Purpose and intended effect
Background
1. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) was first published in 1994 as a response to the obligations of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by the UK at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Since 1994, the objectives of the BAP have been pursued through a series of strategic documents and specific action plans. These were prepared under the direction of an advisory group chaired by the Director of DETR's Wildlife and Countryside Directorate with membership drawn from a wide range of sectors, including Government Departments, other statutory bodies, academia, and the voluntary and private sectors.
2. Annex A gives a detailed account of the main elements of the biodiversity process. One of the most important elements of the BAP has been the preparation of 436 individual action plans for priority species (391) and habitat types (45). The habitat types and species subject to action plans were selected under criteria agreed and published by the advisory group and accepted by the Government. The action plans assign specific actions to the statutory bodies that are primarily responsible for particular areas of policy or functions, though in practice, much of the action has been delivered by the wider partnership, principally the voluntary conservation sector. The action plans set out specific targets for species population recovery and improvements in habitat quality and extent by 2000, 2005 and 2010. Annex B gives information about the estimated costs of the Action Plans.
Purpose of statutory provision
3. The objective of putting the conservation of biodiversity on a statutory basis is to give it firm foundations for the longer term. At present it is a policy instrument which can encompass the use of particular statutory provisions (eg site protection) where they are relevant to the conservation needs but also includes other actions, promoted through policy. There is a concern, particularly in the voluntary conservation sector, that the absence of a statutory basis could give rise to a loss of credibility in the Government's commitment now and in the future.
4. The objective therefore is to maintain credibility in the BAP process by formalising its key elements.
The Risks
5. The harm that the Biodiversity Action Plan aims to address is the continuing decline and extinction or disappearance of species and habitat types. Human activities are changing and destroying habitats, natural ecosystems and landscapes on an increasing scale. This is why there is concern to treat biodiversity seriously as a global resource to be protected and conserved according to principles of ecological, economic and social sustainability, as recognised at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. These declines could represent a serious threat to human development.
6. The precise value of biodiversity loss is unknown, because future needs are unpredictable and our understanding of ecosystems is insufficient to be certain of the impact of losing any components. The UKBAP commitments are based on the precautionary principle and seek to conserve and where practicable enhance biodiversity. The main risk of not proceeding with a statutory approach is that Government credibility in terms of BAP commitments is likely to be diminished.
The Options
7. There are currently three options:
(i) Do nothing - i.e maintain the current policy-based approach to the Biodiversity Action Plan.
(a) Government maintains a process, which identifies, on the basis of collectively agreed criteria, habitat types and species of conservation concern which require the preparation of action plans.
(b) Government ensures the necessary organisational, consultative and advisory structures are in place to promote support and delivery of the action plans by relevant partners and agencies, including non-public (mainly voluntary) bodies.
(c) Government takes action in accordance with the action plans in the exercise of its functions as appropriate across Departments and Agencies with a view to achieving the targets specified in the action plans.
(ii) Impose duties on the Government and the National Assembly for Wales to:
(a) maintain a list of priority habitats and species of conservation concern;
(b) take measures to further the conservation, and enhancement of the species and habitats;
(c) further the conservation and enhancement of the species and habitats in the exercise of their functions.
This is the approach proposed in the amendment by Baroness Byford to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill at Lords Report.
(iii) Impose duties on the Government and the National Assembly for Wales to:
(a) Have regard to the conservation of biological diversity in accordance with the Convention on biological diversity, in the exercise of their functions;
(b) maintain a list of species and habitat types of importance for biodiversity conservation, on the advice of the nature conservation agencies;
(c) take steps to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of the selected habitat types and species;
This is the approach proposed in the Government's amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
Issues of equity or fairness
8. The economic impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector of the chosen statutory approach is not expected to be different from that arising from current situation which is based on policy. Neither option (ii) nor (iii) of itself imposes any new regulatory burden on these sectors.
The benefits
9. Under options (ii) and (iii) there should be benefits in terms of the reassurance given to those outside Government regarding the Government's commitment to the Biodiversity Action Plan, with possible additional effects in terms of improved co-operation on biodiversity and other policy issues. These benefits are intangible but potentially significant in terms of wider co-operation.
10. The Government prefers option (iii) because, it clearly links the conservation of biodiversity with the UK's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It also more fully reflects the inclusive partnership process of the current Biodiversity Action Plan by requiring the Secretary of State and the NAW to promote conservation by others. In addition it puts an emphasis on science by requiring the Government to consult the statutory nature conservation agencies about the identification of the habitat types and species which are the focus of conservation steps. These however are matters of policy and have no bearing on the relative regulatory impacts of the various options.
Compliance costs for business, charities and voluntary organisations
11. The change to a statutory basis for the BAP is not expected to have any additional impact on any of these sectors since the intention is to formalise existing public sector commitments rather than increase them in any way.
Other costs
12. Such additional costs as may arise from the provisions are likely to fall to the public sector. The extent to which these would be greater than would otherwise arise through development of the current policy is unknown.
Monitoring and evaluation
13. The UK Biodiversity Group monitors the implementation of the Action Plans and intends to do a comprehensive report on progress every 5 years. The research report on the costs of implementation as mentioned in Annex B will contribute to the evaluation taking place to prepare the UKBG's millennium report to be published in Spring 2001.
Summary and Recommendation
14. There is no established difference in regulatory impact between options (ii) and (iii). The Government's preference for Option (iii) rests primarily on considerations of policy relating to the flexibility and the mechanics of giving legal effect to the current policy approach.
15. There is no direct, measurable regulatory impact of the proposal to put the Biodiversity Action Plan on a statutory basis. The aim is to ensure that the overall approach currently taken through policy processes is maintained. Costs fall primarily on the public sector. Such additional costs to the non-public sector as there may be would arise indirectly through Government Departments taking greater account of biodiversity considerations in their discretionary decisions (e.g. through the planning system), but these are not readily quantifiable.
I have read the Regulatory Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that the benefits justify the costs.
The Rt. Hon Michael Meacher MP,
Minister for the Environment,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the RegionsContact point:
Hilary Neal,
European Wildlife Division,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
Room 904, Tollgate House,
Houlton Street,
Bristol BS2 9DJ
Tel: 0117 987 8850
Email: hilary_neal@defra.gsi.gov.ukAnnex A: Background to Biodiversity Action Plans
1. The Rio Earth Summit agreed the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992. Article 6 of the Convention requires each contracting party to:
'develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity , or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes which shall reflect, inter alia the measures set out in this Convention relevant to the Contracting Party concerned'The Convention is part of the family of Conventions signed at that time on climate change, sustainable development and forestry.
2. In response to Article 6, the UK published, in 1994 Biodiversity, the UK Action Plan. It was an overall strategy, designed to respond to all aspects of the convention but gave considerable emphasis to the conservation of UK biodiversity which had traditionally been handled through UK nature conservation policy and legislation.
3. The 1994 Action Plan contained an overall goal, underlying principles and objectives for conserving biodiversity (see Annex B) as well as 59 steps to identify progress towards the objectives.
4. The Action Plan established a Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, consisting of representatives from Government Departments, nature conservation and other statutory agencies (e.g. EA), NGOs, academics and the collections (Kew and NHM).
5. The UK Steering Group published a report, Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report – meeting the Rio challenge in 1995. This established the framework and criteria for identifying species (1250 in number) and habitat types of conservation concern. Of these, 116 species and 14 habitats were identified as priorities for action. Individual Action Plans were published as part of the report for each of these species and habitat types. The report announced plans for the publication of further Action Plans for priority species and habitat types.
6. The Government issued a formal response to the Steering Group report: Government Response to the UK Steering Group Report on Biodiversity (Cm 3620) May 1996. This endorsed the Steering Group's recommendations (including the criteria and approach for identification and publication of subsequent action plans) and established the UK Biodiversity Group to continue to advise Government on the process. Membership of the UKBG is essentially the same as that of the Steering Group.
7. Further Action Plans have been published bringing the total to 391 species and 45 habitat Action Plans published by October 1999. Implementation of the Action Plans has proceeded through a mechanism of individual Action Plan steering groups composed of the main players who can effect action for each. In many cases the lead partner for the action plan is a conservation NGO. A review of implementation is currently underway and the UKBG intends to publish a 5-year Millennium Biodiversity Report early in 2001.
Annex B: The Costs and Benefits of the Biodiversity Action Plan
NB. These costs are the baseline costs of the current Biodiversity Action Plan. They would arise under any of the three options.
1. The existing 391 species and 45 habitat action plans were costed at the time of preparation. These costs have been summarised by the UK Biodiversity Group. ( UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 1 and 2 Action Plans. Cost Estimates – a summary report. Published by English Nature, Northminster House PE1 1UA 2000.) The table below is extracted from the summary report and shows that the total additional annual cost of the action plans (relative to 1995) is £86.6m per annum in the period to 2005 and £149.7m per annum in the period 2005-2010, at 1997/8 prices. These figures include 10% administration costs and cover both public and 'private' sector expenditure.
2. It was a broad assumption of the estimates that the 'private' sector contribution would be some 33% of the total. The definition of the private sector includes the voluntary sector which in practice in these circumstances constitutes virtually the whole of the non-public sector. Exceptions to this have for example been industries which have signed up voluntarily to the Biodiversity Champions scheme and made contributions to particular actions under individual plans. The remaining costs of implementation have been estimated to fall to the public sector, i.e. Government Departments such as DETR, MAFF, the Forestry Commission, and Non-departmental public bodies such as the Environment Agency and English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales.
3. The DETR is funding a research project, which is due to report shortly, comparing the estimated with the actual costs of implementation of a sample of Action Plans.
Summary of UK Biodiversity Action Plan Costings (Tranches 1 & 2)
Table 2: Total Costs (Including All Administration and Private Sector Costs), £000
Extra cost (relative to 1995) in year: Species Action Plans 2000 2010 1st Tranche SAPs 3,058 2,546 Average extra annual cost (relative to 1977) during: 2nd Tranche SAPs 1999-2003 2004-2008 Vol I SAPs (vertebrates & vascular plants) 1,957 1,429 2000-2004 2005-2009 Vol III SAPs (plants & fungi) 630 377 Vol IV SAPs (invertebrates) 1,794 1,411 Vol V SAPs (maritime) 3,498 2,962 Vol VI SAPs (terrestrial) 458 255 Sub-Total SAPs 11.395 8.980 Extra cost (relative to 1995) in year: Habitat Action Plans 2000 2010 1st Tranche HAPs 34,340 52,042 Average extra annual cost (relative to 1997) during: 2nd Tranche HAPs 1999-2003 2004-2013 Vol II HAPs (terrestrial & freshwater) 10,392 10,546 Vol V HAPs (maritime) 2,141 2,847 Vol VI HAPs (terrestrial) 28,327 75,293 Sub-Total HAPs 140.728 Period First Period Second Period Total SAP & HAP costs per year 86.595 149.708 Notes:
1. Includes public and private sector costs and administration costs. All costs are in 1997/98 prices.
2. Years refer to financial years eg. 2004 = 2004/2005.
3. 1st Tranche figures in Table 1 are increased by 5% to take account of inflation between 95&97.
4. Private sector costs (at 33% of published costs) are added to Table 1 costs in case of 1st Tranche HAPs which excluded private sector costs, so that all costs include public and private sector costs.
5. Administration costs, at 10%, are added to 2nd Tranche costings in Table 1. Published 1st Tranche costings included these costs.
6. The sub total and total figures are presented in the same way as in Table 1 (see notes 4 and 5 to table 1).
Published 12 February 2001
Return to Countryside Legislation Index
Return to Wildlife and Countryside Index
Return to DEFRA Home Page