Dear Sir or Madam,

Please could you tell me whether JNCC holds a central database of
National Vegetation Classification survey data for the UK?

If so, could you provide me with a list of the data fields which
are held for survey samples in this database.

Yours faithfully,

Susan Davis

Dear Miss Davis

Thank you for your request for information under the FOI regarding the NVC
database. We are happy to oblige and will reply by 8^th May 2009, which
is 20 working days from receipt.

Many thanks

Wendy Dalton

Business Planning Officer

JNCC

show quoted sections

Dear Miss Davis

With regard to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
received on 6^th April 2009, I have pleasure in enclosing the requested
information.

Information about National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey data &
distribution maps is available on JNCC's website via the following link:
[1]http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4267. This explains that, although some
NVC survey data has been encoded in various types of database or
spreadsheet software, much has not and generally NVC information remains
widely dispersed in numerous locations that are not linked
electronically. JNCC has not attempted to collate such information in a
systematic way and, to our knowledge, no centralised UK database of NVC
samples or surveys undertaken exists.

JNCC has, nonetheless, collated records from various NVC surveys and in a
series of distributional maps, which show the occurrence of NVC types at
the 10-km square level. These cover 'Upland', 'Lowland Grassland',
'Woodland', and 'Lowland Heathland' NVC types. These are available to
download from [2]http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4267.

In addition, it is probably worth mentioning that JNCC does possess a copy
of an electronic database passed on by John Rodwell, author of the
published NVC volumes. This contains in excess of 30,000 vegetation
quadrat samples collected according to NVC protocols (see Rodwell, J.S,
2006, NVC Users' Handbook, JNCC, [3]http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3724),
many of which were selected to construct the original classification for
the NVC. This database contains a large number of fields. Many of these
are incomplete or only partially filled. The principal fields contain
information on: (i) the geographic location and date of the samples; (ii)
the quadrat size, aspect, slope; (iii) the name and cover/abundance of
each plant species present; (iv) the overall vegetation height and cover
and underlying soil/geology (for details see Rodwell, J.S, 2006). Even in
the case of these fields, this information is lacking for some samples. An
important point is that the allocations given to the samples relating them
to the NVC community/sub-community type are NOT reliable.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your
request and wish to make a complaint, please contact me on
[4][email address].

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can make an appeal to
the Information Commissioner who is the statutory regulator. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

[5]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Wendy Dalton

Business Planning Officer

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

show quoted sections

Dear Wendy,

Many thanks for the reply. Would it be possible for you to send me
a copy of an extract from the Rodwell database, containing just the
following data for each sample:

a) the date and location information (if this includes a Grid
Reference that would be useful)

b) the community/subcommunity type ascribed to the sample (and
variant too if this is held, for those communities which have
variants)

I note your comment about the reliability of the ascribed community
types and will take this into account when intepreting the data.

An Excel spreadsheet would be my preferred format.

Yours sincerely,

Susan Davis

Dear Susan

Thank you for your additional request under the Freedom of Information Act concerning the NVC database, received by us on 14th April 2009.

We will have a reply for you by Wednesday 13th May 2009.

Yours sincerely

Wendy Dalton
Business Planning Officer
JNCC

show quoted sections

Dear Susan

We have been able to compile the information you require however as we are
not the original owners of this database and therefore are not able to
grant authority/permission for you to re-use or publish it - we do not
feel we can reply using the above open web site.

Following advice from the Information Commissioners Office, we are happy
to send you the information on a CD if you could you send a suitable
postal address.

Many thanks

Wendy Dalton

Business Planning Officer

JNCC

show quoted sections

Dear Wendy,

Thanks for this reply - I am optimistic that we may be able to find
a solution here. Could you answer two questions?

a) Could you confirm that the fact that JNCC does not hold the
intellectual property rights for the database is the sole reason
why you do not feel able to release it to me via the Whatdotheyknow
website? (i.e. that if we are able to resolve that issue that there
are no other issues which would prevent you from releasing it)

b) Which organisation does hold the intellectual property rights to
the database?

Yours sincerely,

Susan Davis

Dear Susan

I can confirm that JNCC are not the owners of the database and as previously stated the information comes from a database passed on by John Rodwell, author of the published NVC volumes. We can also confirm that Mr Rodwell has not given permission for the information to be published on the website or reused. We feel this does prevent us from releasing the information on an open website.

We would be delighted to let you have a copy of the database on the understanding that it cannot be reused or published if you can give us another email or postal address we can use.

Yours sincerely

Wendy Dalton

show quoted sections

Hi Wendy,

Thank you very much for your further reply, which answers my second
question. Just to be clear in relation to the first question - is
the copyright situation the sole issue preventing release via the
WhatDoTheyKnow site?

Thanks,

Susan

Dear Susan

Thank you for your email. As stated previously the reason why we do not feel the database link can be sent to the WhatDoTheyKnow site is that we do not have the permission of the author of the database for the information to be re-used and sending it to an open site would lose control of this aspect.

This in no way prevents us from giving you the information you require but via a private email or postal address.

Your sincerely

Wendy Dalton

show quoted sections

Hi Wendy,

Thanks for your reply. I'll be back in touch to let you know
whether I've been able to secure John Rodwell's agreement to
release the information via this site.

Yours sincerely,

Susan Davis

Hi Wendy,

John Rodwell at Lancaster University have been able to clarify the
position regarding use of the data. Please see the response at

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/na...

This should enable you to release a substantial proportion of the
data via this website (the 13000 records which the project
collected, plus any other records for which JNCC itself owns, or
has obtained permission for independently), so if you could do
that, that would be much appreciated.

For the other data, please could you release just the source data
which John refers to, together with the number of records which are
covered by each source.

Thanks,

Susan Davis

Hi Wendy,

Please could you let me have an update on your progress in
preparing a reply to my request? I've not heard from you since I
emailed you on 1 June about the permission received from John
Rodwell/Lancaster University.

Yours faithfully,

Susan Davis

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you let me know how you are getting on with responding to my
request. My last contact was with Wendy Dalton but I've not heard
from her recently and I've not had a reply to my recent emails to
her.

Yours faithfully,

Susan Davis

Dear Susan,

I apologise for the delay in getting back to your latest email.

As explained in my email of 5th May we are content to send a copy of the
electronic database passed on by John Rodwell, to a private email or
postal address on the understanding that it cannot be reused or
published.

However, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose the
database through the `whatdotheyknow.com' website, as requested on 1st
June, as we do not feel it would be in the public interest to do so for
the following reasons.

As explained previously, JNCC does not have the intellectual property
rights of the database you have requested. It would not be in the public
interest for us to seek to obtain permission from the original
contributors as this would divert significant resources away from the work
we are required to deliver under our Business Plan.

Also as explained previously the database contains some fields which are
incomplete or partially filled. More significantly, the process by which
the samples were allocated to `NVC type' in the database is not described
and has not been validated. A brief examination suggests that at the
sub-community level at least 15% samples are incorrectly allocated, and at
the community level at least 11%. The true percentage cannot be
ascertained, but it is likely to be more. On this basis the information
falls under the exception under regulation 12 (4) (d) of the Environmental
Information Act. We consider it to be against the public interest to
provide misleading information or, to divert significant resources away
from planned work to complete the database.

If you would like a copy of the database on the understanding that it will
not be reused or published please provide a private email or postal
address. Otherwise we will treat the request as closed.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your
request and wish to make a complaint please contact
[email address].

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can make an appeal to
the Information Commissioner who is the statutory regulator. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

With kind regards

Wendy Dalton

show quoted sections

Dear Wendy,

It appears that you have missed one of my emails, from 1 June. I
provide a copy below. Please could you get back to me with a
further reply once you have read and considered the information
contained in it.

Thanks,

Susan

Hi Wendy,

John Rodwell at Lancaster University have been able to clarify the
position regarding use of the data. Please see the response at

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/na...

This should enable you to release a substantial proportion of the
data via this website (the 13000 records which the project
collected, plus any other records for which JNCC itself owns, or
has obtained permission for independently), so if you could do
that, that would be much appreciated.

For the other data, please could you release just the source data
which John refers to, together with the number of records which are
covered by each source.

Thanks,

Susan Davis

Dear Susan

Thank you for your email dated 14^th July 2009. We did receive your email
of 1^st June 2009 including the response from John Rodwell and had taken
this into consideration in making our decision outlined in our email to
you of 14^th July 2009.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your
request and wish to make a complaint, please contact Sue McQueen
([1][email address]).

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can make an appeal to
the Information Commissioner who is the statutory regulator. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

[2]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

with many thanks

Wendy Dalton

show quoted sections

FAO Sue McQueen

Dear Sue,

I'd like to request an internal review of the handling of my
request for an extract from the NVC database to be released to me
via the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

I appreciate JNCC's reservations in relation to the release of the
data but I do not believe that they are relevant in respect of my
revised request, and do not believe that they enable you to claim
exemption under the EIRs.

The original reason given for refusal ro release the information
was that JNCC did not hold the intellectual property rights. I
specifically asked Wendy Dalton if this was the sole reason and she
confirmed that it was.

I have been able to obtain agreement from the copyright holders of
a substantial part of the data, and so this should have removed the
blocking issue, in respect of that subset of the data, and I
revised my request accordingly.

However, I am now told by Wendy that there are two further issues.
Naturally I am disappointed that I was given incorrect information
about the outstanding issues. This raises questions of trust, but I
am prepared to accept that Wendy made a genuine mistake.

However, I do not believe these issues are of relevance, as I
explain below.

One issues relates to the conflict in priorities between tasks
which Wendy believes are necessary in handling this request, and
JNCC strategic priorities. I do not recognise any of the tasks
which Wendy outlines as being necessary to complete my request. If
they are, it would be helpful if you could explain why. But in any
case, I do not believe that this conflict enables JNCC to claim an
exemption - if so, I'd be grateful if you could explain why you
think it does.

The second issue relates to the quality of the data. I have
acknowledged that I will take this into account in any use I make
of the data and there are prominent comments on WTDK to guide
others to use the same caution. Again though, I do not believe this
entitles JNCC to claim an exemption. The regulation which Wendy
cites relates to data which is incomplete - I do not believe that
there is a regulation relating to data which is not believed to be
fully accurate. The data was regarded by JNCC's predecessor bodies
as sufficiently complete to be used as the basis for the NVC
volumes, which are now regarded as a definitive work on British
plant communitiies, and so it is disingenuous to claim now that, a
decade or two on, that there is work remaining to be done to
complete the data.

Finally, while I recognise that JNCC has offered to release the
data to me personally and not via WDTK, I do not believe there is a
provision in the regulations which would enable you to make this
stipulation. Again, if there is, could you let me know?

Yours,

Susan Davis

Dear Ms Davies,

I am sorry you are unhappy with the handling of your request for information. I will ensure the matter is investigated and provide you with a response, which will set out any corrective action we may need to take, by 31st July, 2009.

Yours Sincerely

Sue McQueen

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Davies,

Ref 09/10_01

The internal review of the handling of your request for information about
NVC-related databases has now been completed.

The review was conducted by the Head of Global Advice who is unconnected
with either JNCC's Business Unit or Conservation Advice Team which were
directly involved in handling your request.   

Whilst your request was made under the Freedom of Information Act and we
acknowledged it as such, it was dealt with throughout under the
Environmental Information Regulations as the request was for environmental
information. 

The conclusions of the reviewer were as follows:

JNCC has acted within the requirements of the relevant legislation. 
Throughout JNCC has not refused to release any information. Rather it has
offered to provide part of the information requested to you directly
(rather than through a specified website) but with caveats regarding its
future re-use and its interpretation.

JNCC has refused part of the information requested (a database) through a
specified website.  This refusal to publish is considered to be justified
on the grounds that:

· JNCC does not own the data and publication might result in us
breaching copyright. Whilst you state you have obtained agreement from the
copyright holders for the release of a substantial part of the data, the
University of Lancaster does not provide this (stating `neither the
University of Lancaster or Professor Rodwell are in a position to grant or
deny permission for the use or dissemination of information within the
Vegetation Samples Database').

· The data are incomplete and have not been validated, and it is
not in the public interest for JNCC to take these steps to remedy these
(on grounds of cost). 

It is considered that the relevant exemption was cited for our refusal to
publish the data through the website but it is stressed that we have not
refused to release the information to you through another route.    

There is nothing in the legislation or guidance that indicates that we are
obliged to provide the information in the form or through the medium that
the applicant wants (though we should endeavour to do so).  In this case
our refusal seems justified.

However, some aspects of our handling of this case could have been dealt
with better.  In particular:

o we ought to have documented our reasons for refusal to publish the
data, and the relevant exemptions, in full at the outset rather than
providing more fulsome reasons only after twice confirming a simpler
rationale.
o an estimate of the costs of obtaining consent to publish would also
have helped inform the public interest test.
o the request to provide information on the sources of information in
the database and the number of records provided by each was not
addressed.

Accordingly we:

· maintain our commitment to provide the database spreadsheet to
you directly on the basis that you do not re-use or publish this.

· advise you of the reason we consider it would be necessary to
obtain permission from the original data contributors, which we took into
account in the public interest test. This would be necessary because we do
not consider that JNCC owns the data and therefore could infringe others'
copyright or intellectual property rights if we published them without
their permission.

· advise you of the cost of this work and the work we estimate it
would take to complete the database, which we also took into account in
the public interest test.  We estimate that this would cost £600 to
scope and additionally would constitute a number of weeks work to
complete.

· will provide the information we hold that appears to relate to
sources and number of records provided. We do not believe we own this data
and this data also appears to be incomplete and invalidated. Accordingly,
we will provide this data to you directly, rather than through
`whatdotheyknow.com' on the basis that you do not re-use or republish it.

I hope the information provided is helpful and that you now feel able to
accept the terms on which we have offered to provide the information
requested.

If you are still not content with the handling of your request you may
write to the:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours Sincerely

Sue McQueen

show quoted sections

Dear Sue,

Many thanks for this email, containing a fuller explanation of
JNCC's reasoning. I am puzzled by one aspect though.

John Rodwell clearly states that the copyright for a large
proportion of the data rests firmly with JNCC (by virtue of having
originally rested with NCC, your predecessor body). Yet both Wendy
Dalton and your reviewer state that the copyright issue still
applies in relation to this portion of the data. There appears to
be a contradiction here. Does JNCC disagree with Professor Rodwell
over who owns the copyright for this portion of the data? If so,
who do you believe holds the copyright for this portion of the
data, if not JNCC?

Hoping you can help clarify this.

Yours,

Susan

Dear Ms Davies,

As stated through our correspondence JNCC has no information about who owns the copyright for any of the data that you have requested.

We are satisfied that your request has been handled effectively and, unless you take up our offer of receiving the information requested directly, rather than through this website, we will consider the matter closed.

Yours Sincerely

Sue McQueen.

show quoted sections

Dear Sue,

Thanks for your reply. I can't see a way forward with this request.
I've marked it as rejected at WDTK; feel free to mark it as closed
in your records.

Yours sincerely,

Susan