From Angela Eagle MP, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
London
Mark Avery’s letter draws attention to the number and diversity of
organisations involved in funding biodiversity research
(Letters, 21 February, p 52).
It is right that a range of different bodies, each with their own operational
and policy responsibilities, including government departments, research councils
and agencies and industry, as well as nongovernmental organisations like the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, should contribute to biodiversity
research.
It has been a central thesis in the development of the Biodiversity Action
Plan that its success depends on all sectors—private, public and
voluntary—playing an active part, and research is no exception. We need a
spectrum of different types of research, including the underpinning science
funded by the research councils, the policy-oriented research usually carried
out by government departments and practical projects—of which so many good
examples can be found in the statutory conservation agencies and NGOs. These
interests would not be best served by a single “body with nationwide
responsibility for funding British biodiversity research”.
Advertisement
The government is committed to partnership and it makes good sense for the
organisation that is lead partner for a particular action plan, or one that
operates a particular agrienvironment scheme, to be responsible for
commissioning the research supporting that action plan or scheme. What we need
is a framework to enable cooperation between research funding agencies and to
provide a mechanism for coordination.
We have already made a start on this. The Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, on behalf of the UK Biodiversity Group, commissioned a review of the
research requirements arising from the Biodiversity Action Plan. The review
established that a high proportion of the practical research needs identified
are being addressed. However, it also identified some gaps and gave pointers to
the way forward. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
will be working with its key partners—including the RSPB and Natural
Environment Research Council—to agree priorities and share results.
Interestingly, Britain is not alone in facing this issue. An international
workshop hosted by my department in January, to prepare for the review of the
operations of the Biodiversity Convention at the next conference of parties in
May, identified as a key challenge the need for the convention to improve its
scientific underpinning. A strong scientific base is crucial if we are to
address biodiversity depletion successfully, whether at home or abroad.
