Save our Research Centres

[Pete Eeles]

Cross-posted from the "News" forum ...

Just in case you've missed this important item ...

"Extinction crisis warning as world famous research centres face axe". This is the title of some recent news on the Butterfly Conservation website at http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/n ... risis.html In a nutshell, it looks like we're going to lose a number of research centres, which carry out research into insect biodiversity and climate change, over the next 4 years. Butterfly Conservation's chief executive, Martin Warren, says "Everything must be done to save them".

There is a public consultation page at http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/publicconsultation.html This provides access to the business plan for this move, together with a mechanism for registering comments (which closes on 15th February).

[Pete Eeles]

Dear all,

I have read with considerable interest the recent exchange of emails on UK-Leps on the CEH site closures and restructuring. I am aware that many of our friends, contacts and colleagues in science, natural history and nature conservation are shocked and dismayed at the news that CEH is to close over half of its sites and to lose 200 of its 600 staff, and at least some of those would like to do something to help. What follows is some explanation of what is being proposed and the effects this will have on ecological research in the UK. If you would like to help by expressing your concerns / objections to these proposals you can contact me for further information which will include contact names and addresses of MPs to whom you may wish to write.

CEH downsizing
I imagine that most will have heard by now of the plans to downsize CEH (the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) over the next two to four years by closing five (four research) of its nine sites and to reduce staff numbers from 600 to 400 (which will include many scientists - ratio scientists to admin will remain the same) across all sites. This has been presented to CEH staff as a 'fait accompli'; however there is still time for this to be changed. The sites to be closed are at Monks Wood (Cambs), Winfrith (Dorset), Banchory (nr. Aberdeen), Oxford, and our administrative site in Swindon.

[N.B. This is on top of cuts that have already taken place. The part of CEH that is made up of the old ITE (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology - six of CEHs sites), has already lost at least 20% (probably nearer to 30%) of its staff numbers since the 1980s.]

Serious negative impact on ecological research
This will undoubtedly have a serious negative impact on the UKs ecological research especially that relating to biodiversity and nature conservation (for which CEH is famous worldwide).

Why is it happening?
This has basically come about through a change in policy within NERC (Natural Environment Research Council), CEH's parent body. NERC plans to redirect some of the funding that has been going to CEH to universities for what is known as 'Blue Skies' research (scientific research for its own sake rather than with any necessary practical application). Part of our funding also comes from commissioned research (public and private sector); this is also to be reduced (by CEH management's choice).

The proposed cuts are based on the premise that CEH will no longer be financially sustainable at its current size; in fact CEH has been running at a £1.5m year on year loss for the last two years (due primarily to what I can only see as mismanagement - details can be provided!). £45m of taxpayer's money is being allocated to carry out the restructuring!

Some likely impacts
We strongly believe that these cuts are not for the public good and should not be applied to the kind of research that CEH does, much of which is long-term strategic research which cannot be undertaken by universities. Much of it is the kind of research that underpins nature conservation management. Although there are plans to retain a great deal of this research at the four remaining sites, much of it will be very seriously affected by the cuts and restructuring (see below). We believe we need more, not less, money at a time when pressures on our environment and biodiversity are greater than ever.

Biodiversity is one of six science programmes under which our research is carried out. This accounts for one-third of CEHs total published output and 86% of this comes from the four research sites to be closed! Much of the research is field-based and the specialist facilities at these sites will largely be lost. In a recent independent review our science was considered as 'world class' with all science programmes being given the highest or second highest rating.

The loss of staff, expertise and specialized facilities plus the total disruption caused by reorganization and relocation of staff to the remaining CEH sites, as well as the resulting loss of confidence in us by the other organizations who help to fund us, will have a long-term deleterious effect on the productivity and capability of CEH and there is real concern that these cuts and the way they will carried out could prove fatal to CEH in the longer term. At the very least we believe they will result in the need for a further re-organisation and downsizing in five or so years' time.

Many of the staff CEH hopes to retain will be asked to relocate to the site at Wallingford (largest CEH site to be retained, also to become our HQ). The cost of living is very high here and house prices are one-and-a-half to two times those in the Monks Wood area. More than half the staff currently at CEH Wallingford are unable to afford to buy their own houses, whereas at Monks Wood 95% own their own house. It is clear that many staff will not be able / willing to relocate from cheaper areas on financial grounds. This is a surely major flaw in CEHs Business Plan (see: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/secretariat council/ceh/), and our Executive Board are still resolutely refusing to face up to this.

There can be no proper science planning at this stage for CEH's future, as senior management really do not know which of their 'key staff' they will be able to retain. Someone has said it is like throwing a pack of cards up in the air over a table and seeing which ones land on the table and then trying to salvage a decent hand from the ones which land face up. It hardly seems an appropriate way to ensure the long-term future of strategic science-based ecological research in the UK.

Please lobby decision makers
Now is the time to lobby government and those responsible for making the decisions regarding the future of CEH and the research it does, in order to try and get this decision reversed or at least moderated. If you are concerned about this issue, please seriously consider at the very least writing to your MP to express your concerns and / or objections to the proposals. We have until March 8th, when NERC Council makes its final decision, to make views known. The more who write the more likely the decision can be changed.

I have additional information including a long (2 ½ page) email I sent to friends and colleagues over the past two weeks on this issue that includes names and addresses of key MPs and others to write to. If you would like this please email me and I will send it to you. Please also contribute to the consultation website at: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/consult/ceh/, though this should not be a substitute for writing to MPs etc. This website is open until February 15th.

Many thanks for reading this if you have got this far! May I finish by saying that we are extremely grateful to all who have already written and to those planning to do so.

Yours sincerely
Nick G-D


***************************************************************************************
Mr J Nick Greatorex-Davies
(Butterfly Monitoring Scheme co-ordinator & moth schemes liaison for BRC) Biological Records Centre NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Formerly the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE)) Monks Wood Abbots Ripton Huntingdon Cambridgeshire PE28 2LS UK

Tel: (+44) (0) 1487 772 401
Fax: (+44) (0) 1487 773 467
E-mail: ngd@ceh.ac.uk
BMS web site: http://bms.ceh.ac.uk
BRC web site: http://brc.ac.uk
***************************************************************************************

[Pete Eeles]

I've managed to find the complete text of the Independent article run a few weeks back on this subject. See

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read ... Num=124465

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

Dear friends and colleagues,

I hope you will forgive this intrusion and this rather generalized email which I am writing to friends, contacts and colleagues I know who are involved in science, natural history and nature conservation. Please forgive me if you receive this email more than once. For some of you I have more than one email address. Others may have had a copy passed on to you from someone else (I started sending out an earlier version of this email nearly two weeks ago)! I also apologise for the length of the email (which I have been sending out in batches), but I think the subject matter is of such importance to ecological research in the UK, and has wider ramifications, that it warrants this level of detail. I am writing to ask for your help, if you should feel so inclined, at a time when ecological research in the UK, especially that relating to biodiversity and nature conservation is under considerable threat. I realise some of you may already have responded to this issue, so again please forgive me if I am asking you to consider doing something you have already done.

As nearly all will have heard by now, in early December the Executive Board of CEH (the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) announced its plans (Statement of Intent) for the restructuring of CEH. This restructuring will involve the closure of five of the nine sites that currently make up CEH and the loss of 200 of our 600 staff. The plans are to close CEH research centres at Monks Wood (Cambridgeshire), Winfrith (Dorset), Banchory (near Aberdeen) and the site in Oxford. In addition it is proposed to close our administrative HQ in Swindon.

The four sites to be retained are in Edinburgh, Lancaster, Wallingford in Oxfordshire and Bangor in North Wales. Plans are to relocate 'key' staff from the sites to be closed to the sites to be retained. Many will be asked to go to Wallingford, which will be the largest site and also become our administrative HQ. Redundancies will be across all sites. These plans will not take place immediately and may take up to four years to implement. NERC (Natural Environment Research Council our parent body) Council have endorsed the proposals (Statement of intent) and associated Business Plan (see: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/secretariat council/ceh/) and are due to make a final decision in early March.

It is inevitable that the downsizing of CEH will have a very serious negative impact on the ecological research capability of CEH and indeed of the UK, particularly that relating to wildlife and nature conservation. Indeed many of us consider it could prove fatal to CEH in the longer term. Although it is planned that key areas of research are to be continued (though this is seriously in doubt!) at the retained sites, especially long term studies, a considerable amount of expertise and facilities will be lost and it will take time to recruit new staff, rebuild teams and regain the confidence of those organisations that help to fund our research. The cuts in staff are likely to be greatest at sites being closed, where, incidentally, the vast majority of biodiversity research projects are currently being carried out. (86% of CEH's published output under the Biodiversity research programme comes from these four sites). 40 50% loss of staff is more likely at these sites (internal management estimate) as many staff are likely to decide not to transfer for financial and other reasons.

Some of you may be wondering what will happen to the Biological Records Centre (BRC) (where I work) and to the Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. CEH management have made it clear that BRC (and that includes the BMS) is top of its list of priorities of what is to be retained. However it is likely that the most of our 13 'permanent' staff in BRC will not be willing or able to relocate (see below). This will mean the inevitable loss of key staff and most of the considerable expertise of this group which has taken many years build up, not least because this involves years of developing relationships with the recording community which is vital for the work that BRC does. CEH will need to recruit new staff to fill the vacant posts. It could take many years for a fully effective team to be rebuilt, if this happens at all. So it is not cuts to funding that will be a problem for BRC, but the upheaval of relocation (and consequent chaos) and inevitable loss of many of our staff and their expertise. Similar effects are likely across the rest of CEH where the cuts will also seriously affect the numbers of staff as well.

The largest of the sites to be retained is at Wallingford and most staff from closing sites who are to be retained will be relocated there. The cost of living is particularly high in this area and house prices are on average twice what they are in the Monks Wood area. We are told that >50% of staff already at CEH Wallingford cannot afford to buy their own houses, but live in rented accommodation. Furthermore I understand that staff who have their own houses are mostly those who bought them years ago not at current house prices. Although NERC will provide some help initially, staff will still have to carry the burden of much of the extra costs themselves and therefore undoubtedly financial restraints will mean many staff will not consider such a move as financially viable, this will be especially the case where spouses have to lose their jobs in the process. It seems to me that a major flaw in the Business Plan is that the Executive Board really does not know which of their 'key' staff they are likely to be able to retain from the sites that are closing. They really have no idea. Many think that a 50% loss of staff from closing sites is an underestimate. It is a bit like throwing a pack of cards up in the air and seeing which ones land on the table and then seeing what can be salvaged. The long term sustainability of CEH under the current situation and proposed Business Plan is also threatened by the fact that the two largest sites to be retained are also the least cost effective to run per scientist (and in terms of scientific output (publications)). At one of these sites the running costs per scientist are nearly twice those of other sites (three times when compared to Banchory our cheapest site to run!).

The proposals for restructuring CEH have come about for a number of reasons, but foremost among these is that NERC have decided to make a substantial cut in funding (money that comes from the government's Science Budget) to CEH. Instead they are redirecting that money to universities for what they call 'blue skies' research (research for its own sake rather than with any necessary practical application). CEH management asked for £24m per annum to fund the research we are currently doing (though £21m is considered sufficient to retain what we have), but are being granted only £15m, despite 90% of that research being supported by external peer review. In addition there will be a reduction in the amount of commissioned research that CEH will carry out as CEH management wish our research to be driven by our science aims rather than by what our customers want. However this will be seriously limited by what is left in terms of staff and associated expertise. It is intended that commissioned research will only be sought where this helps meet the science aims. Colleagues who have examined the figures cannot see how the current level of reliance on commissioned research will change with such a reduction in our funding from Science Budget - in fact it will increase!

£45m of taxpayers' money are being provided to carry out the restructuring! CEH has been incurring a year on year deficit over the past two years of ca £1.2m (though this may be an artifact of accounting rather than a real deficit). It will take many years before the £45m is recovered, particularly in view of the negative impacts the downsizing and restructuring will have on CEH's ability to deliver high quality science as cost effectively as at present.

We know that our science is considered 'world class'. In a recent independent science review (commissioned by NERC) all our science programmes were graded as being of international quality (all being given the highest (outstanding) or second highest (excellent) rating) with recommendations that all should be continued. The benefits of giving a comparatively small amount of money to universities for 'blue-skies' research are surely far outweighed by the enormous damage that will be done to CEH and the important research it carries out.

I know that many of you are dismayed at this news, and some have expressed a desire to help by protesting, and asked me for guidance on the most effective way. I imagine there will be others among you who feel the same way. We have been greatly encouraged by the support there has been in objecting to these proposals. Many friends and colleagues in other research and conservation bodies, universities and members of the public have been shocked and dismayed at the news and have already submitted protests and comments. There have been articles in the local and national press. Prominent among these is Monday's (9th Jan) excellent and informative front page in the Independent. If you have not seen it please read this. It was available at: http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 337399.ece, but I have attached a WORD copy to this email. Two additional WORD attachments to this email from notes put together by colleagues here at Monks Wood provide more information for those who may be interested.


We now have a period of consultation, during which time anyone can comment on the proposals. There is a consultation website at http://www.nerc.ac.uk/consult/ceh/ where you can submit comments up until 15th February. However it seems likely that this information will be summarised (and maybe filtered) before being passed to our Executive Board or to NERC council, and thus its effect may be limited, but nonetheless please submit comments since "no response" will be assumed to mean tacit approval. A 'final' decision on the proposals will be made by NERC Council in early March.

So in addition I am asking those of you who have not already done so, and who feel so inclined, to consider expressing your concerns about the proposals by writing to MPs and to the Chairman and Chief Executive of NERC. May I add here that we are extremely grateful to those who have already submitted their objections and concerns.

We feel a particularly good option is to write to those ministers who are responsible for the decisions relating to our science. In the first instance this is Lord Sainsbury, responsible for the Office of Science and Technology within the DTI, where our government funding comes from. You can write to him as follows: Lord Sainsbury, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Science & Innovation, Department of Trade and Industry, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET. Tel: (Enquiry Unit of the DTI) 020 7215 5000, email: enquiries@dti.gsi.gov.uk

We also suggest that people should write to Jim Knight MP, the Defra minister covering Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity. Although he does not have direct responsibility for NERC, Defra are a major customer of ours, and biodiversity (a major part of the threatened research) is his responsibility. He may be contacted at either at his constituency office (42 Southview Road, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 0JD) or at the House of Commons (Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA. His email address is: jimknightmp@parliament.uk

Please also write to your local MP, particularly if you live in an area where one of the sites for closure is located, but the more letters the better. We would be grateful if you would also copy your letter to Mr. Rob Margetts, NERC Chairman and to Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive (both at NERC Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1EU).

At the end of the day we feel that the likeliest way to reverse, or at least moderate, the decision is to persuade those in government who are ultimately responsible to reconsider both the fundamental legitimacy of such cuts to this vital research and also the workability of the Business Plan produced by our management team. I am increasingly convinced that a full independent investigation is in order! It is thus important to lobby those responsible now in writing, expressing your objections and concerns about the proposals. A lot of pressure has been put on those responsible for these decisions already and we feel that there is hope that the decision may yet be reversed or at least moderated.

Many thanks for reading this (if you have got this far!), and for giving it your consideration. Obviously if you do feel able to write and object or express your concerns, even if only to one of the options I have given above, then we will be very grateful. I hope the information I have provided in this email and in the attachments will be of help in formulating what you might write. If you want further clarification or information on anything relating to this whole issue please don't hesitate to contact me and I'll do my best to provide it.

With best wishes
Nick

***************************************************************************************
Mr J Nick Greatorex Davies
(Butterfly Monitoring Scheme co ordinator & moth schemes liaison for BRC)
Biological Records Centre
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
(Formerly the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE))
Monks Wood
Abbots Ripton
Huntingdon
Cambridgeshire PE28 2LS UK

Tel: (+44) (0) 1487 772 401
Fax: (+44) (0) 1487 773 467
E mail: ngd@ceh.ac.uk
BMS web site: http://bms.ceh.ac.uk
BRC web site: http://brc.ac.uk
***************************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: Any views or opinions expressed in this e mail or any files transmitted with it are those of the author and do not represent the views of NERC unless otherwise explicitly stated. The information contained in this e mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

[Pete Eeles]

Cross-post from Ian Smith:

Those wishing to make submissions against the CEH cuts can find a link to an online consultation form on the following web page.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/consult/ceh/

However, be careful to copy your submission before sending it. When I tried, I was told it was not possible for it to transmit. I had to retype it and send it by email to the enquiries at;
CEHconsultation@nerc.ac.uk

Retyping is frustrating, time consuming and likely to discourage representations being made.
The website states that all submissions sent before 8th Dec were lost, and need to be resent. It seems that the IT problem continues. Don't let the system defeat you if you wish to submit.
It would be wrong if the cuts went ahead because of 'lack' of submissions.
If you send to the enquiries email address, ask for an acknowledgement of its receipt and that they will include you in the submission. They answered me in the affirmative.

You could also send copies of your email to
Lord Sainsbury (Science & Innovation) enquiries@dti.gsi.gov.uk
and
Jim Knight (Defra) jimknightmp@parliament.uk

Deadline for submissions 15 Feb.
Cheers
Ian

[Pete Eeles]

Cross-post from UK-Leps forum:

Apropos of this, there was a lively exchange on the topic at Prime Minister's question time in the House of Commons today with David Cameron persistently asking Tony Blair why these research establishments were be closed down.

The answers were far from direct, but it does illustrate what a high profile this topic is now getting.

Patrick Roper

[Pete Eeles]

In the Independent Today ...

Cameron taunts PM over closure of laboratories
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 02 February 2006
Tony Blair has been embarrassed by a letter from one of his junior environment ministers saying the closure of four eco laboratories involved in climate change research did "not make sense".

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, taunted the Prime Minister over the closure of the laboratories, which have been championed by the television naturalist Sir David Attenborough and Jim Knight, a minister in Margaret Beckett's department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Cameron said the eco labs had been involved in research on tackling climate change, one of the issues that was a priority for the Government, but at the end of the month four of the eight were being closed, as revealed by The Independent. "What happened to joined-up government?" said the Tory leader.

He read out a letter signed by Mr Knight saying "the closure does not make sense either scientifically or economically whether considered at a national or local level." The Tory leader called on the Prime Minister to intervene, but Mr Blair refused to give any commitment to do so.

He challenged Mr Blair to support his minister, but Mr Blair, clearly caught off guard, refused to do so, insisting the Natural Environment Research Council was responsible for the decision. "There is a debate of course because the research council is making the decision and there is a debate about whether that is right or not," said Mr Blair.

The Prime Minister defended the Government's record on climate change and accused Mr Cameron of hypocrisy for refusing to support the climate change levy. "There is no point in him raising these issues while he remains opposed to the climate change levy which is the only sure way of getting the reduction in CO2 emissions we want to see," said Mr Blair. One of the laboratories was featured Sir David's Life in the Undergrowth series on BBC1. Sir David said: "These laboratories are world leaders in biodiversity research. It seems a terrible thing that places with a world reputation are being closed down."

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is axing the laboratories at Monks Wood in Cambridgeshire, Winfrith in Dorset, Banchory in Aberdeenshire and at Oxford to save £5m a year.

The cut was backed by its parent body, the Natural Environment Research Council, and will mean cutting staff by 200 to 400 in the next four years.

Mr Cameron said a report this week by the British Antarctic Survey showed the problem of climate change may be worse than previously thought, and the Government would not meet its targets on greenhouse gases, that cause global warming. Mr Cameron said: "I fear the Prime Minister hasn't really considered this, could you go away and think about it, have a look at the evidence and come and report to the House next week."

Mr Blair said the UK was performing well in tackling climate change. "We have set a Kyoto target that we will meet. It's very tough on the CO2 emissions target. But this country is leading the international debate on climate change and we are ranked fifth in the world in terms of our environmental record and I think that's a very good record.''

Tony Blair has been embarrassed by a letter from one of his junior environment ministers saying the closure of four eco laboratories involved in climate change research did "not make sense".

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, taunted the Prime Minister over the closure of the laboratories, which have been championed by the television naturalist Sir David Attenborough and Jim Knight, a minister in Margaret Beckett's department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Cameron said the eco labs had been involved in research on tackling climate change, one of the issues that was a priority for the Government, but at the end of the month four of the eight were being closed, as revealed by The Independent. "What happened to joined-up government?" said the Tory leader.

He read out a letter signed by Mr Knight saying "the closure does not make sense either scientifically or economically whether considered at a national or local level." The Tory leader called on the Prime Minister to intervene, but Mr Blair refused to give any commitment to do so.

He challenged Mr Blair to support his minister, but Mr Blair, clearly caught off guard, refused to do so, insisting the Natural Environment Research Council was responsible for the decision. "There is a debate of course because the research council is making the decision and there is a debate about whether that is right or not," said Mr Blair.

The Prime Minister defended the Government's record on climate change and accused Mr Cameron of hypocrisy for refusing to support the climate change levy. "There is no point in him raising these issues while he remains opposed to the climate change levy which is the only sure way of getting the reduction in CO2 emissions we want to see," said Mr Blair. One of the laboratories was featured Sir David's Life in the Undergrowth series on BBC1. Sir David said: "These laboratories are world leaders in biodiversity research. It seems a terrible thing that places with a world reputation are being closed down."
The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is axing the laboratories at Monks Wood in Cambridgeshire, Winfrith in Dorset, Banchory in Aberdeenshire and at Oxford to save £5m a year.

The cut was backed by its parent body, the Natural Environment Research Council, and will mean cutting staff by 200 to 400 in the next four years.

Mr Cameron said a report this week by the British Antarctic Survey showed the problem of climate change may be worse than previously thought, and the Government would not meet its targets on greenhouse gases, that cause global warming. Mr Cameron said: "I fear the Prime Minister hasn't really considered this, could you go away and think about it, have a look at the evidence and come and report to the House next week."

Mr Blair said the UK was performing well in tackling climate change. "We have set a Kyoto target that we will meet. It's very tough on the CO2 emissions target. But this country is leading the international debate on climate change and we are ranked fifth in the world in terms of our environmental record and I think that's a very good record.''

[Pete Eeles]

Below is a message I've just posted on the UK-Leps forum:

Hi Ray - I don't think you need to apologise for bringing this back
into the frame. In fact, I'd say this is the most important
topic "in the frame" right now.

I personally contacted my MP via email (not received a response
yet) - but I wanted members to realise that it's 5 minutes to find
your MP's contact details (just go to http://www.google.com and search for
your MP's name), and there's almost always a mechanism to contact
them. Some MPs have their own website, and some simply an email
address.

And my "hat off" to Jim Knight, who met Martin Warren on his
sponsored walk along the Jurassic coast last year. See
http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/s ... .php?id=13.
Jim almost puts my faith back in politicians

Also ... should you want to email your MP, feel free to point them
to the "log" of correspondence I've been collating on this topic on
the UK Butterflies website. The appropriate link is
http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... c.php?t=30.

Cheers,

- Pete
http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

[Pete Eeles]

Message from Nick Bowles:

Like Peter I had a really encouraging response from Jim Knight but also (today) an obfuscating response from the office of the Minister for Science and Technology (Lord Sainsbury's office).

Depending on your level of cynicism you either take heart from the statement that 'The Government is fully committed to maintaining the quality of environmental science in the UK....' or despair at ' The proposed closure of specific sites does not imply that the research or monitoring carried out at those sites will be discontinued.'

There can be no doubt that the greater the number of us who take the time to protest, the more the decision to reduce the service will be questioned. We give ammunition to the Jim Knight's who are actively working to protect the CEH and reduce the size of the cuts. He and those like him, need to be able to say hundreds (thousands would be better) of people have written to argue against the proposed cut back in hte services of the CEH.

Lord Sainsbury's office advise contacting NERC direct to let them know your feelings as they will be the final arbiters of this decision to save money spent on Environmental science.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk

[Pete Eeles]

Article from the Independent. See http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 342883.ece.

Scientists to walk out in wildlife centre row
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 03 February 2006
Environmental scientists have threatened to hold a virtually unheard-of mass demonstration over proposals to close Britain's three leading wildlife research centres.

Researchers at the Winfrith, Dorset station of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), which faces the axe along with sister stations at Monk's Wood, Cambridgeshire, and Banchory in Scotland, are planning a "day of action" next week, when they will take a co-ordinated day's leave from their own duties and instead carry out voluntary work for the Dorset Wildlife Trust.

Their planned demo is an indication of swelling opposition to the closures, which were highlighted in The Independent last month, and which proved an embarrassment for Tony Blair on Wednesday in the House of Commons. Mr Blair was taunted by the Conservative leader, David Cameron, for the fact that one of his junior ministers, Jim Knight from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), had written a letter to him protesting at the closures and asking the Prime Minister to intervene - which Mr Blair refused to do.

Now the Tories are looking to push the closure threat even further up the political agenda with visits to some of the threatened laboratories from senior Conservatives. Next Monday, the shadow Environment minister, Greg Barker, will visit the Winfrith centre, and later in the week Peter Ainsworth and Alan Duncan, shadow Secretaries of State for Environment and Trade and Industry, will be visiting the research station at Monk's Wood.

Mr Duncan is joining Mr Ainsworth because the Department of Trade and Industry controls the science budget, the ultimate source of funding for the CEH centres.

The funds are distributed by the Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc), and it is the decision of the Nerc council to cut back on funding for CEH which has prompted the plans to close the centres, and to sack 200 of the CEH scientific staff.

Mr Ainsworth said last night: "Our aim is to prevent the closures and get those involved to think again. The work the CEH centres do is of immense value in our understanding of biodiversity, and in the context of the concerns about climate change it is of even more importance. Closing them is utterly ridiculous."

His opinion is remarkably similar to that of Labour's Mr Knight, the minister responsible for wildlife, who told Mr Blair in his letter that the closures did not make sense scientifically or economically, at a local or a national level. The Environment minister, Elliot Morley, revealed in the House of Commons yesterday that Defra itself had joined in the Nerc consultation on the future of the laboratories - strongly implying that the Government's green ministers are joining the calls for a rethink.

The day of action at Winfrith is being planned by the union Prospect; about 80 per cent of the Winfrith staff are Prospect members. The Prospect section secretary, Bill Beaumont, said: "This is not a strike, but our members will be taking a day's leave, and we will go and help a conservation group with scrub clearance and fencing. We simply want to highlight the Nerc consultation process, and try and encourage all local stakeholders to write in to it."

Environmental scientists have threatened to hold a virtually unheard-of mass demonstration over proposals to close Britain's three leading wildlife research centres.

Researchers at the Winfrith, Dorset station of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), which faces the axe along with sister stations at Monk's Wood, Cambridgeshire, and Banchory in Scotland, are planning a "day of action" next week, when they will take a co-ordinated day's leave from their own duties and instead carry out voluntary work for the Dorset Wildlife Trust.

Their planned demo is an indication of swelling opposition to the closures, which were highlighted in The Independent last month, and which proved an embarrassment for Tony Blair on Wednesday in the House of Commons. Mr Blair was taunted by the Conservative leader, David Cameron, for the fact that one of his junior ministers, Jim Knight from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), had written a letter to him protesting at the closures and asking the Prime Minister to intervene - which Mr Blair refused to do.

Now the Tories are looking to push the closure threat even further up the political agenda with visits to some of the threatened laboratories from senior Conservatives. Next Monday, the shadow Environment minister, Greg Barker, will visit the Winfrith centre, and later in the week Peter Ainsworth and Alan Duncan, shadow Secretaries of State for Environment and Trade and Industry, will be visiting the research station at Monk's Wood.

Mr Duncan is joining Mr Ainsworth because the Department of Trade and Industry controls the science budget, the ultimate source of funding for the CEH centres.
The funds are distributed by the Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc), and it is the decision of the Nerc council to cut back on funding for CEH which has prompted the plans to close the centres, and to sack 200 of the CEH scientific staff.

Mr Ainsworth said last night: "Our aim is to prevent the closures and get those involved to think again. The work the CEH centres do is of immense value in our understanding of biodiversity, and in the context of the concerns about climate change it is of even more importance. Closing them is utterly ridiculous."

His opinion is remarkably similar to that of Labour's Mr Knight, the minister responsible for wildlife, who told Mr Blair in his letter that the closures did not make sense scientifically or economically, at a local or a national level. The Environment minister, Elliot Morley, revealed in the House of Commons yesterday that Defra itself had joined in the Nerc consultation on the future of the laboratories - strongly implying that the Government's green ministers are joining the calls for a rethink.

The day of action at Winfrith is being planned by the union Prospect; about 80 per cent of the Winfrith staff are Prospect members. The Prospect section secretary, Bill Beaumont, said: "This is not a strike, but our members will be taking a day's leave, and we will go and help a conservation group with scrub clearance and fencing. We simply want to highlight the Nerc consultation process, and try and encourage all local stakeholders to write in to it."

[Matsukaze]

FYI:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4719298.stm

[Pete Eeles]

The latest sad news at

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/n ... sures.html

Cheers,

- Pete