volunteer_recorders_conference_report

The Marine Life Information Network for Britain & Ireland

(MarLIN)

Presents

Making Volunteer Recording Work The MarLIN Marine Life Volunteer Recording Conference

Dates: Thursday 29th June and Friday 30th June 2006 Venue: The Sherwell Centre, University of Plymouth and Marine

Biological Association, UK

Supported by:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

The MarLIN Marine Life Volunteer Recording Conference, 2006

2

Contents

Contents................................................................................................................. 2

Summary ................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction............................................................................................................. 4

1. Key Speakers ..................................................................................................... 5

2. Recording Scheme Presentations ...................................................................... 7

3. Data Handling Presentations............................................................................ 10

4. Data Use Presentations ................................................................................... 11

5. Marine Careers Presentation............................................................................ 12

Discussion Groups ............................................................................................... 13

Group 1. Who is who in Recording?..................................................................... 13

Group 2. Data flow and sharing data.................................................................... 15

Group 3. Raising awareness of marine recording – mediums to do so ................ 17

Group 4: How can marine recording data be used? ............................................. 19

Photos of the conference attendees and the group on the shore ......................... 21

Appendix 1. List of attendees ............................................................................... 22

Feedback ............................................................................................................. 24


3

Summary The conference provided a platform for discussions on a range of topics and opportunities for sharing experiences and networking among delegates. A number of schemes were identified for data collection including; The Shore Thing project, Seasearch, Shoresearch, The Shark Trust, Marine Strandings Network and the Chesil Beach sea fan survey. Four areas were explored through discussion groups. Firstly, who is who in recording. This identified problems with knowing who to send reports to, particularly with so many different groups even at a local level and whether these reports should in fact be made at a local or national level. The example of cetaceans was used to emphasise this. Secondly, the discussion group on data flow and data sharing concluded that data is extremely valuable and contributes to policy, research and conservation on a local and national level. However, it emerged that there is a need to improve the way in which this data is shared between the recorders and data holders. The third discussion group tackled raising awareness of marine recording and the mediums to do so. The problems identified included identifying the target audience and interpreting scientific information to the public. The outcomes fell into two main categories: i) general developments including making use of the media, family events and training and ii) educational developments including providing training and with clear links to the National Curriculum. Finally, how can marine recording data be used? Data collected by volunteer marine recorders is used by a number of different groups from politicians to academics to the public. The focus of this group was on data that can be used to influence decisions made by politicians and industry. One of the key issues arising was how to make it clear that data shouldn’t be dismissed just because it was collected by volunteers. It is clear that the marine environment is changing and that marine recording can provide data to help understand those changes. Despite some confusion among users and a lack of integration between schemes marine life recording can be a powerful tool in sustainable management and conservation. But perhaps a key step to developing people’s interest in marine recording is first developing their interest in the marine environment.


4

Introduction This report provides a summary of the findings of the second MarLIN conference on marine life recording. The conference was held on the 29th and 30th of June 2006 at the University of Plymouth and the Citadel Hill laboratory of the Marine Biological Association (MBA). More information on MarLIN and the MBA can be found in Annex 1. The conference was titled “Making Marine Volunteering Work” and brought together representatives of marine recording schemes, local record centres, statutory nature conservation agencies and amateur recorders. The objectives of the conference were to:

• clarify and strengthen the links between statutory monitoring agencies and voluntary recording schemes;

• provide support for the delivery of local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) objectives;

• provide Marine Recorder database training, and • undertake a practical exercise on the shore as part of the Shore Thing

project. The conference highlighted that the marine environment is changing and that volunteer marine recording can help to better understand those changes by providing baseline data and a powerful tool for sustainable management. The conference examined the ability of volunteer marine life recording to provide meaningful data and highlighted some of the major issues, including confusion among users and lack of integration between schemes. Abstracts are provided for the talks given and summaries from the workshop discussion groups. The second day of the conference allowed delegates to undertake Marine Recorder training with James Perrins of exeGesIS Spatial Data Management at the Marine Biological Association or visit Wembury beach to carry out a Shore Thing survey with the Shore Thing Ptoject Officer Fiona Crouch. We hope that this summary of discussions at the conference reflects the experience of the delegates and that it proved a useful forum that will help the marine life recording community work together. MarLIN would like to acknowledge the support of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).


5

1. Key Speakers

i. Fiona Crouch, MarLIN ([email protected])

‘The Shore Thing Project – encouraging schools and voluntary groups to undertake intertidal recording.’

The Shore Thing aims ‘To generate records of marine wildlife by facilitating intertidal biological surveys at sites around the British Isles, and to make the results available to all on the Internet. In addition we aim to raise awareness of marine conservation amongst the participants and the wider community”. A two year pilot project organised by MarLIN in partnership with the Dove Marine Laboratory in Newcastle, established the survey protocol and methodology. Three year funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) was secured in January 2006 and a project officer was in post by April. With the aid of partners throughout the country, school and voluntary groups will survey their local rocky shore twice a year, once in the summer and a second time in the autumn. The timed species search is an important feature of the survey, because the species selected are indicators of climate change whose distribution may change with rising sea temperatures. Once a survey has been completed, participants can upload their data onto the Shore Thing Web Site, www.marlin.ac.uk/shore_thing. To ensure the continuation of the project past the 3 years of HLF funding, training will be provided for facilitators, teachers and volunteers. A teachers pack will be produced linking all aspects of the project with ‘A’ level examination criteria. ii. Bryony Chapman & Stefanie Buell, Kent Wildlife Trust / Kent Seasearch /

Shoresearch and Kent & Medway Biological Records Centre ([email protected] / [email protected])

‘Collection, management and use of Seasearch and Shoresearch data in

Kent.’ The Kent Wildlife Trust has two volunteer marine survey projects: Seasearch used by recreational divers for recording subtidal seabed habitats and species, and Shoresearch used by volunteers to record intertidal life. The presentation covered the training programmes and recording protocols, and the extent of surveys that have been conducted around Kent to date. The management of the data, from its verification and input to Marine Recorder, to the subsequent management and use at the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre was also examined.


6

iii. Keith Hiscock, Marine Biological Association / MarLIN ([email protected])

‘Biodiversity Action Plans.’

The list of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) marine species and habitats published in 1999 provided a ‘touchstone’ for anyone involved in environmental protection and management as ‘species and habitats to be protected’. Many of the species were also conspicuous and lent themselves to volunteer recording schemes. Although the criteria to identify marine BAP species and habitats were well thought through, new criteria have been developed and tested since 1999 especially as part of the Review of Marine Nature Conservation. A new tranche of candidate species and habitats is about to be published. The list will be of ‘Nationally Important Marine Features’ further refined to identify a smaller number of Biodiversity Action Plan species and habitats. The presentation described the process by which species and habitats were identified, what some of them are, and the importance of using them in biological recording and environmental protection.


7

2. Recording Scheme Presentations

i. Ali Hood, The Shark Trust ([email protected])

‘Volunteers Count! The impact of volunteer recording on the work of the Shark Trust.’

The waters of the northeast Atlantic have a great diversity of sharks, yet a significant proportion of the British public are unaware of their presence believing sharks to be found in warmer waters ‘abroad’. The Shark Trust promotes ‘conservation through awareness’ and a primary aim of the Trust’s awareness programme is to promote British sharks, skates and rays, and their associated plights. The engagement of the public in volunteer recording programmes is not only a vehicle for awareness raising, but also generates valuable data and information, and may often establish a ‘live value’ for the target animals. Data and information generated from the Trust’s programmes have, on occasion, challenged both accepted taxonomic and geographic understanding. Within the UK, sharks and especially the skates and rays, are often landed as a mixed catch. This lack of species-specific recording can complicate the assessment of population status, potentially hindering management capabilities. As such, additional sources of data on population levels and geographic distribution are of great value. The programmes: The Trust has launched a number of volunteer recording programmes over the past 4 years and also works in support of pre-existing programmes. These programmes include: • Angling for data: a pilot study to assess the potential effects of aggregate

extraction on the demography of skate and ray populations. • Welsh skate and ray recording: an ongoing programme to record angling

reports with a proposed expansion to all shark species. • Basking Shark Photo-id: managed by the Shark Trust, the European Basking

Shark Photo-identification Project (EBSPiP) is a database catalogue of dorsal fin images.

• Whale Shark Photo-id: encouraging recreational divers to augment the work of the Whale Shark research community by contributing additional photos of sharks they encounter on their holidays.

• The Great Eggcase Hunt: the collection and identification of spent shark eggcases from the UK coastline.

The Trust also works in support of other recording schemes including: • The Shark Angling Club of Great Britain: long-term data sets held by the

SACGB in Looe with an emphasis on tag and release activities. • The Common Skate tagging programme: over 30 years of tag and release

activities maintained by the Kelvin Grove Museum, Glasgow.


8

This presentation will expand on elements of these programmes and highlight some of the key successes and lessons learnt.

ii. Emma Rance, Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve ([email protected])

‘Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve Volunteer Marine Wardens.’ PMWR was the first mainland Voluntary Marine Nature Reserve to be designated in 1978. Today this non-statutory designation still stands and a body of stakeholders including Dorset Wildlife Trust discuss management of the area. The message of marine conservation is projected to visitors through talks, activities and the free entry marine centre based at Kimmeridge. Dorset Wildlife Trust employs one and a half staff; one permanent and one seasonal Marine Warden. In addition, 15 volunteers were recruited in 2005 to undertake monthly training sessions and aid the management of the Reserve. Through this structured, educational and free training, volunteers are given the chance to feel worthwhile, appreciated and an essential part of the team.

iii. Joana Doyle, Cornwall Wildlife Trust ([email protected])

‘Cornwall Wildlife Trust Marine Strandings Network.’

Cornwall Wildlife Trust is the official recorder for all marine strandings in Cornwall and has a dedicated network of over 120 volunteers who record all strandings around our coastline. Although this includes everything from jellyfish to sea beans, the main activity is recording all stranded cetaceans, seals and basking sharks.

We work in partnership with the Natural History Museum which runs the UK Whale and Dolphin Stranding Scheme. The information obtained from the scheme is used to advise Government and the EU on the status of cetacean strandings in UK waters. As Cornwall has the highest numbers of cetacean deaths in the UK, the data we provide as volunteers is vital in influencing change.

The bodies of dead dolphins and porpoises in particular are recorded and, where appropriate, retrieved for post mortem on behalf of our other partner, the Institute of Zoology. These autopsies can confirm the cause of death and offer a vast amount of information to enhance our understanding of these animals and the threats to their survival. One of the major threats is accidental by-catch in fishing nets. The Cornwall Wildlife Trust's Marine Team uses the data collected by the strandings volunteers to liaise with local fisheries and the Sea Fisheries Committee, with the end aim of finding potential solutions to minimise by-catch.


9

iv. Steve Trewhella, Dorset Wildlife Trust and Marine Conservation Society volunteer ([email protected])

‘Chesil Beach dead sea fan survey.’

Pink sea fans (Eunicella verrcosa) support a range of different species including the sea fan anemone (Amphianthus dohrnii), the sea slug (Tritonia nilsodhneri) and poached egg shell (Simma patula). Pink sea fans are a Red List species, a Biodiversity Action Plan species (BAP) and are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Sea fans are at risk from human activities such as scallop dredging and fishing. The waters in the area of Chesil Beach experience both of these activities. The presentation reported on an entirely voluntary and unsupported survey undertaken by concerned individuals. Thirty five volunteers representing 6 conservation organisations and the Ministry of Defence have been carrying out surveys along a small stretch of Chesil beach looking for washed-up sea fans. In one survey 1,177 sea fans were found (over 100 of which were caught in one piece of discarded fishing net), 472 dead man’s fingers, 71 sponges, 33 bryozoans and 44 hydroids. The presentation highlighted how surveys carried out by volunteers have identified the need for improved protection of certain species.


10

3. Data Handling Presentations

i. Harvey Tyler-Walters, DASSH / MarLIN ([email protected])

‘The Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats (DASSH).’ The Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats (DASSH) is a marine Data Archive Centre for benthic marine survey data, including images. The talk outlined the aims and objectives of DASSH, the types of data it accommodates, and its role in the network of UK marine Data Archive Centres currently under development. How DASSH functions and the data management and archive services it will provides was also covered.

ii. Jan Light, Conchological Society ([email protected])

‘The Conchological Society Marine Recording Scheme: the way forward.’ 1. A brief summary of the history of the scheme and where we are now. 2. Our priorities:

• Encouraging recording; • Computerizing remaining manual records; • Making our data more widely available; • Data exchange with other users.

3. Our plans for achieving these.


11

4. Data Use Presentations

i. Jean-Luc Solandt, Marine Conservation Society ([email protected])

‘From volunteer enthusiasm to international policy: how baskers reached Bonn.’

Public sightings of basking sharks have recently been used, along with satellite tracking research, to campaign for the basking shark to be listed on the Bonn Convention as it is clear that the NE Atlantic population ranges between different nation states. Collaboration between NGOs and scientists from different countries, coupled with the political will to protect the basking shark at the international level wouldn't have been successful without the vital input of volunteer data. This presentation will show how all these different sectors successfully worked together to gather international protection for this charismatic, yet still vulnerable species.

ii. Doug Herdson, National Marine Aquarium ([email protected])

‘Angling for change’

The UK Marine Fish Recording Scheme, which the National Marine Aquarium manages; collects, checks and collates reports of marine and estuarine fish from around the British Isles. The whole scheme depends on volunteer effort. Reports come in from interested individuals in the fishing industry and boating world, divers and members of the public. This scheme has already produced a few first records and a number of seconds for the UK, and interesting patterns of change are emerging. However, at this time when climate change is likely to bring about major changes, it is essential to bring into the scheme the 1.1 million recreational sea anglers. So far, we have worked with a number of enthusiastic anglers, but a larger scheme is envisaged, supplying information on climate change to anglers and commercial fishermen among others, and in turn encouraging them to participate by returning reports of relevant species of fish. The National Marine Aquarium will back this up by producing fish identification materials for fishermen and running a fish identification service.


12

5. Marine Careers Presentation

i. John Hepburn, Sea Vision UK ([email protected])

‘Sea Vision UK, the national campaign to raise awareness of the sea and the wide range of rewarding careers it offers.’

The campaign is promotional and not a lobbying organisation. The maritime sector is wider, bigger and worth more than generally realised, but characterised more by what separates it than what unites it. Sea Vision UK promotes the sector through support for maritime events, an annual forum, website and newsletter, and education and careers activities. It works through partners to deliver the national strategy on a local level, and needs partners to become evangelists.


13

Discussion Groups

Group 1. Who is who in Recording? Participants: Alex Mack Angus Bloomfield Marine Conservation Society Doug Herdson National Marine Aquarium Emma Graham Emma Rance Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve Gavin Black Devon Wildlife Trust Kay Foster Cumbria Wildlife Trust Peter Barfield Sea Nature Studies Vicky Swales Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Chair: Jon Parr MarLIN / Marine Biological Association The group first highlighted some of the problems associated with recording and reporting findings and also extracting information from volunteers. Main problems identified are listed below:

• competition between different organisations not volunteers’ problem – shouldn’t be difficult for volunteers to report their findings;

• confusion as to where to send data; • who is involved and who to send records to depends on local knowledge of

the system; • even at local level there is confusion e.g. Pembrokeshire Seatrust and

Seawatch both look for cetacean records, and • funding and especially long-term funding of groups.

The group decided to concentrate the discussion on volunteers not knowing who to provide their data to and whether this data is then lost as a result. The group used the example of cetaceans to look into the number of different organisations which collect live recordings of cetaceans. The following organisations were listed: National Organisations

• Seawatch • Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society • Marine Connection • BDMLR (British Divers Marine Life Rescue)

Regional Seas

• ORCA (Organisation Cetacea) • Biscay Dolphin Research programme (Ferries)

Regional

• Seaquest South West


14

• HWDT (Scotland) – Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust • Seatrust – Pembrokeshire (there are also 3 others in the region) • IWDG – Irish Whale and Dolphin Group

Local

• Brixham Seawatch (Dulston) • Silver Dolphin (Cornwall) • Individuals

Other

• Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) – cetacean records • Hydrographic Office (Navy)

The issue of who to report strandings to was raised and the Natural History Museum noted as an organisation to report these strandings to. The group then touched on the subject of reporting birds. It was highlighted that there are so many different organisations that it is difficult for people working in the area to know who they are meant to report findings to, let alone volunteers. The group recognised that there is an added problem of knowing whether to report strandings to a local or national organisation. Volunteers want to know that their recording efforts are going to be put to the most use. The group highlighted that data needs to flow through all groups and all levels in order to get the most use out of the information; otherwise information sinks and is effectively lost. Another area discussed was the Sealife Signpost. The signpost is a means of volunteers finding out who they should report any findings too. It provides an answer phone reporting hotline number to call at MarLIN and a listing of major UK organisations requesting sightings information for specific animals, such as the sea watch foundation for cetaceans. The general conclusion reached by the group was that the signpost was a good idea. Ways of improving the signpost were suggested, such as the inclusion of organisations at all levels and developing a means of reporting findings via text messages.


15

Group 2. Data flow and sharing data Participants: Anna David Polzeath Voluntary Marine Wildlife Area Dominic Flint Devon Biodiversity Records Centre James Perrins Exegenesis Jim Munford National Biodiversity Network Julie Hatcher Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve Laura Durrant Graduate Mark Breckels MarLIN Mike Weideli Conchological Society Peter Tinsley The Wildlife Trusts Sally Sharrock Seasearch Chair: Harvey Tyler-Walters MarLIN / DASSH The group started by discussing the importance of sharing data and the uses of combined data. The main points to come from this discussed included:

• data is valuable; • total value is greater than the sum of records themselves, and • data contributes to policy, conservation, geology and research at a local

and national level. The discussion then split into two main sections:

• barriers and improvements to data sharing, and • barriers and improvements to data flow.

Section 1 – Barriers and improvements to data sharing.

• The barriers preventing the sharing of data were identified and discussed. One of the main barriers identified is the idea of biological train spotting – “its mine”. People’s possessiveness of records prevents data flow. This, in combination with the potential commercial value of records, makes people even more reluctant to share data.

• Problems also arise when trying to obtain data from providers who may have the attitude of “why bother?” - apathy and ignorance. Also, people may be reluctant to report their findings as they do not see how it relates to conservation and the bigger picture and therefore don’t see the point.

• Problems also arise as people who have the potential to supply lots of data are reluctant to do so as a result of vested interest. This could include groups such as fishermen and anglers who are afraid that, if they report their findings, it will lead to restrictions being placed upon them.

• Problems with accurate recording also occur as a result of varying levels of skill amongst the recorders e.g. the knowledge of Latin names.

The group then discussed ways in which data sharing could be improved. The following points were raised.

• Communication needs to be improved between both recorders and data holders, and between different data holders (organisations).


16

• The need for more feedback to recorders and volunteers was highlighted, so that they know that what they are recording is being used.

• On-line recording schemes were very useful and, if properly designed, easy to use. On-line recording schemes can encourage recording although many recorders still prefer to record or submit records on paper.

It was concluded that no single one of these improvements is a solution in itself – but a variety is needed. Section 2 – Barriers and improvements to data flow. The group identified the following problems that prevent the flow of data:

• staff time and funding; • lack of time for data entry, especially the transfer of data from paper to

electronic formats; • time and expertise required for the validation of data, and • the need for a standard taxonomy.

The question was then asked as to whether there are any mechanisms in place to enable efficient flow of data. The conclusion on this was that mechanisms are in place but they are evolving in the form of local record centres and national schemes such as the National Biodiversity Network. The group then discussed ways in which the flow of data could be improved and came up with the following conclusions.

• We need a strategic overview of data flow in the UK needs, to direct recorders (volunteer and professional alike) to the appropriate data custodians, and to highlight agreed route of data flow, e.g. marine data collected by MarLIN / DASSH flows to the NBN;

• We need to prepare data exchange agreements between recording schemes, and naturalist societies and data exchange networks and archive centres, and

• We need to get on with it – but be sensible and realise that time is required.

Overall, many of the issues that hamper data sharing and data flow are well know. In most cases work and expertise is already in place to overcome the problems. Adequate funding and hence staff time remains one of the major stumbling blocks. But we [the marine environmental community] need to understand the mutual benefits of sharing data, and the importance of the data held for the future of marine environmental stewardship in the UK. We are now in a perfect position to put a strategic plan for sharing marine environmental data in place, and ‘just do it’.


17

Group 3. Raising awareness of marine recording – mediums to do so Participants: Al Reeve The Shark Trust Caroline Roberts Devon Wildlife Trust Jan Light Conchological Society Jean-Luc Solandt Marine Conservation Society Joana Doyle Cornwall Wildlife Trust John Hepburn Sea Vision Steve Trewhella Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve Susan Pyle Truro College Chair: Jack Sewell MarLIN The group first identified some of the challenges associated with raising public awareness of marine recording schemes. The key challenges were:

• identifying target audiences (Key); • interpreting scientific information to the public; • Changing the public perception of conservationists; • many different schemes can be confusing and needs to be simplified; • recorders and potential recorders need to feel appreciated; • not enough funding to support all schemes, and • need money for publicity.

The group then discussed general strategies that could be developed to address these challenges. It was decided early on, that to increase public participation in recording schemes, people should be made aware of the marine environment and conservation in general and many of the proposed strategies reflect this area of discussion.

• Making use of popular media (T.V, radio, press etc) is important and can be

very powerful, this can be enhanced by: Exciting/ interesting events/ issues should be used to encourage public

interest and involvement. Need an enthusiastic figurehead for projects – like the BBC’s

Springwatch. Contributing articles and advertising for popular (but relevant)

magazines and newspapers.

• Feeding back to recorders is very important. This can be achieved by: Writing and publishing reports and findings. Making recorders feel useful and that their records are making a

difference. Simple acknowledgements and thanks such as emails or letters. Accreditation schemes. Saying ‘thank you’ is important Exchange of information between recording schemes and volunteers is

vital.


18

• Engaging other marine industries may increase the number of ‘eyes on the water’:

Yachts, Ferries and tankers. Target RYA – through magazines. Need a middleman between industry and science. Marine recording can give people such as divers and yachting a

purpose. • Holding events for volunteers can help develop confidence, awareness and

sense of belonging to a community, examples include: Family events. Marine recording holidays – people provide feedback there and then. Training in ID or recording techniques

• General awareness raising and education is important and there are many

ways of achieving this: Need to show how ‘simple’ recording marine life can be. Important to develop and nurture an interest in the marine environment

from a young age, i.e. when at school. Enthusiasm of teachers important – need to make it easy for them by

showing links to the National Curriculum and providing training. Set up practical marine life recording events for schools and the general

public. Get children and teachers out of the classroom, working outdoors and

adapting a hands-on approach is beneficial. Make it fun – this was linked back to holidays and visits.

• The group discussed MarLIN’s Sealife Signpost and thought it to be a useful

tool for showing people who they should give their records to. The following important points were mentioned:

The signpost should be kept very simple. It would be good to have one phone number to call for all sightings. The idea of including events and sightings on the signpost website was

also mentioned.


19

Group 4: How can marine recording data be used? Participants: Ali Hood The Shark Trust Bryony Chapman Seasearch Claire Courtier Euan McPhee Truro College Dylan Todd Scottish Natural Heritage Emma Snowden Fiona Fraser-Smith Nigel Mortimer Salcombe Harbour Office Pamela Tompsett Helford VMCA Peter Richardson Marine Conservation Society Ruth Williams Cornwall Wildlife Trust Stefanie Buell Kent & Medway Biological Records Centre Chair: Keith Hiscock MarLIN / Marine Biological Association Introductory discussions differentiated between data and information. Whilst scientists value and use data, that data needs to be translated into ‘information’ and it is ‘information’ that many users want. Those users need to know that there is good data behind the information they are being given. Who are the ‘users’? Politicians - need information to make the ‘right’ decisions. Policy advisors - need information but need to know the character and reliability of data behind that information. Conservation bodies - as policy advisors but might need data to analyse and interpret. Conservation bodies include statutory and non-statutory bodies. Industry - including fishing, extraction, construction, energy etc. and their consultants. Need data and information. Educators - need information. Academics & students - need data and information. The public - need information. The media – need information that is unambiguous and ‘undistortable’ The group wanted Educators to:

• use our resources; • inspire others to use resources and join-in; • ‘wow’ students and the public; • make individuals feel that recording is something important to do; • allow individuals to feel ownership of and responsibility for the data and

encourage them to feel that they are the experts; • encourage students to feel that they are part of something national, and • want to fill data and information gaps.

Getting educators to use available resources meant making it easily accessible and presented in ways that understand their needs and the curriculum. The group saw a need to ‘educate the educators’ and to build confidence.


20

The group majored on discussing using data and information to influence decisions by politicians and by industry.

• Credibility was an issue – we can’t allow data to be dismissed because it was collected by volunteers.

• There was a need to educate Government scientists in the data available, its limitations etc.

• We needed to ‘value’ natural history observations and facilitate recording such observations.

• We appreciated that validation procedures would increase the acceptability of data. For instance, periodic evaluation of volunteer-collected data. Volunteers should be prepared to be questioned.

• We thought that volunteer surveys should be used to inform commissioned surveys by professional scientists.

• Volunteers should be encouraged to collect ‘evidence’ (e.g. images of sea fans entangled in nets, trashed seabed).

• Volunteers need to know where to send data and information. • We identified an issue of ‘sensitivity’ of data – some data might be used in a

way that damages a feature and might therefore need to be kept in confidence.

• We encouraged the concept of recorders supporting each other by knowing who to talk to about data sources, supporting information etc.

• There was concern that one piece of information could be mis-interpreted or twisted by adversaries and it was important to anticipate those events and have supporting information.

Overarching points.

• It is important to ‘know your audience’ (pitching issue). • Know your media (contact) – danger of mis-use of data and information. • Keep ‘bite sized’. • Facilitate the storage of ‘random observations’. • Confidence rankings would be useful against data and information.


21

Attendees of the Marine Volunteer Recorders Conference 2006

Fiona Crouch on the shore explaining the Shore Thing project through practical application.


22

Appendix 1. List of attendees

Name Organisation Email Discussion Group

Al Reeve The Shark Trust [email protected] 3 Alex Mack [email protected] 1 Ali Hood The Shark Trust [email protected] 4 Angus Bloomfield Marine Conservation Society [email protected] 1 Anna David Polzeath Voluntary Marine Wildlife Area [email protected] 2 Becky Seeley The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] n/a Bryony Chapman Kent Wildlife Trust [email protected] 4 Caroline Roberts Devon Wildlife Trust [email protected] 3 Claire Courtier [email protected] 4 Dominic Flint Devon Biodiversity Records Centre 2 Doug Herdson National Marine Aquarium [email protected] 1 Dr Euan McPhee Truro College 4 Dylan Todd Scottish Natural Heritage [email protected] 4 Emma Graham [email protected] 1 Emma Rance Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve [email protected] 1 Fiona Crouch The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] n/a Fiona Fraser-Smith [email protected] 4 Gavin Black Devon Biodiversity Records Centre [email protected] 1

Harvey Tyler-Walters The Marine Biological Association MarLIN/DASSH [email protected] 2

Helen Bolton Devon Wildlife Trust [email protected] n/a Hugh Jones Slapton Ley Field Centre [email protected] n/a Jack Sewell The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] 3 Jan Light Conchological Society [email protected] 3 Jason Burt Falmouth Marine School [email protected] n/a


23

Jayne Evans The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] n/a Jean-Luc Solandt Marine Conservation Society [email protected] 3 Jim Munford National Biodiversity Network [email protected] 2 Joana Doyle Cornwall Wildlife Trust [email protected] 3 John Hepburn Sea Vision [email protected] 3 Jon Parr The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] 1 Judith Oakley The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] n/a Julie Hatcher Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve [email protected] 2 Kay Foster Cumbria Wildlife Trust [email protected] 1 Keith Hiscock The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] 4 Laura Durrant Graduate [email protected] 2 Mark Breckels The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] 2 Mike Weideli Conchological Society [email protected] 2 Naomi Chance Devon Wildlife Trust [email protected] n/a Nicola Murray Devon Wildlife Trust [email protected] n/a Nigel Mortimer Salcombe Harbour Office [email protected] 4 Pamela Tompsett Helford VMCA [email protected] 4 Peter Barfield Sea Nature Studies [email protected] 1 Peter Richardson Marine Conservation Society [email protected] 4 Peter Tinsley The Wildlife Trusts [email protected] 2 Ruth Williams Cornwall Wildlife Trust [email protected] 4 Sally Dyer Five Villages Partnership [email protected] 1 Sally Sharrock Seasearch [email protected] 2 Sam Rogers The Marine Biological Association MarLIN [email protected] n/a Sarah Russell Devon Wildlife Trust [email protected] n/a Stefanie Buell Kent and Medway Biological Records centre [email protected] 4 Steve Trewhella Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve [email protected] 3 Susan Pyle Truro College [email protected] 3 Sylvette Peplowski WWF [email protected] 4 Vicky Swales Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust [email protected] 1


24

Feedback

A questionnaire was produced to allow delegates to comment on the conference. The questions asked were: Was the subject useful and are there areas you will follow up as a result of today’s discussions?

• “Definitely. The whole area of data recording and data sharing is something I need to get my head round”.

• “There was a good variety of presentations and on different groups represented”.

• “Yes e.g. DASSH”. • “Yes. We will now follow up with representatives from LRC’s and other

database owners to arrange reciprocal exchange agreements”. Were the major issues covered and if not which other issues you would like to see included?

• “It was a good variety, from local level to national schemes”. • “Quite a few presentations were aspirational (including ours). I would like to

hear from someone who could propose a model for how the NBN, the LRCs, the National recording schemes, and the voluntary observation schemes could operate in an integrated way”.

Any comments on the presentations, their length, content and relevance?

• “Some of the local initiatives could have been fitted into a shorter slot, leaving more time for bigger organisations to speak”.

• “The ten minute presentations enabled the speakers to focus on the most important things (not much waffle!) and kept the audiences concentration well”.

• “Mainly good. Some repetition from previous gatherings – perhaps include brief “update” for future occasions”.

• “Seemed about right. More contributors would have been more informative. Did not attend 2nd day”.

What was the most useful aspect of the day for you? (e.g. workshops, networking opportunities, presentations)

• “Networking and presentations”. • “The presentations provided overview of the attendees and led to some

good networking opportunities. The Marine Recorder workshop was very useful”.

• “Networking and discussion group 2 in particular”. • “Presentations, networking. Workshop only moderately useful. Would like to

see more tangible outputs – on the day and in follow-up initiatives arising from workshops. Some workshops were evidently more productive than others”.


25

Please provide any general comments on the day.

• “Worth the journey”. • “A well executed, interesting conference which was very enjoyable”! • “It might have been interesting to have a brief summary of the information

already collected by statutory bodies e.g. CSFC surveys, Defra”. Please provide details of other groups you think should be invited /present.

• “Sea Watch – presume invited and unable to attend”. • “The day/ workshops raised some interesting questions about the validity of

volunteer collected data; it would be interesting to have an ‘official’ viewpoint represented – i.e. from government agency”.

• “Cornwall Federation Sea Anglers”. • “Did you only canvas groups such as the Wildlife Trusts from the south and

southwest? Any organisation keeping biological records should be invited. Where were the Algae people?”

volunteer_recorders_conference_report

Documents

marine recording data

data flow

data collection

data handling presentations

data use presentations

marine strandings network

marine biological association

marine careers presentation