UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Preparing Costings for Species and Habitat Action Plans

340 Pages·2009·2.01 MB·English

UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Preparing Costings

for Species and Habitat Action Plans

Costings Summary Report
Revised Report to Defra and Partners

Submitted by GHK Consulting Ltd
in association with
RPS Ecology

Residence 2, Royal William Yard, Plymouth, PL1 3RP
Tel: [phone]; Fax [phone]

526 Fulham Road, London SW6 5NR
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
www.ghkint.com
Document Control
Document BAP Costings Summary Report
Job No. J2003
Prepared by Matt Rayment
Checked by Gitte Lindberg
Date 28 April 2006
J2003 1
BAP Costings Summary Report
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................3
2 SUMMARY OF APPROACH..............................................................................................5
2.1 HAP Costings...................................................................................................................5
2.2 SAP Costings...................................................................................................................6
2.3 Review of BAP Expenditures...........................................................................................8
3 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES.........................................................................................10
3.1 Overview........................................................................................................................10
3.2 Total and Additional Costs.............................................................................................10
3.3 BAP Attributable Costs...................................................................................................11
3.4 Land Purchase...............................................................................................................11
3.5 Opportunity Costs...........................................................................................................11
3.6 Net and Gross Costs......................................................................................................12
3.7 Public and Private Sector Costs.....................................................................................12
3.8 Grants and Incentives....................................................................................................12
3.9 Marginal Costs...............................................................................................................13
3.10 Differences in Country Level Costs..............................................................................13
3.11 Administration and Central Costs.................................................................................14
3.12 Staff Costs....................................................................................................................15
3.13 Inflation.........................................................................................................................15
3.14 Voluntary Activities.......................................................................................................15
3.15 The Impact of Policy Change.......................................................................................15
3.16 Response Bias.............................................................................................................16
4 SUMMARY OF COSTS....................................................................................................17
4.1 HAP Costings.................................................................................................................17
4.2 SAP Costings.................................................................................................................19
4.3 Existing BAP Expenditures............................................................................................21
4.4 Comparison of Costs and Existing Funding...................................................................21
J2003 2
BAP Costings Summary Report
1 INTRODUCTION
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan sets out the Government’s commitments to
conserve and enhance biodiversity in the UK, through a series of individual Habitat
Action Plans (HAPs) and Species Action Plans (SAPs) which specify targets for the
conservation of habitats and species, and actions designed to meet these targets.
The indicative costs of delivering each of these HAPs and SAPs were estimated at
the time they were first published, between 1995 and 1998, and these estimates
are now out of date. They were based on prices in the years in which the plans
were published. In the light of subsequent experience, many of the actions which
were costed at that time no longer appear relevant, appropriate, or the most cost
effective means of delivering the BAP targets. The targets themselves are also
being updated through a comprehensive BAP targets review, due to be completed
in 2006, which will have implications for the costs of delivering the BAP. The
original costings were also known to contain significant gaps, particularly in relation
to the costs of meeting targets for widespread species. Experience in delivering
the BAP has also brought new insights into the true costs of biodiversity
conservation and the best means of measuring them1. As a result of these factors,
and with a view to the forthcoming Government Spending Review, a review of the
BAP costings is timely.
GHK Consulting Ltd and RPS Ecology Ltd were commissioned in 2005 by Defra,
English Nature, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Executive and the Department of
the Environment in Northern Ireland to review and update estimates of the costs of
delivering the UK BAP. The first stage of the study involved a methodological
review of the HAP costings and the development of revised estimates for species
costs, including new estimates of the costs of conserving widespread species
through habitat actions at the landscape scale. This was followed by a complete
revision of the HAP costings estimates.
This report summarises the methodology employed in revising the BAP costings,
and presents a summary of the provisional cost estimates, based on latest
available targets. It is accompanied by four more detailed volumes presenting
estimates of:
(cid:131) The Costs of delivering Habitat Action Plans

1 For example, a 2002 report for Defra compared actual expenditures under the BAP to date with the
indicative costings. This was somewhat inconclusive, because of large data gaps, and a difficulty in
identifying whether variations in expenditure were due to changes in the scale of activity or unit costs
incurred. However, it suggested that the costs of many plans had been underestimated and some
possibly overestimated. Source: Shepherd, P.A., Gillespie, J., Garrod, G. and Willis, K. (2002) An Initial
Investigation of the Actual Costs of Implementing UK Biodiversity Action Plans
J2003 3
BAP Costings Summary Report
(cid:131) The Costs of delivering Species Action Plans (through actions for individual
species)
(cid:131) The Costs of delivering Species Action Plans (through habitat management for
widespread species at the landscape scale); and
(cid:131) Current BAP Expenditures in the UK.
J2003 4
BAP Costings Summary Report
2 SUMMARY OF APPROACH
2.1 HAP Costings
The HAP costings review was informed by an initial methodological review, which
examined different approaches and methodological issues in assessing the costs of
HAP delivery. The review involved completion of six case studies to revise the
costs for particular HAPs2.
The methodological review concluded that the original indicative costings were
substantially out of date and did not provide a good estimate of expected future
HAP costs. It identified significant methodological problems and limitations in the
earlier costings, and concluded that there was a need for the costs of these HAPs
to be reviewed on a plan by plan basis.
However, the review recommended that, rather than attempting to cost the HAPs
on an action by action basis, that the revised costs should focus as far as possible
on the costs of delivering the HAP targets. The review found that for most HAPs,
over 95% of the indicative costings related to the costs of delivering habitat
management, restoration and re-creation targets, and that the many other costed
actions (relating, for example, to research, advice, communications, publicity and
international actions) accounted collectively for only a small proportion of overall
costs. Furthermore, many of the original actions set out in the HAPs are now out of
date and do not reflect current priorities, and therefore inappropriate as a basis for
the costings.
The methodological review therefore found that the terrestrial HAPs can be costed
by identifying appropriate per hectare management, creation and restoration costs,
and applying these to the revised HAP targets. An allowance for non-land related
costs can be made by adding a small (5%) mark-up to these cost estimates.
Such an approach does not work for certain freshwater and marine HAPs, given
that they do not involve a land management approach, and instead depend heavily
on other actions such as survey, research and monitoring activities. For these
HAPs, the costs can be estimated by identifying the broad areas of activity involved
and estimating the appropriate level of resourcing for the programmes of work
required.
The costs of delivering each HAP have been revised on the basis of the approach
identified above. The necessary information was gathered through telephone
interviews with the lead partner and country leads for each HAP, with data also
being sought from habitat restoration and re-creation projects for the habitats in
question. These interviews were supplemented by reviews of published
information on habitat costs, and by reference to agri-environment and forestry
grant scheme literature for each country.
In many cases habitat costs are highly variable and site specific. Where possible,
therefore, the approach has been to identify costs that can be averaged over a

2 GHK Consulting Ltd and RPS Ecology Ltd (2005) Revising Estimates of Delivering Habitat Action
Plans. Report for Defra and Partners. The six case study HAPs were Blanket Bog, Coastal and
Floodplain Grazing Marsh, Upland Oakwood, Sublittoral Sands and Gravels (and other marine HAPs),
Lowland Heathland and Eutrophic Standing Waters.
J2003 5
BAP Costings Summary Report
large number of projects and hectares to identify unit costs that are applicable to
more than one site. For some HAPs, no such data were found, and it was
necessary to develop generalised cost models employing assumptions about the
various operations and costs required. The Annexes to the HAP costings report set
out in detail the approach adopted for each individual HAP.
The revision of the HAP costings has been complicated somewhat by the evolving
nature of the revised targets, which are still under review and not expected to be
finalised until Summer 2006. The estimates in this report, which have been
updated to include the draft targets at March 2006, are provisional and are likely to
change with further target revisions.
The cost estimates for each HAP have been developed using a simple spreadsheet
model that combines data on targets and unit costs to produce cost estimates for
each HAP. This model is designed to be easily updated if targets change in future
or if new unit cost estimates are employed.

2.2 SAP Costings
2.2.1 Individual Species Costs
Budgetary and time constraints precluded a complete review of the detailed costs
of delivering all 391 SAPs in the UKBAP. Instead, the consultants reviewed the
costs of delivering a sample of SAPs, in order to use this review as a basis for
estimating the overall costs of SAP delivery.
The sample was chosen to include two groups of SAPs:
(cid:131) Group 1: High Cost SAPs. Those SAPs known to have the highest delivery
costs.
(cid:131) Group 2: Other SAPs. A wider sample of other SAPs, informally stratified to
cover a variety of different taxa.
This two stage sampling approach enabled the study to review a collection of SAPs
that together account for a large proportion of the indicative SAP costings, while
also enabling a review of a wider sample of SAPs to assess possible differences in
findings between high cost and lower cost SAPs.
In all, the costs of delivery of 34 SAPs were reviewed, comprising:
(cid:131) Group 1: 13 SAPs with indicative costs greater than £100k per year
(cid:131) Group 2: 21 SAPs selected through an informal stratification procedure and
covering a variety of taxa.
The sample, which covers 8% of the SAPs by number, accounts for 49% of the
costs of SAP delivery, as estimated by the previous indicative costings.
The study involved a series of telephone interviews with lead and support partners
in SAP delivery. In many cases it was possible to gain the information required
from the lead partner. However, for more complex and wide ranging SAPs such as
those for marine mammals, it was necessary to contact several partners to gain the
necessary information.
J2003 6
BAP Costings Summary Report
These interviews enabled the delivery costs of each SAP to be assessed. These
costs were estimated for the five year period between 2006 and 2011. Partners in
the SAPs generally had a clear idea of the actions necessary in the next five years,
and their likely resource implications. However, an assessment of the costs of
delivering SAPs beyond 2011 was found not to be feasible, given the great
uncertainties involved.
The total costs of delivery of individual species actions was estimated by taking the
combined costs of the 34 SAPs in the sample and adding to this an estimate of the
costs of delivering the remaining 357 SAPs in the UK BAP. The latter was
estimated by applying a scaling factor to the earlier indicative costings, calculated
on the basis of the difference in the estimated cost of delivery of the SAPs for the
21 Group 2 species in the sample.3
2.2.2 Landscape Scale Action for Widespread Species
As well as the costs of delivering actions for individual species, meeting SAP
targets also requires the delivery of habitat management at the landscape scale, in
order to deliver targets for widespread species (notably farmland birds, but also
other taxa). These SAP-related costs were not covered by the earlier SAP costings
(which focused on actions focused on the needs of individual species, such as
research, monitoring and advice), nor are they adequately covered by the HAP
costings (since they depend on management of widespread, non-priority habitats
such as general agricultural land).
For example, delivering SAP targets for the Song Thrush requires particular actions
dedicated to understanding and addressing the needs of the individual species, as
well as wider action at the landscape scale which will deliver the broad habitat
requirements of a suite of widespread BAP species, including Song Thrush. This
landscape scale action has not been costed by previous studies.
The costs of delivering SAP actions for widespread species at the landscape scale
have been calculated using a method that involved six steps, as follows:
(cid:131) Divide the UK into landscape units
(cid:131) Select the species for modelling
(cid:131) Model the response of those species to the habitat changes
(cid:131) Apply a suite of habitat changes financed by environmental schemes
(cid:131) Assess the achievement of the SAP targets
(cid:131) Cost the changes for the UK, countries and the broad habitats

3 The report found that the costs for these SAPs were 168% higher than previous estimates, and this
factor was applied to the previous estimate of the indicative costs of delivery of the 357 unsampled
SAPs. The aggregation method used was based on advice received from Defra and GHK statisticians.
For full details please see the report on individual SAP costings.
J2003 7
BAP Costings Summary Report
Due to information gaps in non-bird species ecology, population and distribution the
model was run using ten species of wider countryside bird:
Grey Partridge Linnet
Turtle Dove Bullfinch
Skylark Corn Bunting
Spotted Reed Bunting
Flycatcher
Song Thrush Tree Sparrow
A series of scenarios was run through the model and the habitat provision
optimised to achieve all but the Turtle Dove and Spotted Flycatcher targets for the
minimum of habitat provision. This resulted in habitat provision that was targeted at
farmland in the lowlands.
To attain the proposed new targets, within each 1,000 ha landscape unit the uptake
of agri-environment schemes after five years was modelled at:
(cid:131) 800 ha in ‘Entry’ level scheme
(cid:131) 40 ha in ‘Higher’ level scheme
This amount of habitat provision was then calculated, based on producing an
annual average figure for what was actually a steadily rising cost over the five years
as scheme uptake increased. An estimate was then made of the extent to which
these costs would be met by the delivery of individual HAPs and SAPs, and hence
were included in the revised HAP and individual SAP costings. These estimates
were then deducted from the totals to remove double counting.
2.3 Review of BAP Expenditures
The following steps were taken to estimate current BAP-related expenditures in the
UK:
1. The organisations and initiatives involved in funding biodiversity conservation in
the different countries of the UK were identified;
2. Relevant budgets for BAP delivery were identified and quantified;
3. In consultation with the organisations and initiatives concerned, an estimate
was made of the expenditure under these budgets that is contributing to the
delivery of the BAP;
4. Estimates were made of expenditure at the country level, disaggregating UK
expenditures where necessary;
5. Separate estimates were made of habitat and species related expenditures, in
order to gain some indication of the relative levels of funding for HAPs and
SAPs.
The initial stage of work included a web search in order to compile published
evidence of expenditure under various schemes and by different organisations,
J2003 8
BAP Costings Summary Report
across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to create a table of
BAP related expenditure. Sources included annual reports of different
organisations and initiatives, and financial information found on their respective
websites.
Once this stage had been completed, telephone interviews were conducted with
the different organisations and initiatives to obtain further information about current
expenditures and to inform the analysis of expenditures attributable to the BAP, to
HAPs and SAPs, and to the different UK countries.

J2003 9