Once everyone agrees on the FNA’s scope, biodiversity actions should be framed into a logical structure that is clear, quantifiable and written in the right language (accounting/ finance). For this purpose, all relevant biodiversity targets, strategies, results, and actions, should be identified and organized into a logical framework to assist with the costing exercise. The terms used in this framework to assist the costing reflect those used in results-based management (See Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.2: Hierarchy of Inputs to Objectives
The terms in Figure 5.2 may not be evident in an NBSAP or other action plan, but they can be derived by translating information from the plan’s targets, strategies, sub-strategies and actions.
Table 5.2 provides some guidance on translating NBSAP terms into classic logical framework terms.
|NBSAP||Links||Costing Structure Elements|
|National Biodiversity Targets||High-level targets for the country to achieve the NBSAP and other national strategies. Often reflect Aichi Biodiversity Targets.||The elements of the NBSAP may or may not translate effectively to the costing structure, but they should always be linked in a consistent order.||Targets (Results)|
|Strategies (and Sub-strategies)||NBSAP categories that lead to targets (ideally).||Outcomes|
|Actions||A description of how strategies and substrategies are implemented.||Outputs|
|Costable Actions||Disaggregation of actions into specific actions that can be costed with minimum ambiguity.|| ||Outputs|
Inputs/Resources/Unit costs are commonly used in the country budgeting process. They include both recurring and capital costs. This can be valuable input for countries wishing to develop a budget based on the costing process.
It is essential to provide specific, quantified where possible, results for all main strategies. Some countries, like Mexico, identified key milestones to achieve the expected action or results in their NBSAPs and costed these milestones. This resulted in a simpler process, considering their NBSAPs did not have clear results or outcomes. Once the results are defined clearly, the actions can be examined to ensure that they are the most appropriate to achieve those results. Putting content into the logical framework (Table 5.2) and defining quantitative outcomes and other results requires a consultative process with NBSAP stakeholders and other partners.
To cost an action, it is necessary to understand various details about that action, including the timeline, scale, location, responsible organization, etc., that help costing in Step 3. This detailed costing is the main objective of the FNA process. If the actions described in the NBSAP are too vague, lack quantitative results or lack spatial definition, estimating budget costs will be arbitrary, indefensible, and thus risk rejection by finance decision makers. In most countries, the FNA process has provided valuable input for decision makers on how to better design biodiversity action plans oriented towards more concrete results and expected outcomes. This approach makes actions more traceable and costable and, ultimately, can support a prioritization process (see Step 2). For example, in Table 5.3, alternative actions designed to reduce white rhino poaching are compared. Even before making detailed costs estimates, we can compare different approaches and assess approaches in a consultative manner.
Table 5.3: Analysis of Alternative Actions to Achieve a Result
|Expected result||Optional actions to achieve result||Analysis|
|Rapid impact||Long-term impact||Cost||Most cost effective shortterm option||Combination of all or several options|
|Decrease poaching incidents of white rhino by 30%||Public education||Low||High||High||X|
|Increase patrolling staff and patrolling equipment||High||Medium||Medium||X||X|
|Legal reform to include illegal hunting of white rhino as a criminal offense||Low||High||Low||X|
The clarified actions and results are taken forward to detailed costing, starting in Step 3. Table 5.4 provides an example of turning a result into a costable action, from Ecuador.
Table 5.4: Example of Results, Strategy, Costable Actions/Key Performance Indicators (KPIS)-Ecuador
|Prioritized Target, Result||Strategy||Costable Action (and KPI)||Cost Details|
|RESULT 2: Biodiversity costs are incorporated into national accounting systems, and national and decentralized development plans, in order to support poverty reduction and improvement of the new national productivity scheme.||02.1. Introduction of biodiversity value into policy formulation cycles||A dedicated unit to address Economic Valuation and Sustainable Finance (UVESF) will be established at the Ministry of Environment (MAE).||Technical team of the UVESF: One senior economist, one finance expert, three junior accountants|
|At least three valuation projects and other stand-alone initiatives are identified in the MAE (SCAN, Coastal/ Marine Project, PSF) to be managed by the new UVESF.||Operational costs|
|Key national environmental accounts are completed.||Research plan (studies)|