Massive blow to UK ecology research (1 Viewer)

...'sustainable business model'...says it all really.What price the planet?

It's what happens everywhere these days.

That's "The Market" for you - as soon as the Bottom Line becomes the most important thing and an operation isn't paying its way, see ya...

But the bright side is that it doesn't mean an end to the research - it's a restructuring, not a complete cessation of the work of CEH:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/latestpressrelease/2005-57ceh.asp

Keith Reeder said:

But the bright side is that it doesn't mean an end to the research - it's a restructuring, not a complete cessation of the work of CEH:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/latestpressrelease/2005-57ceh.asp

Click to expand...

Erm, nope, not really. Most of the biodiversity stuff, such as the bird ecology, is going to stop. Large areas of the science will cease, as they're jettisoning a third of their staff, and are also restricting their range geographically. So field sites such as Monks Wood (which has been studied intensively for 50 years, and still is) and Wytham Woods will not have researchers nearby to perform the kind of coverage they've had for decades.

How do you know that the important stuff is going to stop, Poecile?

Nothing I've read says that (I might have missed it), and the fact that a third of the staff are going doesn't mean that it's only/mainly the scientific staff that are going - it's usually the case in these situations that admin/support staff are the main target for the chop...

I take your point that a particular site might not be studied any more (fair comment - I assumed that Monks Wood was a lab, not an experiment), but I can't believe that this means CEH is no longer able to contribute to scientific debate.

Does it?

I guess that the overarching point here is that at times when governments (at all scales) and research funding bodies should be investing increasing resources (financial, spatial, expertise) in attempting to comprehend ecosystems and halt ecological decline, one of the pre-eminent global research bodies in the field is being trimmed.

Hi Simon,

yeah, I do agree that it's a retrograde step in the circumstances - I was just wondering whether it really meant the end of all such valuable research by CEH.

Keith Reeder said:

How do you know that the important stuff is going to stop, Poecile?

Nothing I've read says that (I might have missed it), and the fact that a third of the staff are going doesn't mean that it's only/mainly the scientific staff that are going - it's usually the case in these situations that admin/support staff are the main target for the chop...

I take your point that a particular site might not be studied any more (fair comment - I assumed that Monks Wood was a lab, not an experiment), but I can't believe that this means CEH is no longer able to contribute to scientific debate.

Does it?

Click to expand...

Let's just say that I have inside information. There will be 200 job losses, 150 of which will be scientists, and 50 admin.

Monks Wood is actually a big wood, a National Nature Reserve, and CEH Monks Wood is the research site that is right next to it. The wood does, therefore, function as a lab for CEH, with research that has been going on for years.

When CEH Monks Wood closes, that research will not be able to continue, as there will not be staff on site to do it. And the Biodiversity and field ecology aspects of research are going to mostly stop anyway, and the scientists that carry it out made redundant. If you do a search for papers by Newton, Hinsley or Bellamy, related to birds (especially raptors and woodland birds), then that is exactly the kind of thing that will no longer occur. Also papers by Roy or Greatorex-Davies on butterflies, and Carvell on bees.

In effect, it means that the UK will not have the facility to carry out widescale, long-term field-based ecological work any more, of the kind done at CEH. No other body has that capacity, and we will be reliant on bodies such as the BTO (which largely uses amateur fieldwork and is therefore fundamentally limited in what it can do, and is also a charity with limited funding), and the RSPB (which is also limited in what funding and skills it has at hand). CEH was the only fully professional, fully-funded organisation of its kind in the country.

The CEH sites that carry out biodiversity and field ecology work are Monks Wood, Oxford, Dorset and Banchory. Swindon is the admin HQ. Lancaster mainly deals with chemistry, Wallingford with Hydrology, and Bangor with atmospheric and soil chemistry. Edinburgh deals with biogeochemistry. The sites that are closing are Monks Wood, Swindon, Oxford, Dorset and Banchory - all of the biodiversity sites. Admin is moving to Wallingford. That tells you it all.

Thanks Poecile - I appreciate the clarification.

For those who are concerned about this, there is a public consultation on at the moment. I'd urge you to take part if you feel at all strongly about it. Follow the link at the bottom of this page http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/latestpressrelease/2005-57ceh.asp

A very good summary of the situation in yesterday's Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337399.ece

Poecile said:

A very good summary of the situation in yesterday's Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337399.ece

Click to expand...

A quick scan through the Business Plan given on the NERC site shows that they had to address the problem of multiple sites given the need to remove the cost over-runs.
But to shed 30% of the scientific staff looks like babies with bathwater-unless there is a clear agenda to shed certain scientific functions.
What looks completely daft is to spend £45bn in order to save £1.2pa . That's a pay back of 37 years!-But the real plan may be to reduce the scale of the operation.
Glad to see the political opposition combining.Lets hope it can be stopped.

Colin

Tyke said:

A quick scan through the Business Plan given on the NERC site shows that they had to address the problem of multiple sites given the need to remove the cost over-runs.

Click to expand...

But it's the multiple sites, giving nationwide coverage for long-term fieldwork, that gives the org its strength. By pulling out of Cambs, especially, it leaves Eastern England a 3 hour commute from the remainign centres of operation. That basically precludes any fieldwork in the whole of eastern England.

Plus, many key members of research teams cannot or will not relocate, while moving HQ to one of the most expensive areas of the country while limiting fieldworkers (the core of the operation) to a rigid low civil service salary structure, means they will not be able to recruit to replace them. Over the 5 years it will take to carry out this transition, the organisation is likely to lose much of its skills base, collaborators and customers. And there is nobody other org capable of filling the gap.

Poecile said:

But it's the multiple sites, giving nationwide coverage for long-term fieldwork, that gives the org its strength. By pulling out of Cambs, especially, it leaves Eastern England a 3 hour commute from the remainign centres of operation. That basically precludes any fieldwork in the whole of eastern England.

Plus, many key members of research teams cannot or will not relocate, while moving HQ to one of the most expensive areas of the country while limiting fieldworkers (the core of the operation) to a rigid low civil service salary structure, means they will not be able to recruit to replace them. Over the 5 years it will take to carry out this transition, the organisation is likely to lose much of its skills base, collaborators and customers. And there is nobody other org capable of filling the gap.

Click to expand...

Hi Poecile.
I can only suggest then that "regional fieldwork" is exactly what they intend to ditch.
The Business Plan Executive Summary contains things like :-
The need for "Frontier Research " into areas such as "Environmental change".
The need to "Reduce support for Research & Collaborative Centres"
The difficulties of reliance on " External commissioned Research"

You obviously have a close feel for the organisation. What the outsider might glean from the Business Plan ES could be -"we are ditching field ecology work-what we need is a load of scientists to pontificate about Climate Change effects"

But that may be wrong-it's written in code as usual & only someone like you can decode it I suspect. Can't cut & paste the text , so here it is.:-

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/consult/ceh/ceh-businessplan.pdf

The answer is in the Executive Summary -so you shouldn't need to read the rest.

Colin

More research needed on wildlife, not less: FoE

From the FoE web site:

More research needed on wildlife, not less
Jan 9 2005

Friends of the Earth today (Monday 9th January) urged the Government to reject proposals to close four of the UK's leading wildlife research labs, including Monks Wood research centre in Cambridgeshire, responsible for pioneering work on a wide range of ecological subjects, including the impacts of climate change.

The environmental campaign group has written to Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Alan Johnson and Margaret Beckett (DEFRA) urging them to block proposals for cost-savings by the Government-funded Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) which funds the Monks Wood research centre, which is internationally renowned as a centre of excellence in ecological research, as well as three other laboratories in Scotland, Dorset and Oxford [1].

The DTI is currently consulting on the proposals [2] which will bring savings of around £2 million and affect some 200 jobs. The cuts are, however, estimated to cost £45 million to implement. A final decision is expected in March this year.

Friends of the Earth Executive Director Tony Juniper said:

"It is incredible that cutting funding for these crucial research centres is even being considered. They have a fundamental role to play in our understanding of a whole range of environmental challenges, including the impacts of climate change. We need more research on wildlife, not less. Ministers must urgently review these proposals and recognise the valuable research work that these centres carry out.

The Monks Wood centre, which hosted the BBC's Spring Watch programme, pioneered work on DDT and pesticides in the 1960s, and more recently revealed how changes to the climate were affecting the behaviour of wildlife, suggesting a fundamental shift in the pattern of the seasons, with spring arriving three weeks earlier. The research centres were also involved in assessing the impacts of GM crops on wildlife, with their findings contradicting claims made by industry that no harm would be caused.

Notes
[1] Copies of the letter are available from the press office at Friends of the Earth.

[2] www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/latestpressrelease/2005-57ceh.asp

From within CEH Monks Wood

Taken from a newsgroup posting:

Yes, it's very dark days here at CEH Monks Wood! The impact
for UK ecological research is going to be enormous, as not
only is it the 'biodiversity' sites that are closing, but
many of the staff that are left will be unable/unwilling to
relocate, and over the 4 years transition period it is
certain that the skills base, customer base and
collaborations will be greatly damaged. Eastern England will
no longer be practical for ecological fieldwork - the
backbone of research - and many research sites, such as
Monks Wood NNR, Norfolk, Suffolk, will be largely abandoned.
That brings 50 years of continuous research here to a close.
The woodland birds work (tits, Marsh Tits, woodland
fragmentation) is probably going to stop completely. The
Marsh Tit work, which I run, is the only such study actually
looking into the species' ecology and decline. The lab
facilities at Monks Wood are also the best in Europe, and
10m of the 45m transition budget will be spent recreating
those to a lesser spec at Oxfordshire, meaning a net loss of
functionality. These labs run the predatory birds monitoring
scheme - the raptors and pesticides work of DDT fame. Also
based at Monks Wood is the UK phenology network, on which
BBC's springwatch was based, the Biological Records Centre
(collates records for all species except birds) and the
National Biodiversity Network (which puts this data and
others on the web for public use). Many of the key staff
involved with this will be leaving, which will seriously
jeopardise the activities.

To spend 45m to make savings of 1.2m pa seems ludicrous. The
strength of CEH is its national reach and network of
long-term study sites. To contract and put many of these
sites out of reach, and ending long-term associations, will
compromise what research we can do as a country - there
really is nobody else to fill the gap. Climate change work,
woodland birds work, biodiversity on agricultural land (eg
bumblebees), restoration of habitats (including Great Fen),
pesticide work, wader research on the Wash, national
recording networks, it will all suffer a great deal and some
of it will stop completely.

On a personal level, it's not the end of the world for me,
as I am young and flexible enough to do something else, so
that's not why I'm worried. But many people in CEH the top
people in their field, Europe-wide, and they are not
able/willing to relocate. When we lose those teams that have
built up and evolved over decades, and when we lose those
sites and the research reach we have, it will not be recreated.

Another factor is the effect on Cambridgeshire. In this
county, we have CEH, JNCC, English Nature, Environment
Agency, British Antarctic Survey with RSPB, BTO and Defra
within an hour's commute. Its the UK's environmental
hotspot. The ease of travelling makes collaborations,
meetings, workshops, much more likely and possible. Taking
CEH Monks Wood, with its 100 staff, out of this mix will be
a big blow.

If anybody wants to do something, I'd urge them to
contribute to the public consultation, either as an
individual or as part of a body. Deadline is 15th Feb
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/publicconsultation.html

Letters in response to yesterday's Independent front page

http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article337595.ece

>we are ditching field ecology work-what we need is a load of scientists to >pontificate about Climate Change effects"

But if there's nobody to collect the data, i.e. regional field ecologists, there'll be no detected effects to pontificate on....

MSPs call for intervention to save conservation centre

From the Herald's web site:

MSPs call for intervention to save conservation centre

VICKY COLLINS, Environment Correspondent January 10 2006

Plans to close three major wildlife research centres, including a key site in Scotland, have provoked cross-party condemnation and calls for both the Scottish Executive and Westminster to intervene.

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) at Banchory, near Aberdeen, is researching some of the most important conservation issues in Scotland.
However, it has been earmarked for closure and its 40 staff face redundancy or relocation. It is one of three CEH wildlife research bases due to go as a result of a cost-cutting exercise being carried out by the centre's parent group, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). If implemented, the plans would leave only one CEH site in Scotland, at Penicuik, near Edinburgh.
Politicians at both Westminster and Holyrood are fighting the plans announced last month. Mike Rumbles, the Liberal Democrat MSP, has lodged a motion at the Scottish Parliament asking Jack McConnell to raise the issue with Westminister. More than 20 MSPs from all parties except Labour have signed it.

"We should be expanding research on climate change, not cutting it back," Mr Rumbles said. "We have got a centre of excellence at Banchory.
"From a scientific point of view and an economic one, closing Banchory just does not make sense."

In Westminster, Peter Ainsworth, the shadow environment secretary, and Norman Baker, his Liberal Democrat counterpart, have urged the government to step in and stop the NERC halving the number of CEH sites.
Plans to close three major wildlife research centres, including a key site in Scotland, have provoked cross-party condemnation and calls for both the Scottish Executive and Westminster to intervene.

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) at Banchory, near Aberdeen, is researching some of the most important conservation issues in Scotland.
However, it has been earmarked for closure and its 40 staff face redundancy or relocation. It is one of three CEH wildlife research bases due to go as a result of a cost-cutting exercise being carried out by the centre's parent group, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). If implemented, the plans would leave only one CEH site in Scotland, at Penicuik, near Edinburgh.
Politicians at both Westminster and Holyrood are fighting the plans announced last month. Mike Rumbles, the Liberal Democrat MSP, has lodged a motion at the Scottish Parliament asking Jack McConnell to raise the issue with Westminister. More than 20 MSPs from all parties except Labour have signed it.

"We should be expanding research on climate change, not cutting it back," Mr Rumbles said. "We have got a centre of excellence at Banchory.
"From a scientific point of view and an economic one, closing Banchory just does not make sense."

In Westminster, Peter Ainsworth, the shadow environment secretary, and Norman Baker, his Liberal Democrat counterpart, have urged the government to step in and stop the NERC halving the number of CEH sites.
Plans to close three major wildlife research centres, including a key site in Scotland, have provoked cross-party condemnation and calls for both the Scottish Executive and Westminster to intervene.

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) at Banchory, near Aberdeen, is researching some of the most important conservation issues in Scotland.
However, it has been earmarked for closure and its 40 staff face redundancy or relocation. It is one of three CEH wildlife research bases due to go as a result of a cost-cutting exercise being carried out by the centre's parent group, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). If implemented, the plans would leave only one CEH site in Scotland, at Penicuik, near Edinburgh.
Politicians at both Westminster and Holyrood are fighting the plans announced last month. Mike Rumbles, the Liberal Democrat MSP, has lodged a motion at the Scottish Parliament asking Jack McConnell to raise the issue with Westminister. More than 20 MSPs from all parties except Labour have signed it.

"We should be expanding research on climate change, not cutting it back," Mr Rumbles said. "We have got a centre of excellence at Banchory.
"From a scientific point of view and an economic one, closing Banchory just does not make sense."

In Westminster, Peter Ainsworth, the shadow environment secretary, and Norman Baker, his Liberal Democrat counterpart, have urged the government to step in and stop the NERC halving the number of CEH sites.