Review of Local Biodiversity Action:

Ceredigion LBAP.

Thank you for your letter concerning Local Biodiversity action Plans. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. I would make the following comments on behalf of the Ceredigion Biodiversity Partnership that I trust will be of assistance in the review.

1. Progress

The Ceredigion Biodiversity Partnership was formed in 2000 to take forward the LBAP process. The County Council is lead partner whilst a small working group was also formed to help progress LBAP matters (the working group currently comprises the County Council, the Wildlife Trust South and West Wales, CCW, FUW and the NFU).The Ceredigion LBAP was launched by Simon Thomas MP, Elin Jones AM and Cllr Alun Lloyd Jones (Partnership Chairman) on 4^th September 2002. The LBAP contains the first tranche of habitat and species action plans for the County: additional action plans are to be added in the near future.There are a number of specific LBAP projects currently being pursued in the County:

• Red squirrel study, upper Tywi Valley (in conjunction with Carmarthenshire County Council and CCW).
• Water Vole study, Aberystwyth area (in conjunction with the Environment Agency Wales and CCW).
• Management of roadside verges (in conjunction with the Wildlife Trust South and West Wales).
• Best Practice

Other biodiversity action that being pursued which might be considered as 'best practice’;

• In its development of the Ceredigion Coast Path (Objective 1), the Council and other organisations will be seeking to link coast path creations and improvements with habitat management and enhancement schemes.
• Sub-regional initiative to assist in the production of marine habitat and species action plans (led by CCW).
• Key Issues
• Effectiveness of partnerships:

The development of effective partnerships is generally recognised as the key to biodiversity action. The development of the LBAP partnership builds on the work of the local authority in other areas of conservation work (SAC management, LNR management, etc). To date, many partners have made a valuable contribution to the LBAP process, often despite the limited resources available to them. However, others have been less forthcoming: a dedicated LBAP officer might go some way to encouraging involvement by these organisations.

• Co-ordination between local and national levels (in particular concerning targets and action):

The availability of information on habitats and species, translated to the local level, was a limiting factor in the preparation of the Ceredigion LBAP. The publication of information on habitats and species is helping to rectify this situation but there is more that can be achieved at the national level. It also appears to me that the 'flow' of information from lead organisations (at the national level) to local partnerships has been limited.

• Resources available to support LBAP preparation and implementation:

The LBAP process has placed an additional responsibility upon local authorities that should be recognised in WAG settlements. A clear commitment to long-term funding would ensure that LBAP work is sustained (in particular to support dedicated BAP officers). Whilst a certain level of CCW / WAG financial support has been available for LBAP work, this has been in the form of annual grant: this mechanism clearly has its limitations as it cannot provide continuity to the process. There would also be clear benefits in devising an 'umbrella’ biodiversity grant programme (EU or other) that could be utilised by LBAP partnerships in drawing down funding for biodiversity projects (thereby avoiding duplication of effort by individual partnerships in seeking to access such funds).

• Guidance available to LBAP partners:

In general, adequate guidance is available. The importance of networking and drawing on the experience of other LBAPs should also be emphasised.

• Arrangements for involving diverse groups:

This matter has not yet received detailed consideration in Ceredigion.

• Access to biodiversity information:

Access to information, and its interpretation, is an area that requires further attention (see also comments above on co-ordination between local and national levels etc).

• Access to expertise:

A wide range of expertise is available within the Partnership. These inputs have been of particular value given that the County Council does not have an ecologist on its establishment. It is however essential that LBAP members are given adequate support from their own organisations to ensure that relevant expertise and information can be channelled into local biodiversity activities.

• Arrangements for monitoring and reporting:

Additional support in this process is likely to be required.

1. Action

Resources (both staff and funding) are central to the development of local biodiversity action. This factor needs to be addressed at both national and local levels. As indicated above, the progress to date in Ceredigion has been achieved without the benefit of a dedicated BAP officer. However, if progress is to be sustained, a BAP officer (either full or part-time) is an essential element in the co-ordinating and overseeing of LBAP work. Other matters that might be given consideration within the review are:

• The merits of incorporating LBAP activities as a local authority duty.
• Further consideration on the role, organisation, and funding of Local Records Centres.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Ian DutchOn behalf of the Ceredigion Biodiversity Partnership.