STRATEGIC SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL
BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH: SSAP DISCUSSION 21 SEPTEMBER 2006
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER DISCUSSION:
The Bigger Picture
1. International trends and issues can have impacts upon Scotland's biodiversity, and the Panel felt that these should not be underestimated or overlooked. International trade and economics, and environmental or social changes in other countries will have consequences for biodiversity within Scotland. This was particularly true where there was uncertainty associated with, for example, climate change, coastal and marine change, emerging diseases and the invasion of non-native species.
2. Scotland (and the UK) needs to find ways of managing land and natural resources to sustainably deliver multiple 'public goods' including biodiversity, food and other goods and services such as water and soil quality and carbon sequestration and storage. The panel felt that research should recognise and address the need for a more holistic and where necessary global approach which can study a number of agendas together (e.g. protection of biodiversity in the context of food production, and wider environmental, social and economic sustainability).
Prioritisation
3. The Panel felt that the biodiversity research in the Programmes was going in the right direction. However, they had concerns that research priorities should be more clearly set, and that in doing so there should be more co-ordination between stakeholders, and a robust, evidence-based approach ("due diligence") used to identify those priorities. The Panel suggested that SEERAD draw up a list of the national and international obligations which it was required to meet or deliver, so that any associated research needs can be prioritised. It also requested that a "map of expenditure" be drawn up across biodiversity research.
Co-ordination
4. SEERAD is one of many funders of biodiversity research within the UK. The panel felt that it is therefore important that SEERAD works together with other major UK funders to ensure effective co-ordination and prioritisation. The Panel suggested that the environmental research mapping exercise being undertaken by the Environmental Research Funders' Forum would prove useful in setting SEERAD's biodiversity research within a UK context, and for identifying gaps or overlaps with other funders.
Monitoring & Science
5. The panel recognised the close relationship between research, evaluation and monitoring, and the need to strike the right balance in allocating funding between these. 5. The panel felt that new technologies or monitoring methodologies should be explored as a means of achieving more with available funding. The use of indicators for monitoring was also highlighted.
6. The Panel acknowledged that there was increasing interest in the "ecosystem approach" which takes a more integrated, holistic view of environmental (including biodiversity), social and economic sustainability objectives. 6. Nevertheless, there needed to be an appropriate balance between science to develop the ecosystem approach, and more focussed studies of the biodiversity resource (at genetic, species and habitat/ecosystem levels) and its conservation.
Research Capacity
7. The panel acknowledged the importance of strengthening research on protection of biodiversity as a key cross-cutting theme, and felt it was important to take a long term view of what can be achieved. 3.
8. The Panel noted BBSRC's concerns on various aspects of the field of taxonomy (classification of living organisms). 4. These included the need to train students, increase the utility and relevance of taxonomy by linking it with other disciplines (e.g. ecology and evolutionary biology), and development of scientific innovations offered by molecular taxonomy (including cladistics). The panel felt that this needed to be considered within a global context.
Knowledge Transfer
9. The panel were concerned that Knowledge Transfer of biodiversity research was not being actively developed, and might be hindering the desired outcomes or impacts. 5. The panel felt that there should be more commitment to delivering the benefits of research through improved management practices. Land managers had a key role to play in translating the benefits of biodiversity research into action on the ground, and should be integral to any KT activity.
Constraints
10. The panel discussed the constraints i.e. the extent to which biodiversity research activities were mandatory (driven by Government obligations) and what capacity or "wriggle room" remained.10.
11. The minutes of the third SSAP meeting held on 21 September 2006 (SSAP paper 2006/31) give a fuller account of the Panel's discussion on Biodiversity. A copy of the minutes are available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/srg
SSAP Secretariat
Finalised April 2007