OpenCharities

This text was generated using OCR and may contain errors. Check the original PDF to see the document submitted to the regulator.

2022-03-31-accounts

E) Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2021 ANNUAL REPORT www.environmentalevidence.org

Table of Contents

2

A Message from the Board of Trustees

I am delighted to introduce this 2021 Annual Report on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE). I became Chair in May 2021, so this is my first opportunity to write to all of you who have made such generous contributions of your time, talent, and energy in support of CEE. The Board wants to thank each of you for that support. Your contributions have helped CEE achieve remarkable successes over the past year. Your continued support will help us to reach even greater goals in the coming years.

The trustees also work voluntarily, and the Board acknowledges and appreciates here the long service to CEE by Gerry Post, Simon Gardner, and Kent Prior, all of whom completed their terms of office in 2021.

2021 was of course another challenging year for everyone. Covid 19 continued to dominate, bringing not only grief, but also a continued drive for change in work and home lifestyles, rethinking work-life balances, and increasing innovation. Evidence synthesis became, if not a household phrase, then certainly a common topic of debate as researchers rushed to find new vaccines and recommend behavioural changes to keep us safe. CEE continued to contribute to COVID-END (COVID-19 Evidence Network to support Decision-making) as one of the few environmental synthesis organisations in this diverse international network. As the pandemic runs its course, emphasis is turning to the environmental circumstances in which the virus appeared in the human population and how society might take action to prevent further pandemics. Through utilising rigorous evidence synthesis methods, the CEE community can make an important contribution to building this evidence base for understanding the causes of virus transmission from wild animals to human populations and how environmental management can reduce risk of further transmissions of novel viruses.

As the demand for evidence to address societal challenge — across countries and the political spectrum – increases, new methods are essential to facilitate faster evidence synthesis development, retrieval, and communication while maintaining accuracy, transparency, and replicability. Application of new technologies and the digitisation of our field are key to such transformation. CEE has led this both directly and by supporting its growing community.

As the Board recognised last year, the CEE Environmental Evidence Summit Webinar Series was hugely successful, replacing the cancelled 2020 Environmental Evidence Summit in Canada and covering everything from introductory sessions to technical innovation. In fact, it ran from late 2020 until May 2021. The series engaged many more people than might have attended in person and remains an excellent online resource. Our thanks go in particular to Jessica Taylor (CEE’s Communications Officer and Meetings Committee Chair) for this success. The Board is delighted to see more and more webinars and recordings of CEE members’ presentations being uploaded to the CEE YouTube Channel. We will continue to ensure these are promoted and used as a key part of our training services to both researchers and users.

Continued...

3

CEE grows on its central collaborative activities and those of its Centres’ and individuals’ own related activities, and the Board supports all these enthusiastically. I mention here two excellent examples from 2021. First, led by Neal Haddaway (Board Trustee and Stockholm Environment Institute representative) in January 2021, the Evidence Synthesis & Meta-Analysis in R Conference explored diverse tools and use cases in evidence synthesis tool development, and their YouTube Channel continues to reach a growing community of practice with over 4,100 views. Later in the year, the US Environmental Protection Agency Rapid Evidence Assessment Methods and Applications Working Group also ran a virtual event series exploring a range of related subjects. Sam Cheng (CEE representative for Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History) was on their Steering Group, and several CEE Board, Centre, and independent volunteers contributed to this small and highly interactive series of workshops over a five-month period.

One of the most notable events in 2021 was of course COP26 held from 31 October to 13 November in Glasgow, Scotland. For the first time, CEE was admitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process as an observer organization. Four of us, myself as CEE Chair, Ruth Garside (Board Trustee and Exeter lead for the UK Centre of CEE), Ruth Stewart (Board Trustee and Director of the Africa Centre for Evidence), and Barbara Livoreil (Past-CEE Centre Director) represented CEE by attending sessions virtually, with the goal of ensuring advocacy for evidence, and learning about the process to see how CEE could better contribute to future similar events. Whilst the evidence for the existence and progression of climate change is not in the main disputed any more, evidence to inform and shape the extensive complex interventions to mitigate and adapt to such rapidly increasing changes is needed urgently. CEE may seek funding to attend future events such as these where we can deliver strong face to face advocacy. The Board recognises the financial and carbon savings, however, of the increasing sophisticated virtual access systems and we will certainly increase our virtual presence in these international events in the coming years.

CEE is a not-for-profit charity and we run a tight ship financially, not least thanks to the continued support of Teri Knight as co-opted Treasurer. We are highly dependent on our extensive (and continually expanding) network of volunteers – from the Board and CEO to the deliverers of training programmes and the peer reviewers of our main income generating activity, the open access journal Environmental Evidence. The journal’s primary aim is to support the objective use of scientific evidence to inform policy or practice. To that end, it also publishes methodology papers and encourages submissions that promise advances in the field of evidence synthesis and dissemination. The Board was delighted to see that Environmental Evidence published more papers than ever before in 2021, including systematic reviews and maps, protocols for forthcoming systematic reviews and maps, and papers exploring metric development, novel tools, and methods for designing and wrangling multifunctional, machine-readable evidence synthesis databases. The proportion of the open access fees that comes to CEE helps fund our work in supplying all our support services to authors and users of evidence syntheses without charge. The Board recognises the demands on everyone involved, from Editor-in-Chief Andrew Pullin to the many unsung but much appreciated peer reviewers. Andrew has advised the Board that he will be stepping down as Editor-in-Chief at the end of 2022 and the search is on for a successor to take this key asset of CEE into the future.

Continued…

4

The Board appreciates the progress made by all the project teams in developing CEE services for both authors and evidence users. Further examples in 2021 included the continual updating of the CEE Evidence Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management, which stand alongside well-established health field guidelines, and the CEE Critical Appraisal Tool. This Tool, developed by Ko Konno (Bangor University), is increasingly important for evaluating the ‘risk of bias’ (or threats to internal validity) of primary studies assessing effectiveness of interventions or impacts of exposures in environmental management. We are also excited about the development of CEE’s PROCEED in partnership with the Julius Kühn Institute, a global registration system for titles and protocols of environmental evidence reviews and syntheses. This will provide a free open access resource of protocols for environmental evidence reviews/syntheses, with authors able to register and upload their protocols using appropriate templates. We hope to launch this formally in mid-2022.

For decision makers in policy and practice as well as for the general public, CEE also continues to develop and provide a range of services such as the ever-increasing catalogue of Plain Language Summaries of CEE Systematic Reviews and Maps and our open access CEE Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER). CEE runs CEEDER with the help of a volunteer network of editors, screeners, and reviewers. In 2021, the Board was delighted that Josie Jackson from Natural Resources Wales (NRW), the largest Welsh Government Sponsored Body, was seconded part-time into CEEDER’s editorial team. As Josie says later in this Report, this was an exceptional opportunity for both parties, and the Board encourages other user organisations to collaborate with us in this way. We were also delighted to see the first ever CEEDER Collection launched during COP26, the ‘Climate Change Collection’. To help decision makers navigate the ever-increasing volume of climate change literature, the new collection currently containing over 240 reviews allows users to easily browse policy-relevant environmental evidence syntheses related to climate change. This CEE service can ensure evidence-informed decisions are made using the most reliable syntheses, which will be critical in the race to Net Zero.

In the light of COP26 and the focus globally on evidence synthesis, the Board revisited the CEE Strategic Plan 2013-2023 just before Christmas 2021. Further Board-Centres workshops in early 2022 should produce a draft we can use to work with the wider CEE community by the end of summer 2022. With plenty of detail still to be explored, we see this as a time to consolidate and communicate CEE Evidence Services, promote diversity and inclusion in our network and activities, and develop an underpinning sustainable strategy for financing and staffing an ever more successful CEE. These are ambitious targets and, as always, we extend an invitation to all of you, both researchers and users, to engage with us. We welcome and need your ideas and offers of help.

Kathryn Monk (Board Chair)

5

A Message from the CEO

The need for reliable evidence to inform actions has never been more obvious than in 2021. Uncertainty about the future and how we can meet the challenges of the next 10-20 years has been played out in the mass media and in the streets as well as in the numerous meetings of policy makers and campaigning organisations. The sheer number of questions we need to address concerning the sustainability of our environment, solutions to food and water security, and adaptation to climate change is daunting. At the same time, the volume of evidence generated by the science community through primary research is impressive and ever increasing. The recent report from the newly formed Global Evidence Commission, in which CEE is a partner, notes that despite this ever-increasing demand and supply, things don’t always go well, with some evidence going unnoticed or ignored and other evidence being given unwarranted attention through the bias of vested interests. The process of rigorous and reliable evidence synthesis gained attention in 2021 as crucial to societal interests and not least to deal with environmental crises that are upon us now.

CEE was created to support rigorous evidence synthesis and help fill the space between primary research and evidence-informed decision making. In 2021 we made some significant steps toward this goal with the preparation of the PROCEED protocol registration service, a new tool to assess risk of bias in primary studies and the further development of CEEDER, an evidence service for users. The completion of a third year of collation of evidence reviews published globally on environmental management marked the completion of the development phase of CEEDER and a review of the state of evidence synthesis in the environmental sector. All of these achievements have been possible only through the contribution of volunteers throughout the collaboration and I thank them most sincerely.

6

Andrew Pullin

CEE Officers and Board of Trustees

Andrew Pullin

Chief Executive Officer Professor of Evidence-Based Conservation, Bangor University, UK

Jessica Taylor Secretary & Communications Officer Research Biologist, Carleton University, Canada

Kathryn Monk Chair

Honorary Professor, Swansea University, UK

Henrik Smith

Trustee

Director of the Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, Sweden

Ruth Stewart

Trustee

Director of the Africa Centre for Evidence, South Africa

Steven Cooke

Trustee

Director of the Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science. Carleton University, Canada

Neal Haddaway

Trustee

Senior Research Fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden

Ruth Garside

Trustee

Associate Professor in Evidence Synthesis, University of Exeter

7

The Collaboration

CEE Mission

To effectively promote an evidence-based approach to environmental management by facilitating the conduct and dissemination of high-quality syntheses of evidence that will inform decision making and better conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services for global benefit.

CEE Vision

8

CEE Centres in 2021

----- Start of picture text -----
SEI
United Kingdom
Canada
France
USA South Africa Australia
Chile
----- End of picture text -----

9

Communications Strategy

The CEE Communications and Engagement Strategy aims to:

----- Start of picture text -----
Research
Centres
Private Government
sector Agencies
UK
Centre
Chile SEI
Centre Centre
EPPI Centre Universities
France CEE Canada
Centre Centre
USA Australia
Wider Centre Centre NGOs
Community South
Africa
Centre
Other
Cochrane
sectors –
and
health,
Campbell
education,
Collabs
justice
----- End of picture text -----

In 2021, under the direction of the CEE Communications Team, Jessica Taylor continued as Communications Officer to conduct the communications work set out in the CEE Strategic Plan and oversee activities across various communications channels and functions. Jessica is a research biologist at the Canadian CEE Centre and is responsible for maintaining the CEE’s website, LinkedIn group, Twitter account (@envevidence), the production of the Annual Report, and overall, acting as a ‘brand guardian’ ensuring consistency across all internal and external communications.

Priorities for the Communication Team in 2021 included the development of a template and system for producing plain language summaries to accompany new reviews and maps, promotion of CEE during COP26 while attending virtually as an observer, and launching the new CEE website and CEEDER database. The new CEE website was launched in February 2021 and more prominently outlines the services that CEE provides to both evidence users and producers. The CEEDER database was also re-designed and is now housed within the CEE website for easier navigation.

10

Plain Language Summaries

In 2021, CEE began publishing plain language summaries to accompany new systematic reviews and maps published in our Environmental Evidence Journal providing a new service for decision makers and other evidence users. These short, 2-page summaries present the synthesis in a digestible, easy to read format and save readers valuable time by highlighting the key findings.

Plain language summaries are written by review authors using a standardized template and then reviewed by members of the Communications Team and a knowledge user from the CEE Community. All plain language summaries can be found in a new library of plain language summaries on the CEE website as well as on their respective review page.

Summaries produced for 2021 reviews include:

11

Observer Status at COP26

CEE’s mission as a global network is to effectively promote an evidence-based approach to environmental management by facilitating the conduct and dissemination of high-quality syntheses of evidence that will inform decision making and better conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services for global benefit.

For the first time, CEE was admitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process as an observer organization for the 26th session of the Conference of Parties (COP26) held October 31st to November 13th 2021 in Glasgow, Scotland.

Kathryn Monk (CEE Board Chair), Ruth Garside (Board Trustee), Ruth Stewart (Board Trustee), and Barbara Livoreil (Past-CEE Centre Director) represented CEE by attending sessions virtually over the two weeks. While the observer status largely limited the representatives to one-way engagement with the meetings, the goals for attending were:

During COP26 the Communications Team used Twitter and LinkedIn to promote relevant evidence syntheses and CEE’s involvement in climate change work to connect with the COP26 audience. An example of this included promoting a recently updated systematic review published in Environmental Evidence on urban greening and the associated plain language summary to coincide with COP26’s ‘Cities, Regions, and Built Environment’ day on November 11th. During the conference, we also launched the first ever CEE Database of Evidence Reviews Collection, the ‘Climate Change Collection’. To help decision makers navigate the ever-increasing volume of climate change literature, the new collection containing over 240 reviews allows users to easily browse policy-relevant environmental evidence syntheses related to climate change. This service provided by CEE can be used to ensure evidence-informed decisions are made using the most reliable syntheses, which will be critical in the race to Net Zero.

12

CEE Community Spotlight

In 2020 CEE developed a partnership with Wales’ government sponsored body for the environment, Natural Resources Wales (NRW), to continually develop the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER) as an important environmental decisionmaking tool for operational users and policy makers. Through this partnership, Josie Jackson, a member of staff with the Integrated Evidence Group in NRW, was placed on the CEEDER Editorial Team part time during 2020-21 whilst still undertaking her role as Evidence Synthesis and Communications Specialist. In her role with NRW, Josie supports staff to use and commission evidence syntheses and provide specific evidence advice to staff across NRW. This includes effective evidence communication advice to various audiences as well as advice around scoping exercises, rapid and systematic reviews. Josie’s post with CEEDER ended in 2021 and she took some time to describer her experience:

I joined NRW in late January 2020 having just finished a short post-doc in conservation genomics at Cardiff University. Almost immediately after joining, I was asked if I would like to start a secondment for a quarter of my time in the CEEDER editorial team. Of course, I said “yes please”!

The benefits to NRW were clear, I was trained up by a collaboration of global evidence synthesis experts and this new knowledge was fed immediately into my role, which was spread wider through the organisation. It seemed like an ideal opportunity to speed up my learning curve in evidence synthesis methodology while increasing NRW’s exposure of the latest research advances in environmental sciences from across the world. It felt good to be part of something global, even our weekly skypes were across three times zones! My day job is focussed on how we manage the Welsh environment, so being able to additionally help shape a tool which is used internationally was a huge motivator for me.

In the editorial team I was involved in searching for and screening the latest evidence reviews. I would often pass on recent findings that were directly relevant to my colleagues and importantly for us in NRW, these articles were evidence reviews as opposed to primary research. Assessing the papers using the CEESAT criteria improved my skills to rapidly search for information that indicated reliability. This familiarity with the CEESAT criteria has been an invaluable skill to bring to my NRW role, as like many of us, I often have little time to keep up to date with research, and to critically appraise it quickly.

But it is not all assessing articles! For example, during the year I (from a evidence user perspective) fed into the development of more tools to help those using, reviewing, or producing evidence syntheses, for example a checklist of journal editors which I have since been adapting for NRW to use internally.

For CEEDER, by including a representative from their targeted user audience into the editorial team, it created a continuous feedback loop between evidence user and provider to ensure the database was being improved according the needs of environmental decision makers themselves. This is an obvious win-win and means that CEEDER is constantly evolving and improving.

An example of this in action was when I passed on some feedback from NRW staff that they would like CEEDER to include articles that are similar to systematic maps or ‘overviews’ (in addition to systematic reviews), like those that ask the question of ‘what evidence exists on…’. This evidence is useful to us in NRW because we can get a general overview of a subject and assess where the evidence gaps are. As a small team, CEEDER can be incredibly agile and responsive to these suggestions and soon after we began including these ‘evidence overviews’ in addition to reviews. Adaptive management in action!

So now my time with the editorial team has unfortunately come to an end, and I am left to thank the team for being brilliant team-mates and mentors. I have learnt an immense amount and much of which I apply frequently in my role. I highly recommend this experience for those working in similar environmental organisations. And the NRW and CEEDER partnership journey continues! We are looking forward to the next developments of the partnership to improve CEEDER for all.

Josie Jackson

13

Environmental Evidence Journal

The official journal of the CEE is Environmental Evidence, an open-access journal that accepts submission of systematic reviews, systematic maps, review and map protocols, commentaries and methodological papers related to the conduct of systematic reviews.

Editor-in-Chief

Prof Andrew Pullin, Bangor University, United Kingdom

Senior Editors

Prof Paul Ferraro, John Hopkins University, United States of America Prof David B Lindenmayer, Australian National University, Australia Prof Hugh Possingham, University of Queensland, Australia

Associate Editors

Ana Benítez-López, Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Spain Steven Cooke, Carleton University, Canada Ruth Garside, University of Exeter, United Kingdom Biljana Macura, Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden Nicola Randall, Harper Adams University College, United Kingdom

Editorial Board

Péter Batáry, Georg-August University, Germany Monique Borgerhoff-Mulder, UC Davis, United States of America András Báldi, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary Samantha Cheng, American Museum of Natural History, United States of America Carly Cook, Monash University, Australia Mélanie Douziech, Agroscope, Switzerland Adam Felton, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden Geoff Frampton, Southampton University, United Kingdom Louise Glew, World Wildlife Fund, United States of America Elena Kulinskaya, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom Malgorzata Lagisz, University of New South Wales, Australia Barbara Livoreil, Fondation pour la Recherché sur la Biodiversité, France Gabor Lovei, University of Aarhus, Denmark Alejandro Martinez-Abrain, University of A Coruna, Spain Gillian Petrokofsky, University of Oxford, United Kingdom Carina van Rooyen, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Karen E. Smokorowski, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada Yefeng Yang, City University of Hong Kong, China

14

Featured Reviews

What are the effects of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on boreal forest biodiversity in Fennoscandia and European Russia? A systematic review

Savilaakso, S., Johansson, A., Häkkilä, M. et al. What are the effects of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on boreal forest biodiversity in Fennoscandia and European Russia? A systematic review. Environ Evid 10, 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00215-7

This systematic review contributes to the public discussion and provides evidence for policy making by synthesising current evidence on impacts of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on biodiversity in boreal forests of Fennoscandia and European Russia. This systematic review suggests that habitat preferences determine species’ response to different harvesting methods and the magnitude of effect is large. Less disturbance from harvesting is better for forest dependent species whereas opposite is true for open habitat species. Uneven-aged and mature even-aged forests (> 80 years old) are important to maintain biodiversity in boreal forests. However, the results also highlight that natural forests are needed to ensure the future of forest dependent species in Fennoscandia and European Russia. Given that a broader set of biodiversity aspects are to be protected, best overall biodiversity impacts for a variety of species at landscape level can be achieved by ensuring that there is a mosaic of different forests within landscapes.

Evidence on the impacts of chemicals arising from human activity on tropical reefbuilding corals; a systematic map

Ouédraogo, DY., Delaunay, M., Sordello, R. et al. Evidence on the impacts of chemicals arising from human activity on tropical reef-building corals; a systematic map. Environ Evid 10, 22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-021-00237-9

This synthesis systematically mapped the evidence of impacts of chemicals arising from anthropogenic activities on tropical reef-building corals, which are the main engineer species of reef ecosystems, to inform decision-makers on the available evidence on this topic. The map identified four wellrepresented subtopics that may be amenable to relevant full syntheses via systematic reviews: (1) evidence on bioaccumulation of chemicals by corals; (2) evidence on the effects of nutrient enrichment on corals; (3) evidence on the effects of human activities on corals; and (4) evidence on the ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on corals (except nutrient enrichment). The systematic map shows that corals in their natural environment can be exposed to many categories of chemicals, and that there is a complete gap in experimental research on the combined effects of more than two categories of chemicals. Further research on this topic is encouraged.

15

Featured Reviews

Effects of artificial light on bird movement and distribution: a systematic map

Adams, C.A., Fernández-Juricic, E., Bayne, E.M. et al. Effects of artificial light on bird movement and distribution: a systematic map. Environ Evid 10, 37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-021-00246-

8

This systematic map provides a comprehensive, searchable database of evidence of the effects of artificial light on bird movement and distribution, increasing both the quantity and diversity of studies that are accessible for further comparison and synthesis. Authors identify and describe the evidence available for four secondary questions relevant to conservation or management: aggregation/mortality at structures with artificial lights, evidence that light attracts and/or disorients birds, light-based deterrent efficacy, and the influence of continuous illumination on habitat selection. There may be sufficient evidence for a review of the weather and lunar conditions associated with collisions, which could help identify nights when reduction of artificial light is most important. Further experiments should investigate whether specific types of light can reduce collisions by increasing the detectability of structures with artificial lights. The efficacy of lasers as deterrents could be evaluated through systematic review, though more studies are needed for UV/violet lasers. To reduce the impacts of outdoor lighting on birds, research should investigate how spectral composition of white light influences bird attraction, orientation, and habitat selection.

Response of chlorophyll a to total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in lotic ecosystems: a systematic review

Bennett, M.G., Lee, S.S., Schofield, K.A. et al. Response of chlorophyll a to total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in lotic ecosystems: a systematic review. Environ Evid 10, 23 (2021).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-021-00238-8

In this systematic review, authors compiled and synthesized literature on sestonic and benthic chlorophyll a (chl-a) responses to total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in the water column in streams and rivers to provide a state-of-the-science summary of nutrient impacts on these endpoints. This systematic review confirms that nutrients consistently impact primary producer biomass in streams and rivers worldwide. It builds on previous literature syntheses evaluating chl-a responses to nutrient concentrations and confirms that benthic and sestonic chl-a respond positively to nutrients across a range of stream and river conditions, but also points to limits on these relationships (e.g., potential saturation at high nutrient concentrations). Lack of consistent reporting of contextual data limited our ability to examine how moderating factors influenced these stressorresponse relationships. Overall, this systematic review provides nutrient managers responsible for protecting the quality of lotic ecosystems with a comprehensive evidence base for chl-a responses to TN and TP concentrations in the water column.

16

Securing the Future of CEE

The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence was established in 2007 and is registered for charitable purposes within the UK. In line with legal requirements, the endeavors of CEE satisfy three ‘charitable purposes’ under UK Charity Law:

and the two ‘public benefit principles’: the general public will benefit from more effective environment management and conservation action because those working in the environmental sector will be able to more easily access information to help them improve the effectiveness of their work. The CEE places no restrictions on who can benefit.

The CEE Constitution sets out how the CEE will operate within Charity Law. The CEE operates as a ‘not-for-profit’ organization and has a Board of Trustees responsible for proper governance of the CEE, probity, adherence to regulations for ‘not for profit’ organizations and charity law. The CEE is open to all who wish to contribute to the conduct, or use, of CEE Systematic Reviews and who are committed to the principle of evidence-based practice. As CEE activity increases through greater engagement in systematic reviews, Thematic and Methods Groups, and the establishment of new CEE Centres, the demands placed the CEE infrastructure are also increasing.

The continued success of CEE’s ‘open-access’ strategy is dependent on adequate and sustainable funding of the core infrastructure. Many funding streams, such as environment research grants, do not fund infrastructure costs and environmental funding tends to support direct action. CEE therefore seeks donations to enable it to continue to support and coordinate environmental management systematic review activity worldwide.

Potential donors are encouraged to contact us at: info@environmentalevidence.org

17

Thank You

The existence and growth of the CEE is due in no small part to a wide range of individuals and organizations who have actively supported its vision and aims, either through funding, giving it visibility in key arenas, through giving their time to key CEE activity, or through active involvement in CEE Systematic Reviews. Particular thanks for 2021 are due to:

More information: www.environmentalevidence.org Email: info@environmentalevidence.org

18

Charity Name No (if any) Collaboration for Environmental Evidence

Recei ts and a ments accounts p p y

CC16a

For the period
from		 Period start date
2021-04-01		 To Period end date
2022-03-31

Section A Receipts and payments

Unrestricted funds to the nearest £

Endowment funds

Restricted funds

Total funds

Unrestricted
funds		 Restricted funds Endowment
funds		 Total funds
A1 Receipts to the nearest £
35,368
4,899
40,266
-
-
-
40,266		 to the nearest £
6,051
6,051
-
-
-
6,051		 to the nearest £
-
-
-
-
-		 to the nearest £

Balance atyear end		 35,368 41,419
Journal 2020 APC Share 4,899
Sub total 40,266 46,317
A2 Asset and investment sales,
(see table).
- -
- -
Sub total - -
Total receipts
40,266 6,051 - 46,317
A3 Payments

Exp141: Communications Officer Grant 2020		 5,017
Exp142: IT Costs 513
Exp143: IT Costs 53
Exp144: IT Costs 86
Exp145: IT Costs 38
Exp146: Editorial Staff 375
Exp147: Editorial Staff 767
Exp148: Communications Officer Grant 5,010

CCXX R1 accounts (SS)

1

2022-04-28

Sub total 11,859

A4 Asset and investment
purchases, (see table)
- - - -
- - - -
**Sub total ** 11,859 - - -
Total payments 11,859 - - -
Net of receipts/(payments) 28,408 6,051 **- ** 34,459
A5 Transfers between funds - - - -
A6 Cash funds last year end - - - -
Cash funds this year end 28,408 6,051 - 34,459

Section B Statement of assets and liabilities at the end of the period

Categories
B1 Cash funds		 Details Unrestricted
funds
to nearest £
-
-
-		 Restricted funds
to nearest £
-
-
-		 Endowment
funds
to nearest £
- - -
- - -
- - -

CCXX R2 accounts (SS)

2

2022-04-28

B2 Other monetary assets

B3 Investment assets

B4 Assets retained for the charity’s own use

Total cash funds 28,408 28,408 6,051 6,051 -
(agree balances with receipts and payments account(s))
Unrestricted Restricted funds Endowment
funds funds
Details to nearest £ to nearest £ to nearest £
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
Details Fund to which asset
belongs		 Cost (optional) Current value
(optional)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Details Fund to which asset
belongs		 Cost (optional) Current value
(optional)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

CCXX R3 accounts (SS)

3

2022-04-28

B5 Liabilities

Signed by one or two trustees on behalf of all the trustees

- -
- -
Fund to which Amount due When due
Details liability relates (optional) (optional)
-
-
-
-
-
Signature Print Name Date of approval
Kathryn A. Monk 25 April 2022
Steven J. Cooke April 26 2022

CCXX R4 accounts (SS)

2022-04-28

4

CCXX R5 accounts ISSI 2022-04-28

CCXX R6 accounts ISSI 2022-04-28