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.