ALGE's eight service areas (options for action)

The information presented here in Part 4 should prove particularly valuable in considering the alternatives for cross-cutting delivery of services for biodiversity in the context of Challenge, Consult, Compare, and Compete.

Part 4 presents eight service areas and a very wide range of activities for biodiversity that may be incorporated into any local authority's service. The activities shown provide options that may prove particularly useful when an authority comes to explore how it wishes to progress biodiversity as an element of its Community Strategy (this being a requirment in England under Section 48 of Circular 04/01 - see Part 3).

The statutory and policy basis for each service area along with selected headline activities are shown in Tables 4.1 to 4.8. A more comprehensive menu of biodiversity activities is also provided in Appendix 2. The Tables and Appendix also suggest indicators and some targets for these activities.

The 8 Service Areas are as follows:

• See Table 4.1 - Political Leadership and Democratic Accountability
• See Table 4.2 - Encouraging Local Co-ordination and Partnership on Biodiversity
• See Table 4.3 - Data Collection and Use
• See Table 4.4 - Planning Policy and Development Control
• See Table 4.5 - Enabling Community Involvement, Education and Participation
• See Table 4.6 - Management of Local Authority Land
• See Table 4.7 - Assisting Other Land Managers and Owners
• See Table 4.8 - Statutory Responsibility and Professional Competence

All of the activities shown in Tables 4.1 to 4.8 and in Appendix 2 can of course be achieved through a variety of different delivery mechanisms, which will in turn affect the cost of the final service. Local authorities will be able to explore improvements in their service by looking at these activities to see how they can be delivered more economically, efficiently and effectively.

Information on the statutory and policy framework for biodiversity conservation (contained in Part 3 and in Tables 4.1 to 4.8) will help answer the challenge component of Best Value review. In addition, the results from the best value consultation exercises will further underpin why certain biodiversity services should be supported and delivered by the local authority. The results from consultation should also provide the local authority with an idea of service priorities as perceived by local stakeholders, community groups, and conservation organisations.

It should be possible, through the "benchmarking process", for local authorities to compare the results of their own actions with their own past performance, and with those of other similar authorities. This may lead to the identification of alternative means of service delivery or even different service providers. Such information should then assist in indicating how a service competes with its alternatives, and how improvements in economy might be achieved. Review of the various activities will also help identify alternative activities that would lead to a more worthwhile outcome (e.g. more biodiversity), thereby representing a more efficient and effective use of resources.

Part 4 also suggests a range of specific performance indicators for many activities along with examples of targets that might be considered as the minimum service standard for that activity.

It is very unlikely that any one authority would wish or be able to implement all of the activities shown in Tables 4.1 to 4.8 or in Appendix 2. These lists do, however, illustrate the great variety of approach that is available to local authorities when considering how they might best deliver biodiversity as part of their overall service provision. As such, when choosing what they might do, the lists demonstrate that local authorities have enormous flexibility and discretion at their finger tips. With such a wide range of potential activities, each local authority will be able to select those that are most relevant and practicable for their own area and circumstances. The lists also provide a means to compare and assess whether particular biodiversity objectives could be achieved more effectively, efficiently or economically by employing a different approach, or by setting different targets, or by employing a different delivery mechanism.

The approach taken with this document is to avoid being too prescriptive but to offer up suggestions for different types of indicator against the eight core service areas shown above. The tables in Part 4 provide an overview of activities that may be undertaken; along with a wide range of possible indicators and targets for each activity. Many of the various activities shown in the Tables (and Appendix 2) will in all probability be implemented by more than one department or directorate; in other words they are deliberately presented as being "cross-cutting".

Finally, the Audit Commission (2001) in their "Voluntary quality of life and cross-cutting indicators for local authorities" have distinguished four types of indicator; they have prioritised outcome indicators over input, output and contextual indicators. This is because the ultimate results of an authority's actions are best judged by their outcome, rather than by the resource inputs, the number of documents output, or the context within which they work. Examples of these four types of indicators include:

Context Indicators:	population or land area of local authority; number of SPAs, SSSIs or SINCs.
Inputs Indicators:	number of ecologists employed, or budgets spent on biodiversity.
Outputs Indicators:	number of local habitat or species actions plans published.
Outcome Indicators:	increase in the number of otters present; increase in extent of priority habitat.

ALGE's Best Value Questionnaire (see below) uses questions linked to these four indicator types.

ALGE believes that information on all of the indicators proposed are ultimately capable of collection. However, at this stage, it is expected that local authorities will most easily be able to answer questions relating to Inputs, Context and most Outputs, but may have trouble in reporting accurately on many Outcome indicators. Local authorities should therefore consider developing and implementing (as part of their Best Value Improvement Plans - see Part 5) performance monitoring systems for the future that are capable of gathering and reporting on data about the outcome of their biodiversity activities.

In some cases, the purpose of indicators will be to alert councils to the need to initiate action, rather than to measure their performance as such.

ALGE's draft biodiversity Best Value questionnaire

A draft questionnaire designed to generate best value information for biodiversity action is included as Appendix 3. The questionnaire has been developed to enable local authorities to report on current performance against the sorts of indicators outlined in Tables 4.1 to 4.8. The draft questionnaire will be used in a pilot with a sample of ALGE members, and will then be circulated to all local authorities in England and Wales.

Generating national baseline information

ALGE intends to use the questionnaire to consult every local authority in England and Wales, with the aim of assembling baseline information about current action and also to identify where there are gaps in service delivery. The results from this exercise will indicate, at the generic level, where local authorities are doing well and where there is still room for improvement. In reporting on this exercise, local authorities will not be mentioned specifically and results will remain anonymous.

Applying it to individual local authority Best Value Reviews

It is hoped that local authorities can also use the questionnaire themselves to feed into their own Best Value Review Process so that the actions they are reporting on are comparable with those used by other authorities as well - thus assisting with benchmarking (comparing what is done and what it costs, and what is achieved in terms of outputs and outcomes). Local authorities may also be able to use the basic elements of the questionnaire to consult with local stakeholders and partners when seeking views on their current performance, on how they might improve and how their priorities might be changed.

Important note

In preparing this questionnaire, ALGE is aware that some questions may be difficult to answer at the present time because relevant information may not have been collected by local authorities in the past. However, the questions posed are thought to probe some of the most important issues for Best Value review. The ability to be able to answer such questions in the future should, however, be considered when preparing the authority's Best Value Improvement Plan (see section 5).