LRSIG 10-08-06
aGENDA ITEM 3
Economics & Funding SIG, England Biodiversity Group
Aims
The primary aim of the Economics and Funding SIG is to improve the economic evidence base of the England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS) to make the economic case for biodiversity conservation and inform public sector decisions. Key challenges include:
· Identifying and valuing the scope of benefits from biodiversity conservation.
· Communicating the costs of delivering the EBS and the sources of funding available to meet this.
· Exploring the potential of markets in helping to deliver the EBS.
· Providing evidence that biodiversity conservation has positive economic and social benefits for regions and local areas.
A core consideration is to disseminate this evidence base across the EBS and within other work streams. To take this forward, representatives from the EFG will begin liaising with other working groups.
Work Programme
The Economics & Funding SIG consists of representatives from a variety of stakeholders with an interest in the economics and funding of biodiversity conservation, including Defra, RSPB, JNCC, English Nature, and the Forestry Commission. The work programme draws on these collective resources to deliver the aims set out above.
Past work has included research into:
· The Value of Ecosystem Services in England. In 2005, Eftec produced a report that sets out the importance of these services to human well-being, and the ways in which these benefits can be valued.
· Valuing changes in Biodiversity. In 2004, Christie et al produced a report that set the ground work for valuing biodiversity in the UK. It also investigated the scope for transferring values across different locations.
· Cost-effectiveness. In 2005, a report by CJC assessed approaches for delivery of PSA targets on SSSIs, important for the HAPs. The report looked at the costs and benefits of SSSIs and priorities for funding restoration and management.
· Local Economic Impacts. In 2004, a report by GHK looked at the value of environmental quality in England. They estimated that environment-linked activities contributed around £7.6 billion in gross value added.
· Value of Biodiversity. Last October, the Economics & Funding SIG produced a paper entitled “The Economic Valuation of Biodiversity” and distributed to all the SIGs. The aim of the paper was to provide information about the value of biodiversity. The group are interested in exploring how we can tailor this general paper to better meet the specific needs of individual work streams.
Future work will develop understanding in the following areas:
· Funding: preparation of a funding map and gap analysis; a cost-effectiveness assessment; provision of funding guidance.
· Ecosystem Services: to identify and where possible value these services using case studies within England. This work will begin to address the methodological issues associated with this approach.
· Market Incentives: as well as looking at the broader picture of economic instruments in environmental policy including agri-environment schemes and planning system reform, a major focus will be the feasibility of biodiversity offsets.
· Identify and value the benefits produced by the BAPs: this work will most likely take a case study approach, and will look at valuing ecosystem services that biodiversity conservation also delivers. Outlining these potential benefits will help inform the case for funding.
· Local Economic Impacts: SQW are leading on a project due in September that develops a model to estimate local economic impacts of conservation sites which can be applied to any site in the UK.
Funding of EBS
Adequate funding is crucial to ensure the success of the EBS. A first step is to identify current funding levels, and to aid this the Economics & Funding SIG has developed indicator E1 on the amount of expenditure on biodiversity in the UK. This estimates total funding from a variety of sources, including government, executive agencies and NGOs, and is careful to calculate only biodiversity-related expenditure. A next step is to assess the sufficiency of this funding to ensure biodiversity objectives are met.
GHK recently completed a study of the cost of delivering the BAPs, comparing these to current expenditure estimates. The study found a short-fall largely from previously un-costed targets for wide spread species. It should also be noted that funding for the EBS is different from that spent directly on the BAPs, so it is possible that funding issues exist elsewhere.
Another funding concern is the difficulty some organisations, particularly small community and voluntary groups, have in securing funding, even though they have enormous potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation. To help, Defra is seeking to set up a funding support service that will identify and prioritise potential funding bodies and provide advice on best practice for securing funds.
Cited Resources
Christie et al (2004), “Developing Measures for Valuing Changes in Biodiversity”. Report to Defra.
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/biovalue/default.asp
CJC Consulting (2005), “Cost Effectiveness Study of Approaches for Delivery of PSA Target Relating to SSSIs”, Report to Defra.
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/sssi/default.asp
Economics & Funding SIG (2006), “The Economic Valuation of Biodiversity”.
For a copy contact
Economics & Funding SIG (2006), “Funding Support Service, Invitation to Submit Expression of Interest”. [Note: this is only a first draft at present]
For a copy contact
Eftec (2005), “Literature Review: Economic, Social and Ecological Value of Ecosystems Services”. Report to Defra.
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/ecosystem/default.asp
GHK (2004), “Revealing the Value of the Natural Environment in England”. Report to Defra.
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/rvne.pdf
GHK (2006), “UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Preparing Costings for Species and Habitat Action Plans”. Report to Defra and Partners.
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/GenPageText.aspx?id=98