Association of Local Government Ecologists Implications of the Comprehensive Spending Review on biodiversity work within local government

Transcription

1 Association of Local Government Ecologists Implications of the Comprehensive Spending Review on biodiversity work within local government Main Findings Financial Year 2011 to 2012

2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE) represents over 300 professional ecologists working in local government in the UK. In partnership with others, the Association supports and develops the nature conservation work of local authorities. The Association aims to: promote and develop good principles and practice of nature conservation in local government; provide a forum for the exchange of information and ideas on nature conservation; provide regular advice on nature conservation to the local authority associations; provide advice to, and liaise with, other bodies working on related matters. 1.2 During the summer of 2011 ALGE undertook a survey of its members in England to establish what effect, if any, the cuts in local authority budgets was having on biodiversity work in local government. The survey was carried out online and the results analysed automatically using Survey Monkey. The results are based on a response rate of approximately 13% of all ALGE members in England. 1.3 ALGE intends to repeat this survey during the coming financial year 2012/2013 to see if current trends, as set out below, are continuing and to assess whether the expected impacts of this on biodiversity work within local government have occurred. 1.4 It is to be stressed that the results discussed below are from only those authorities that already employ a member of staff in an ecology or biodiversity role (e.g. an ALGE member is employed in that authority). There is no data from local authorities that do not employ an ALGE member. 1.5 The results should also be seen in the context of another ALGE survey undertaken in 2004 of all local authorities in the UK. One of the key findings from that survey showed that only 35% of local authorities in England had access to an in-house ecologist. In other words, 65% of Local Planning Authorities had no reported expertise in ecology. The survey results were based on a 35% response rate of all UK local planning authorities.

3 2.0 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 2.1 It will come as no surprise to find that the results of this survey show that local government s capacity to assist in the delivery of the a wide range of biodiversity initiatives (see paragraph 2.7 below) is already limited and is being further eroded, in some cases at a rapid rate. 2.2 The results of this survey are based on responses from ALGE members who represent the 35% of English authorities that do have some in-house ecological expertise. In the absence of any contrary evidence, logic would tell us that a large proportion of the remaining 65% of local authorities (that do not have in-house expertise) are probably not currently actively engaged in such a wide range of biodiversity initiatives and projects. They simply do not have the expertise and capacity, and without this, are likely to be lagging behind. 2.3 In looking to the next 12 to 24 months, it is likely that pressure will increase to cut biodiversity services in local government even further. It is difficult to conceive how the small proportion (35%) of local authorities with ecological expertise will manage to maintain existing services let alone engage and become active in many of the new initiatives outlined in section 2.7 below. It is even more difficult to foresee a situation where local authorities without ecological expertise and current biodiversity budgets will be able to find new resources that might enable them to catch up. 2.4 It is likely that all local authorities will find it increasing difficult to fulfil their various statutory obligations, and for many it will become impossible to become involved in other projects that are only discretionary without any mandatory requirement or additional resources to become involved. 2.5 It seems very likely that local government will find it even harder to fulfil its statutory duty under the NERC Act (2006) where it should have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in all aspects of its work. And while local planning authorities are also bound by various statutory obligations for biodiversity when exercising their various planning functions, they will have less expertise and resources to work with, and the probability is that more planning decisions will be made without taking biodiversity into account. 2.6 Increased pressure in delivering these statutory duties needs to be considered alongside other changes within local government. The condensed National Planning Policy Framework and delegation of decision making to the very local level make it all the more important that professional ecological advice is available. Similar cuts to Natural England s budget have reduced their capacity to support local authorities, and others, through the provision of ecological expertise, meaning that ecologists retained in local government are often supporting more than just their own authority. Current, and future losses, will significantly impact the availability of such expertise and any efficiencies sought after in terms of applying and implementing wildlife legislation, such as the Habitats Directive, will be hard won. 2.7 Central Government has identified local government as a key player in the delivery of many aspects of biodiversity conservation in England. This has been emphasised in the Government s White Paper: The Natural Choice (June 2011), the new England

4 Biodiversity Strategy (2011), and the Lawton Report: Making Space for Nature (2011) 2.8 However, many of the initiatives in the above documents rely upon local government playing an active role and often taking the lead at the local level. Such initiatives include: o Biodiversity Offsetting o Local Nature Partnerships o Nature Improvement Areas o Protecting natural value through the planning system o Improving the quality of local wildlife sites o Restoring habitat connectivity at the landscape scale o Engaging and involving local communities in local projects o Planning for green infrastructure 2.9 It seems increasingly unlikely that local government will have the capacity to engage in these initiatives in the way Central Government would wish Never before, have so few, been expected to do so much, with so little!

5 3.0 MAIN FINDINGS 3.1 A full breakdown of the results for each question is presented in the appendix. Below is a summary of the main findings and a brief commentary on the implications for future biodiversity work within local government. 3.2 Re Q1. Total Cuts: Cuts in biodiversity services are by no means uniform. There is considerable variation between local authorities in the total percentage of cuts being applied, with a range between 5% and 100% of total budgets. 3.3 The average is a 19% cut in the budget available for biodiversity work. The cuts need to be considered in the context of the budget size, which for biodiversity is often small, covering a handful of staff at most and very little, if any, activities budget. Therefore any cut to such a budget can significantly impact the authority s capacity to undertake biodiversity work. 3.4 Re Q2. Proportion of Cuts Across Each LA: 8% of respondents report that they are experiencing cuts greater than the average across their authority, while nearly half report that their cuts are proportionate to those being applied elsewhere in their authority, and 24% report that the cuts in biodiversity work in less than the average for the authority. 3.5 Re Q3. Areas of Biodiversity Work Being Affected: Respondents were asked to report on the cuts being applied to thirteen areas of biodiversity work, many of which support the priorities of the Natural Environment White Paper (see Table 1 for a summary with a full breakdown). 3.6 In ten of the thirteen areas of work, respondents report that the service is undergoing at least a 60% cut in budget. 3.7 Not surprisingly, 96% of respondents reported that they currently provide Support for the Planning Service (one of the primary roles for most ALGE members is providing input into the planning service). 38% report that this service will be cut or reduced as a result of the overall budget cuts in It should be noted that this nearly 40%reduction in service across England, comes at the same time as reductions in the level of planning advice offered by Natural England. 3.8 In contrast, there are some notable areas of work where less than half of the local authorities are currently engaged in such work. For instance, only 45% of respondents reported that their authority was undertaking work on Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping and of these, 68% were going to experience cuts in that service (with 38% reporting that all work will be cut during 2011). This is of particular concern given that biodiversity opportunity mapping is likely to be a key element for a local planning authority aiming to introduce a local Biodiversity Offsetting Strategy. 3.9 Likewise, only 54% of authorities report that they are undertaking Ecological Restoration Projects, and of these, 46% are undergoing cuts in budget (with 20% reporting that all work will be cut during 2011) Also, only 15% of the respondents reported that they were involved with Marine Conservation Projects (this is probably because fewer authorities have a

6 coastline), although a worrying trend is that 75% of the authorities involved in marine work reported a full (25%) or partial (50%) cut in this work Prior to 2011, 100% of the respondents reported that they had been providing financial support for their Local Environmental Records Centre. However, 44% reported in the survey that they would be cutting or reducing their support % of respondents reported that they currently support local biodiversity grants or local community biodiversity projects, and 90% of respondents provide support for their Local Biodiversity Partnership. The survey showed that these are two areas of work where cuts will have a very significant impact: o 50% of authorities report that they are cutting all funding for local grants and local community groups and a further 43% report that their budgets are being reduced. o 26% of authorities are cutting all of their funding support for local partnerships and 34% are reducing their budgets % of respondents stated that they currently have a training budget, but 72% report that this will be cut or reduced. Area of biodiversity work facing cuts % of respondents with an existing budget for this type of work % of respondents with a budget (see column 2) facing full or partial cuts in the service Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping 45% 68% Ecological Restoration Projects 54% 46% Biodiversity Grants & Support for Local Community s Work 75% 93% Management of Council Land for Biodiversity 78% 67% Local Environmental Records Centres 100% 44% Local Wildlife Sites Management 83% 57% Marine Conservation Work 15% 75% Countryside Management 54% 85% LBAP Officers 86% 68% Support for LBAP Partnerships 90% 60% Support for Planning Services 96% 38% Corporate BAP Work 67% 72% Training Budget 86% 72% Table 1 Summary Of Results For Q Re Q4. Number of Biodiversity Staff Lost: 26% of respondents report that they will be losing one member of staff and 18% report that they will lose between 2-4 staff during One authority reported losing over 5 of its biodiversity team There are also signs that staff losses will continue over the next couple of years, with 20% of respondents reporting that they expect to lose at least one member of staff during 2012/2013, and 14% report that they expect to lose another member of staff during 2013/ Re Q5. Proportion of Biodiversity Team Lost: Individual staff losses as shown in response to Q4 above should be placed in context with the total size of team present within an authority. Usually, biodiversity work is covered by only a handful of staff at

7 most, and in many authorities by only one member of staff. Hence any loss in staff can have a significant impact on capacity For the year 2011/2012 when the first cuts were introduced: o 11% of respondents reported a 50-74% cut in team size o 18% of respondents reported a 25-49% cut in team size o 25% of respondents reported a 25% cut in team size o 33% reported that there would be no change in 2011/ For the two following years (2012/2013 and 2013/2014) it appears that this trend is likely to continue, although current figures are not as high as for this financial year. ALGE will seek to verify whether losses are slowing by repeating this survey again in 2012/ Re Q6. What Roles Are Being Cut: Over the period 2011 to 2014 respondents report that the roles being affected by the cuts are wide ranging and currently assist in the delivery of a broad number of biodiversity initiatives; the cuts include the roles of: o Ecologist o BAP Officer o Local Nature Reserve Officer o Countryside Rangers o Local Record Centre Officers o Biodiversity Action Plan Manager o Woodland Officer o Greenspace Team Leader o Greenspace and Community Officer The effect of job cuts is partly masked by the fact that some posts are moving from full time to part time positions, so capacity is reduced even if staff numbers appear the same Re Q7. Projects And Initiatives At Risk: Respondents reported that a wide range of projects and initiatives at risk, including: o Local wildlife sites work o Support for Local Record Centres o Natural environment strategies o Ecological restoration projects o Community projects involving biodiversity o No match funding for EU grant bids o LBAP work o District-wide phase I habitat surveys o Highway verge management for biodiversity o Biodiversity GIS work o Small grants for biodiversity work o Woodland grant schemes o Council land management for biodiversity o Countryside management projects

8 o Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund no longer ring fenced and available budgets are reducing o Many respondents also reported that their partnership working will be affected.

9 APPENDIX - SUMMARY OF FULL SURVEY RESULTS Set out below is a summary of the results obtained from the online survey. Q1. WHAT PERCENTAGE CUTS ARE BEING MADE TO THE BIODIVERSITY BUDGET Respondents report that the range of cuts in their biodiversity budgets run from 5% to 100% with an average of 19%. Q2. ARE CUTS IN BIODIVERSITY WORK PROPORTIONATE TO OTHER CUTS ACROSS THE AUTHORITY? o 28% facing cuts that are greater than across their authority as a whole o 48% are facing similar cuts o 24% are facing cuts less than the average across their authority Q3. IN WHICH AREAS OF BIODIVERSITY WORK ARE THE CUTS BEING INTRODUCED? Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Of the 48% of authorities with a budget for biodiversity opportunity mapping: o 15 % report that they face no cuts in budget o 38 % report that all funding is to be cut so this work will come to an end o 30% report that their budgets are being reduced o 15% report no cuts for this year but possibly in the future 52% of respondents report that they are not doing any work on opportunity mapping Ecological Restoration Projects Of the 54% of authorities with a budget for ecological restoration projects: o 40% report that they face no cuts in budget o 20% report that all funding is to be cut so this work will come to an end o 26% report that their budgets are being reduced o 14% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 46% of respondents report that they are not doing any work on ecological restoration Biodiversity Grants and Support for Local Community Groups Of the 75% of authorities with a budget for biodiversity grants and support for local groups: o 5% report that they face no cuts in budget o 50% report that all funding is to be cut so this work will come to an end o 43% report that their budgets are being reduced o 19% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 25% of respondents report that they have no budgets available for this work

10 Management of Council Land for Biodiversity Of the 78% of authorities with a budget for managing council land for biodiversity: o 19% report that they face no cuts in budget o 5% report that all funding is to be cut so this work will come to an end o 62% report that their budgets are being reduced o 14% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 22% of respondents report that they have not been managing council land for biodiversity Local Environmental Records Centres 100% of respondents report that they have been funding their LRCs: o 15% report that they face no cuts in budget o 15% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer support their LRC o 29% report that their budgets are reducing o 41% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future Local Wildlife Site Management Of the 83% of authorities with a budget for local wildlife sites management: o 17% report they face no cuts in budget o 17% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer be able to support the management of local wildlife sites o 37% report that their budgets are reducing o 29% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 17% of respondents report that they have not had a budget for Local Wildlife Sites Management Marine Conservation Work Of the 15% of authorities with a budget for marine conservation work: o 0% report that they face no cuts in budget o 25% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer be involved in marine conservation work o 50% report that their budgets are reducing o 25% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 84% of respondents are not involved in marine conservation work Countryside Management Of the 54% of authorities with a budget for countryside management work: o 0% report that they face no cuts o 21% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer undertake any countryside management work o 64% report that their budgets are reducing o 14% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 46% of respondents report that they have no budget for countryside management LBAP Officers Of the 86% of authorities with a budget for LBAP Officers: o 8% report that they face no cuts o 56% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer support and LBAP Officer o 12% report that their budgets are reducing o 24% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 14% of respondents report that they have no budget for LBAP Officers

11 Support for LBAP Partnerships Of the 90% of authorities with a budget to support LBAP Partnership: o 23% report that they face no cuts o 26% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer support their local biodiversity partnership o 34% report that their budgets are reducing o 15% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future Only 10% of respondents report that they currently have no budgets to support their LBAP Partnership Support for Planning Services Of the 96% of authorities that report that they support their planning service: o 58% report that they face no cuts o 4% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer provide an ecological support for their planning services o 35% report that their budgets are reducing 4% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future Only 4% of respondents report that they currently have no budget to provide support to planning services. NOTE This is not surprising since the survey is of ALGE members. Corporate BAP Work Of the 67% of authorities that report that they undertake council-wide biodiversity work: o 11% report that they face not cuts o 17% report that all funding is to be cut so they will no longer have any councilwide biodiversity projects o 55% report that their budgets are reducing o 17% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 33% of respondents report that they currently have no budget for council-wide biodiversity initiatives Training Budget Of the 86% of authorities that report having a training budget for biodiversity staff: o 24% report that they face no cuts o 12% report that all funding is to be cut so they will have no training opportunities o 60% report that their budgets are reducing o 4% report no cuts this year but possibly in the future 14% of respondents report that they currently have no budget for training

12 Q4. HOW MANY BIODIVERSITY STAFF WILL BE LOST AS A RESULT OF THE CUTS During 2011/2012: 26% of respondents report that they will be losing one member of staff 18% of respondents report that they will be losing between 2-4 members of staff one authority reported that they were losing over 5 members of staff During 2012/2013: 20% of respondents report that they already know that they will lose one member of staff (although no authorities reported more than one member of staff is likely to be lost) During 2013/2014: 14% of respondents report that they already know that they will lost one member of staff (although no authorities reported more than one member of staff is likely to be lost) Q5. WHAT IS THE PROPORTION OF STAFF CUTS BEING MADE TO THE BIODIVERSITY SERVICE For 2011/2012: 50-74% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 11% of respondents 25-49% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 18% of respondents 25% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 25% of respondents 33% of respondents report that the size of their team will remain unaffected For 2012/2013: 100% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 7% of respondents 25-49% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 14% of respondents 76% of respondents report that the size of their team will remain unaffected For 2013/2014: 100% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 8% of respondents 50-74% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 8% of respondents 25-49% reduction in the size of the team are reported by 8% of respondents 75% of respondents report that the size of their team will remain unaffected

13 Q6. WHAT BIODIVERSITY ROLES ARE BEING CUT? Over the period 2011 t respondents report that the roles being affected by the cuts are wide ranging and assist in the delivery of a broad number of biodiversity initiatives; the cuts include the roles of: Ecologist BAP Officer Local Nature Reserve Officer Countryside Rangers Local Record Centre Officers Biodiversity Action Plan Manager Woodland Officer Greenspace Team Leader Greenspace and Community Officer The effect of job cuts is partly masked by the fact that some posts are moving from full time to part time positions, so capacity is reduced even if staff numbers appear the same. Q7. WHAT LOCAL PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES ARE NOW AT RISK? Examples of the projects and initiatives at risk include: Reduction in local wildlife sites work Support for the Local Record Centre Natural environment strategy Ecological restoration projects Community projects involving biodiversity No match funding for EU grant bids LBAP work District-wide phase I habitat survey Highway verge management for biodiversity Biodiversity GIS work Small grants for biodiversity work Woodland grant schemes Council land management for biodiversity Countryside management projects Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund no longer ring fenced and available budgets are reducing Many respondents report that their partnership working will be affected