UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
UK Biodiversity Partnership Standing
Committee (UKBPSC)
4 October 2010
Simplifying the UK governance structure for
delivering UK-level work in support of
country biodiversity strategies
(UK SC 10-10)
For other UKBPSC papers and minutes of UKBPSC meetings visit
http:// www.jncc.gov.uk/page-5699
For more information about the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) visit
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-5155
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
Cover Note
This paper presents options for simplifying the UK governance structure for defining
and delivering UK-level work in support of country biodiversity action planning.
BRIG is supportive of a simplified UK-level advisory group with more direct delivery
of UK-level information by JNCC, cessation of BRIG and the UK Habitat Groups, and
enhanced involvement of other existing UK technical groups.
UKSC is invited to consider whether it is the right time to make changes to the
UK governance structure that supports country-level BAP delivery, and if so to
outline its preferred approach and indicative timetable for making change.
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
Simplifying the UK governance structure for delivering UK-level work in
support of country biodiversity strategies
Helen Baker & Paul Rose, JNCC
1. Background to and purpose of paper
1.1. The benefits from UK-level activities in support of country-level
implementation of BAP were recognised in Conserving Biodiversity – The UK
Approach (2007). BRIG has since developed a UK-level work plan to support
country biodiversity strategy implementation (UKSC 10-05; May 2010).
However, the UK BAP governance structure that has evolved to support BAP
delivery has not adapted at the same pace as that in each country and has
become overly complex.
1.2. More changes are on the near horizon, stimulated by the developing ‘post2010’ international and EU biodiversity strategies, and reviews of
environmental policy are underway that may lead to renewed country
biodiversity strategies: the Welsh Assembly Government launched its
consultation on a Natural Environment Framework in September 2010; and,
in July 2010, Defra launched consultation over the scope of a Natural
Environment White Paper. Greater focus on ‘mainstreaming’ of biodiversity
into other policy areas, including through the ecosystem approach, the
supporting localism agenda and the comprehensive spending review are
likely to be important drivers of change to future BAP approaches at all
scales.
1.3. Any changes to the way in which each country delivers its BAP approach are
likely to lead to a review and refresh of the UK approach. The UK BAP
governance structure will need to respond to these developments, but it may
be beneficial to consider ways in which changes can be made in the short
term to deliver a more efficient and readily adaptable structure for the future.
1.4. BRIG considered a briefing paper, prepared by JNCC, at its 14 September
2010 meeting and requested that JNCC refine it and submit to UKSC for
consideration; this paper presents options for simplifying UK governance.
1.5. BRIG is supportive of a simplified UK-level advisory group with more direct
delivery of UK-level information by JNCC, cessation of BRIG and the UK
Habitat Groups (see separate UKSC paper), and enhanced involvement of
other existing UK technical groups (see Appendix 1).
2. What kinds of changes to the UK governance structure might be beneficial?
2.1. The driving force behind BAP delivery in the UK is the implementation by
each of the countries of their own biodiversity strategies; governance
structures within each country have adapted and been strengthened as
devolution has taken full effect, including opportunities for better engagement
by conservation NGOs. There are some UK-level activities that can still play
an important role in helping the countries achieve implementation efficiencies
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
(UKSC 10-05 BRIG work plan and terms of reference; Appendix 2), but at
present the UK governance structure is creating some duplication of activities
that are no longer necessary at the UK-level.
2.2. The main duplication of effort is around some of the facilitation tasks to
support strategic thinking (futures work, assessment of changing context,
obligations, etc), assessing research needs and evidence on biodiversity
status, sharing management information, and European/international links.
2.3. The key benefit from a simplified structure is to reduce duplication, and
associated costs, which would allow clearer definition of beneficial UK-level
activities and more efficient delivery of outcomes to the countries.
2.4. Such an approach could:



remove the need for some of the UK coordination groups (Biodiversity
Reporting and Information Group (BRIG), UK Habitat Groups);
provide the opportunity for the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group
(BRAG) to redefine its role outside of the BAP process, taking into
consideration the developing country evidence groups;
make better use of other existing UK technical groups (Terrestrial Biodiversity
Surveillance Strategy Implementation Group, Healthy and Biologically Diverse
Seas Evidence Group, UK Biodiversity Indicators Steering Group).
2.5. Any or all of these changes could pave the way for a simplified working
relationship between the four countries. There are various options for gaining
a steer on required UK-level work, inter alia: retain UKSC; create a group
comprising Chairs of Country Biodiversity Groups (CBG); some combination
of these; or, CBG Chairs, country agency leads and JNCC. Secretariat
support could remain with Defra or be sought elsewhere depending on the
chosen work delivery approach (see below).
2.6. One option for a simplified UK governance structure is illustrated in Appendix
1 and shows a more direct delivery role for JNCC within a much reduced UK
governance structure; other options for work delivery are discussed below.
3. Options for delivering UK-level BAP work
3.1. JNCC already has a statutory role and considerable expertise in facilitating
the delivery of country biodiversity action planning and has done much to
support delivery in the past; it remains well placed to support needs for UKlevel information. However, there may be other effective options; these are
explored below. All of the options assume a simplified governance structure
as described above, which is an important consideration for assessing
possible effectiveness and efficiencies.
3.2. Option 1: A refocused role for JNCC
3.2.1. JNCC could contribute by undertaking the UK-level work needed to
support implementation of country biodiversity strategies, steered
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
through a more direct relationship with the four countries or a UK
advisory group such as UKSC.
3.2.2. In addition to the existing UK approach, recent work by BRIG to define
desirable UK-level work could inform the scope of the JNCC role in
delivering a more efficient UK governance structure (BRIG work plan
agreed by the UKSC on 06 May 2010; see Appendix 2). If JNCC were to
undertake the priority work identified by BRIG, relying on its expertise in
coordination and standards setting, the net cost increase to JNCC would
be relatively small (estimated at c. £13,000 per annum), but could
produce between £50-60K total net saving to the public sector members
of the partnership through not having to attend UK meetings (excluding
possible savings from a change to the high-level UK advisory process;
Appendix 3). This is, of course, based upon the UK work remaining
rather minimal, as it is now, and it could perhaps be even further refined
and prioritised.
3.2.3. A further option could involve undertaking more work on the provision
of evidence, standards and wider context to support country
implementation activities. This level of new work overlaps with JNCC
access to information and surveillance roles so could be considered as a
holistic evidence option and would be much better looked at after some
of the more immediate ideas have been taken forward, when the country
implementation strategies are clearer and when the discussions around
international (CBD) and European drivers are more mature (early 2011).
3.3. Option 2: In-house delivery by Defra, with direct steer from four countries
or a group such as UKSC. Similar net savings to the public sector as those
estimated in option 1 are likely.
3.4. Option 3: Country Agency delivery of UK-level work; the four countries or
a group such as UKSC could assign UK-level activities to a single agency on
an ad hoc basis, with the option of distributing activities between agencies in
a proportionate way. Net savings to the public sector are likely to be less
than those estimated in option 1 due to the complexities of funding the work.
3.5. Option 4: Contracts to non-government organisation(s), administered by
Defra on behalf of the four countries. Net savings to the public sector are
likely to be less than those estimated in option 1 due to the costs associated
with tendering procedures and contract management.
3.6. A combination of delivery options could also be considered, but would require
further exploration of cost effectiveness.
4. Risks associated with changes to the UK governance structure
4.1. Issue: Moving away from the UKSC model for high-level UK
governance. Risk: loss of clarity over priority UK-level work requirements
resulting in reduced effectiveness of support for country level implementation
and reduced engagement of countries in delivering information needs to
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
allow UK-level activities to succeed; probability medium with high impact,
especially on UK-level reporting capability. Mitigation: retain a high-level UK
advisory group with direct links to Chairs of the country biodiversity groups.
Contingency: retain option to re-instate UKSC.
4.2. Issue: Removing BRIG from the UK governance structure. Risk: loss of
technical support to UK advisory group resulting in lack of clarity over priority
UK-level work requirements and reduced engagement of country agencies in
delivering information needs to allow UK-level activities to succeed; low
probability with high impact. Mitigation: effective consultation with country
agency leads by work delivery bodies allowing support to be effectively
focussed through the country biodiversity groups. Contingency: strengthen
the role of other existing UK technical groups in supporting country agency
BAP leads, especially that of the BARS Steering Group.
4.3. Issue: Removing the UK Habitat Groups from the UK governance
structure. This is covered in a separate paper to UKSC.
4.4. Issue: Existing UK Technical Groups are not engaged with the BAP
process. Risk: failure to both provide technical expertise and maximise the
utility of evidence collected and/or collated at the UK-level for country BAP
implementation; probability medium with high impact. Mitigation: ensure that
the groups understand BAP requirements and are involved in developing
effective solutions for producing supporting information at relevant scales.
Contingency: none.
4.5. Issue: Conservation NGOs and other key non-government stakeholders
cannot engage effectively with the BAP process. Risk: relationships
worsen resulting in negative impacts on other important areas of joint working
between JNCC and/or country agencies and NGOs, such as evidence
provision and support for habitat management; a medium probability with a
high impact. Mitigation: opportunities for the NGOs to engage with country
biodiversity groups is strengthened; effective dialogue on new ways of
working and good relationship management. Contingency: ensure that the
opportunity for NGO engagement with the UK advisory group continues in
some form.
5. Risks associated with changes to work delivery
5.1. Issue: JNCC role within the context of recognised boundaries of
devolution. Risk: more direct delivery of UK-level work by JNCC is not
acceptable to all or some of the country administrations and agencies; a low
probability with high impact. Mitigation: JNCC will need to build trust and
respect of agencies and devolved administrations within any new
infrastructure through a continued open and honest style of working and clear
consultation procedures. Contingency: an alternative delivery option is
chosen by the UKSC or UK advisory body.
5.2. Issue: Country agencies play an increased role in delivery of UK-level
work. Risk: lack of expertise in UK-level working, including within EU and
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
international contexts, and/or lack of UK remit leads to unsuccessful work
delivery and failure of UK to meet reporting needs; probability medium to high
with high impact. Mitigation: Defra and/or JNCC provide some expert support
on an ad hoc basis. Contingency: an alternative delivery option is chosen by
the UKSC or UK advisory body.
5.3. Issue: UK-level work is substantially contracted to NGOs. Risks: limited
flexibility in changing scope or timetable of delivery resulting in work that
does not meet needs or is not completed in time; and, lack of expertise in
UK-level working, including within EU and international contexts, leads to
work that does not meet needs; probability medium with high impact.
Mitigation: deliver work via MoAs with a single or limited number of
organisations with EU/international experience. Contingency: re-instate
delivery via government organisation/s.
6. Timing of changes to the UK governance structure
6.1. Despite lack of certainty over the developing international and EU strategies
and the response of the countries to these, it is timely to consider simplifying
the UK BAP governance structure to respond to an already more strongly
devolved way of working and to meet current efficiency challenges. Further
opportunities, or needs, for change to UK governance as new biodiversity
strategies come into play may then be easier to judge and implement.
Depending on the desire for UKSC to seek change and the option chosen, a
new structure could be operational by the end of 2010 or at the beginning of
the 2011/12 financial year.
6.2. JNCC is already reviewing its work priorities under various funding change
scenarios and the Joint Committee will consider inter alia the UK BAP role at
its 28 September 2010 meeting. Further consideration will be made following
UKSC and the outcomes of the Comprehensive Spending Review in October.
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
APPENDIX 1
A possible model for the UK BAP governance structure
UK level
Country level
UK advisory group [Standing
Committee (UKSC) or
alternative forum]
Country Biodiversity Group
JNCC
Country Agency
[Country/local thematic
and delivery groups]
Existing thematic UK coordination
groups
Indicators - UKBISG
Reporting – BARS Steering Group
Monitoring - TBSSIG & HBDSEG
Research – BRAG [& LWEC &
HBDSEG?]
UKBISG = UK Biodiversity Indicators Steering Group
BARS = Biodiversity Action Reporting System
TBSSIG = Terrestrial Biodiversity Surveillance Strategy Implementation Group
HBDSEG = Healthy & Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group
BRAG = UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group
LWEC = Living With Environmental Change [includes Environment Research
Funders’ Forum]
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
APPENDIX 2
A summary of the draft BRIG work plan 2010-2011 (paper UKSC-10-05; May
2010)

Maintain UK Priority Species and Habitats Lists (according to UKSC agreed
procedures);

Compile UK targets;

Coordinate UK reporting;

Ensure integration as appropriate to meet UK-level needs, considering broad
issues like climate change adaptation, invasive non-native species,
ecosystem services, etc;

Communication of UK level information (UK BAP website redevelopment);

Provide international and EU context.
UKSC 4 October 2010
UKSC 10-10
APPENDIX 3
Estimated costs of some UK level BAP groups
The main cost savings associated with the changes proposed in this paper are
related to removal of UK groups and are therefore associated with the staff
resources required to prepare and attending meetings, and T&S costs.
BRIG meeting costs – typically meets two to four times each year at an estimated
cost to public sector of about £6,000 per annum in T&S and £12,000 per annum in
staff time, plus staff time from JNCC in Secretariat function of about £6,000. Total
cost of BRIG meetings to government estimated at £24,000 per annum.
UK Habitat Groups costs – 7 groups, each meets once or twice per annum at an
estimated cost to public sector of £14,000 per annum in T&S and £28,000 per
annum in staff time (some support is provided by JNCC at an additional estimated
cost of £6,000). Estimated total cost to public sector of UK Habitat Group meetings
is £45,000 per annum. The BRIG review of the scope and costs of activity for UK
Habitat Groups provides a more detailed breakdown of activity and some of the
associated costs.
Additional savings may also be possible if a simplified approach to the high-level UK
advisory process (UKSC) is adopted.