR27 9DB. Tel:- 01692 80875. History are welcomed, including E-mail: [email protected] reviews on equipment and relevant Geoff Trinder ARPS The Croft, Carrhouse Road, books. Copy can be accepted on flop- Belton, Doncaster, DN9 1PG. Tel:- 01427 872051. py disc (RTF or Microsoft ‘Word’) Chris Wood LRPS 113, Walnut Tree Road, accompanied by printed copy. As an Charlton Village, Middlesex, TW17 0RR. E-mail (please not as an attach- Tel:- 01932-711434. ment) or simply typed, double N/G Rep to Advisory Panel - John Myring ARPS spaced, on one side of the paper only. 39, Barnetts Close, Kidderminster,Worcestershire, Please send submissions to The DY10 3DG.
    [Show full text]
  • Save Our Magnificent Meadows
    Save Our Magnificent Meadows Giles Knight Save our Magnificent Meadows Cotswolds Conservation Board North West Kent & Medway Valley Countryside Partnership Northumberland Wildlife Trust Pori Natura Threftadaeth (PONT) RSPB +Wiltshire Wildlife Trust Scottish Wildlife Trust Somerset Wildlife Trust The Conservation Volunteers Ulster Wildlife Trust This field offers: •Food from mixed herbage •Human well-being/interest •High Biodiversity •Carbon Storage •Water quality This field offers: •Resource protection •Food (more) •Lower input/output •Low Biodiversity •17 shades of green •Monoculture landscape •High input/output •Neon green •Ecological boredom © Patrick McGurn Grassland or arable SRG? Our Magnificent Meadows - where are they? Guardians The word stewardship still means something here Low input/output farming still survives here – why? •traditional farming practice •climate •topography (hills and lakes) •soil type and geology •wildlife corridors •cultural factors •a sense of place •designations •agri-env schemes and public support Meadow wildlife Meadow management principles •Reduced inputs and lower outputs •Close off in April, after grazing or topping where necessary / applicable •Cut in July or ideally in August •Make hay if possible •Graze aftermath in September / October with cattle if available © Giles Knight Hand harvesting Vacuum harvesting Brush harvesting Hand haying Green haying Seed management Seed sowing Monastery Meadows Navar Meadows Species Rich Verges Upland Grazing Meadows Working together to help wildlife and human communities •Target hitting •Information gathering and knowledge transfer •Opportunity spotting •Demonstrating the art of the possible •@gilesknight2.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Annual Report and Accounts 2016-17
    Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Annual Report and Accounts 2016-17 Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Registered Charity No: 207238 Cover photography: Children at a Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust forest school by Helena Fletcher Protecting Wildlife for the Future Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Annual Report & Accounts 2016-17 Registered charity number: 207238 Version: 06/09/2017 09:27:37 Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts CONTENTS for the year ended 31 March 2017 Page TWT UK Chair and Chief Executive Report 2 Chair and Director of TWT England Report 3 Trustees’ Report 4 - 21 Auditor’s Report 22 - 23 Accounting Policies 24 - 26 Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities 27 Consolidated and Society Balance Sheets 28 Consolidated Cash Flow Statement 29 Notes to the Financial Statements 30 - 43 Appendix: Grant Expenditure 44 - 45 Page | 1 Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts TWT UK CHAIR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE REPORT for the year ended 31 March 2017 As The Wildlife Trusts absorbed the full implications In common with others, The Wildlife Trusts needed of the UK’s departure from the EU for our mission, to form relations with a new Government in Summer we were buoyed by the tremendous courage 2016. We immediately met with the Secretary of demonstrated in our Council and Committees and State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, across the movement. One aspect of this has been Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP and her Ministers the strong relations between Wildlife Trusts in the George Eustice and Therese Coffey as well as component parts of the UK, a Union under particular Ministers from the new Department for Exiting the pressure from the 2016 result.
    [Show full text]
  • Countryside Jobs Service
    Countryside Jobs Service Focus on Wildlife In association with The Wildlife Trusts 25 June 2012 100 years of The Wildlife Trusts 1912 marked the beginning of nature conservation as we know it. It started with banker and expert naturalist, Charles Rothschild, whose vision for protected areas for nature laid the foundations of The Wildlife Trusts. Rothschild’s vision was a radical one. Before 1912, the emphasis was on trying to protect individual species from collectors and persecution. Rothschild had a very different idea. He understood the importance of protecting places and planned to safeguard where wildlife lived – the moors, meadows, woods and fens under attack from rapid modernisation. Woodwalton Fen was the first place On 16 May 1912, Rothschild called the inaugural meeting Charles Rothschild saved for nature. of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves (SPNR) at the Natural History Museum. He had succeeded in enlisting the support of 50 Fellows of the Royal Society, the Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey and future Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, while the Speaker of the House of Commons, James Lowther MP, became the first president. The initial aim of the SPNR was to create a list of Britain's finest wildlife sites for potential purchase as nature reserves. Three years of information gathering followed - the first ever national survey of wildlife sites - in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Rothschild and his colleagues were looking for the 'breeding-places of scarce creatures', the 'localities of scarce plants' and areas of 'geological interest'. By 1915 they had compiled a list of 284 sites 'worthy of preservation' - the Rothschild Reserves.
    [Show full text]
  • LDT 18, Wildlife Trusts Wales
    Pwyllgor Cyilid I Finance Committee Bil Treth Gwarediadau Tirlenwi (Cymru) | Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill LDT 18 Ymddiredolaethau Bywyd Gwyllt Cymru | Wildlife Trusts Wales Finance Committee Consultation: Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill Email: [email protected] Evidence Session: Thursday 19 January Establishing the Landfill Communities Scheme as a grant scheme rather than a tax credit and developing it outside of the Bill. SUMMARY - Wildlife Trusts Wales support the development of a Landfill Disposals Tax Communities Scheme as a continuation of, replacement for, the Landfill Community Fund. - We strongly support a scheme that hypothecates tax raised from an environmentally damaging activity for projects that benefit the environment, including biodiversity. - As is widely reported, we are in a state of major and continuing decline in wildlife and ecosystem resilience. - The current Landfill Community Fund is excellent value for money as wildlife projects deliver multiple benefits and thus the LCF punches far above its weight. - Landfill Disposals Tax Communities Scheme like its predecessor is one of the only pure biodiversity funds as such it is an important mechanism for Wales to meet the its moral and legal obligations to halt the loss of biodiversity (i.e. Section 6 and 7 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016). - It is vital for the success of conservation projects to have funders who can commit to funding long term projects (3-5 years). - The Bill requires greater clarity and transparency in relation to how LDT revenues are apportioned to the LDT CS in order to safeguard this important funding mechanism e.g. how will funding levels for the new fund be determined and protected? - We recommend the Bill highlights that there should be an even spread of resources targeted at the three key areas to avoid being monopolized by one theme.
    [Show full text]
  • A Living Landscape Over 100 Schemes Across the UK
    A Living Landscape Over 100 schemes across the UK What is A Living Landscape? It is a strategic vision of our landscape that will help us create a resilient and healthy environment. We are identifying key areas to protect for wildlife, enlarging, improving and joining them up across the UK: on nature reserves, in towns and cities, and in partnership with hundreds of other land-owners. There are now more than 100 Living Landscape schemes around the UK. These schemes are creating inspirational, accessible landscapes – full of wildlife and rich in opportunities for learning, health and wellbeing, as well as sustainable economic development. A Living Landscape Over 100 schemes across the UK South West Lincolnshire Coastal Grazing Marshes (Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust) North Somerset Levels and Moors Project (Avon Wildlife Trust) Lincolnshire Limewoods (Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust) Restoring Avon's wildflower-rich grassland (Avon Wildlife Trust) Trent Holmes Living Landscape Project (Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust) West Cornwall Wetland Networks Project (Cornwall Wildlife Trust) Idle Valley Project (Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust) Working Wetlands on the Culm (Devon Wildlife Trust) Restoring Sherwood’s Ancient Heathland (Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust) Exeter Wild City Project (Devon Wildlife Trust) John Clare Country Living Landscape project (The Wildlife Trust for Beds, Cambs, Northants & Peterborough) Pastures New (Dorset Wildlife Trust) Nene Valley Living Landscape Project (The Wildlife Trust for Beds, Cambs, Northants & Peterborough) Severn
    [Show full text]