Accredited official statistics

Funding for Biodiversity

Updated 2 December 2025

Applies to England

Last updated: 2025

Latest data available: 2023/2024

Introduction

This indicator provides real-term, public sector spending on biodiversity in England. Spending is just one way of assessing the government’s commitment to biodiversity.

In previous publications, this indicator included a second part showing the level of real-term spending on biodiversity in the UK by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with a focus on biodiversity and/or nature conservation. This part of the indicator is no longer shown here, but is published as part of the version of this indicator at the UK level, and has been adjusted to include private sector spend to better align it with the requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It is not possible to disaggregate NGO and private sector spending to country level at this time.

Currently, comprehensive data are not available at the England level on expenditure by NGOs and the private sector. If you would like to see data on this at the England level in the future, please contact us at Biodiversity@defra.gov.uk.

All total expenditure figures in this indicator are presented as financial year data and 2023/2024, for example, refers to the period April 2023 to March 2024.

Data for this indicator can be found in the published datafile.

2025 update – 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 data for public sector spending on biodiversity in England

The 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 data for this indicator should be interpreted with caution. There are over 10 organisations that this indicator sources data from. The data may be published by some of those organisations, but the method we use is to collect data directly from the organisations, specifically at the individual or contact level within those organisations. Data collection this year and last year has proven to be more challenging than usual, which increases our uncertainty in the final estimates. Please refer to the section ‘Caveats and Limitations’ in the Technical annex.

Type of indicator

Pressures indicator

Type of official statistics

Official statistic

Assessment of change

Measure	Assessment	Time period	Result
Public sector expenditure on biodiversity in England	Long term	2000/2001 to 2023/2024	Improving
Public sector expenditure on biodiversity in England	Short term	2018/2019 to 2023/2024	Improving

Notes on the indicator assessment

• The long-term and short-term assessment of these measures is based on a 3% rule of thumb. The base years for these assessments uses a three-year average. See Assessing Indicators.

Key results

In 2023/2024, around £887 million of public sector funding was spent on biodiversity in England; a real-term increase of 264% compared to the £244 million (in 2023/2024 prices) spent in 2000/2001 when the time series began (Figure 1).

Real-term, public sector expenditure on biodiversity increased considerably from 2000/2001 to a peak of around £605 million in 2008/2009 (based on 2023/2024 prices). It then decreased a little over the next 4 years, before peaking again in 2013/2014 at around £612 million. The indicator then displayed annual decreases over the next 4 years. More recently, real-term public sector expenditure on biodiversity in England increased slightly in 2018/2019 and has continued to increase since then, reaching its highest peak of around £887 million in 2023/2024.

Figure 1: Expenditure on biodiversity in England, 2000/2001 to 2023/2024

Source: Defra, JNCC, HM Treasury

Notes about Figure 1

• Data are adjusted for the effects of inflation using the UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator. Data presented here are not directly comparable to those in previous publications because a new deflator is used to prepare each annual update.
• There may be some inconsistencies in the reporting of expenditure from one year to the next (see Technical annex section below for further details).
• Revisions to past data series resulting from improved methodology or access to additional data can mean the chart (and figures) are not directly comparable to those presented in previous publications.

Payments made to farmers and land managers under agri-environment schemes (for instance, Countryside Stewardship, Environmental Stewardship and Sustainable Farming Incentive) account for around 56% in 2023/2024 of annual public sector spending on biodiversity in England. Real-term payments apportioned to this indicator via agri-environment schemes rose by around £77 million in 2023/2024.

The remainder of the observed increase in this year’s indicator is largely due to increased contributions from Natural England and the Environment Agency. Natural England’s expenditure on biodiversity accounted for about 11% of annual public sector spending on biodiversity in England, and in 2023/2024 total actual expenditure increased by around £44 million. Expenditure on biodiversity by the Environment Agency accounted for about 5% of annual public sector spending on biodiversity in England, and total actual expenditure increased by around £28 million in 2023/2024. Increases in actual expenditure in 2023/2024 are noted for other organisations, including the Heritage Lottery Fund (an increase of around £17 million) and the Forestry Commission (an increase of around £14 million).

Further detail

The public sector expenditure indicator is based on a combination of expert opinion together with published and unpublished data from organisations across England. The data are collated by statisticians to provide estimates of public sector spend on biodiversity in England between 2000/2001 and 2023/2024.

The indicator includes direct expenditure on protected areas and conservation measures together with spending on relevant research and development; it generally excludes expenditure on administration and training. Where possible, indirect expenditure (for example, transfers to other organisations) has also been excluded from the indicator to avoid any double counting of financial flows. Judgement has been employed to finalise some components of the totals and the figures should be taken as approximate.

Restructuring of government departments, changes to funding streams and/or projects and the outsourcing of work relating to biodiversity (for example, research and development) mean that there may be some inconsistencies in the reporting of biodiversity expenditure from one year to the next.

The complexities involved in both defining and identifying expenditure on biodiversity mean that the public sector figures are likely to be an underestimation; they do however provide a clear trend of biodiversity expenditure since the beginning of 2000/2001. It is hoped that further development work will lead to improvements in the overall accuracy of future publications.

A full list of public sector organisations included in this indicator together with further details of the methodology used to produce the totals are available in the Technical annex below.

The GDP deflator is a measure of general inflation in the domestic economy – it captures the price changes over a period of time. The deflator is expressed in terms of an index number. It is used here to convert historic prices into constant, 2023/2024 prices, thereby allowing meaningful comparisons to be made between biodiversity expenditure in different years. It does however mean that data presented here are not directly comparable to those in previous publications because a new deflator is used to prepare each annual update.

Relevance

Spending is just one way of assessing the priority that is given to biodiversity within government. Funding for conservation work is critical to delivery of England’s biodiversity strategies.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the many people who have contributed by providing data and to the many colleagues who have helped produce this indicator.

Technical Annex

Methodology

This section describes the methodology used in determining estimates of public sector spending on biodiversity in England. The indicator is based on a combination of estimates and expert opinion with judgment employed to finalise some components of the total. The figures should be taken as approximate.

All total expenditure figures in this indicator are presented as financial year data and 2023/2024, for example, refers to the period April 2023 to March 2024.

Two main sources are used to obtain information for the indicators from a wide range of government organisations; departmental annual reports; and expert contacts in the relevant organisations.

Spending on biodiversity is disaggregated where possible between:

• Spending directly on protected areas and conservation measures.

• Related spending on administration and training.

• Relevant research and development.

• Transfer payments to other organisations (in order to remove double counting of financial flows).

Direct conservation consists of activities that directly protect and promote variety among living organisms. However, direct action is often ineffective unless supported by a range of other activities such as research and development, education and publicity, or even simply administration. Sources of information may not always distinguish between these elements and it is necessary to exercise judgment as to when an item should be included or not, or whether the relevant component relating to direct action should be estimated by expert judgment or by reference to other information. For simplicity, the staff costs associated with implementing biodiversity focused programmes within large organisations are not included.

In practice, because biodiversity spending is not always separately identified within the available sources, or if a single expenditure item includes biodiversity and non-biodiversity elements, an aspect of judgment is sometimes required. One example is the treatment of expenditure through agri-environmental schemes, where an estimate is made of the proportion of total scheme spending that is biodiversity-related.

Given the large number of public sector organisations in England funding activities related to biodiversity and the complexities involved in both defining and identifying relevant expenditure, the figures presented in this indicator are likely to be an underestimation of total biodiversity spend by the UK public sector. They do however provide a clear trend of expenditure on biodiversity since the beginning of 2000/2001.

A further difficulty is that many expenditure items are designed to meet more than one policy objective: an example is tree planting, which promotes biodiversity but might be largely driven by a demand for landscaping. In practice, the assessment by relevant experts of the appropriate share of any spending which can be attributed to biodiversity needs to take into account issues such as the quality of conservation measures and the original intentions of the expenditure.

Finally, given the time period covered by this indicator, it is inevitable that government organisations will be restructured, funding streams will change, projects will come to an end and/or new projects will begin and some biodiversity related expenditure will be outsourced to external organisations. Therefore, although every effort is made to consistently report annual expenditure, there are likely to be some differences in the coverage of the indicator from one year to the next.

Definitional issues concerning spending on biodiversity in England

Access to the countryside

Expenditure on providing access to the countryside has generally been regarded as being for the benefit of society rather than in support of biodiversity. An exception is made for spending on nature reserves, which will include spending on visitor centres and footpaths, but which can be regarded as being for educational and fund-raising purposes. Where expenditure on access is identifiable (for example, expenditure by the Forestry Commission which is specifically allocated to access but not to nature reserves) this is excluded.

Expenditure on National Parks

Much of the spending by the 10 National Parks in England is geared towards services for the public, including access and landscaping. However, some specific expenditure in the form of contributions to Local Biodiversity Action Plans and other activities has been identified. There is also some relevant expenditure that is funded by the agriculture departments in each country. It has not been possible to gather biodiversity-related expenditure from the majority of National Parks due to various reasons but expenditure on agri-environment schemes within National Parks by relevant departments is captured.

Natural resource management

The following spending is excluded on the grounds that it is aimed at managing the use of the environmental assets for the economy, rather than for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity:

• Spending by the Environment Agency on water abstraction licenses.

• Spending by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) on the management of the fishing industry.

• Spending by the Forestry Commission on the management of commercial forests.

Forestry Commission expenditure

Gross expenditure by the Forestry Commission is included, in respect of the broad objective that includes biodiversity in the annual accounts for the Forestry Commission in England; each includes a diverse range of activities in addition to the biodiversity-related activities outlined below. A typical activity is the expansion of native woodland, as this is an important habitat to native animal and plant species. Other activities include management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), creating linkages to isolated woodland remnants and woodland glade management for key moth and butterfly species living in the forests.

Road schemes

Biodiversity protection expenditure has not in the past been separately estimated by the Highways Agency (for the Department for Transport). However, since 2005/2006 the Agency has had a separate budget specifically allocated to the overall achievement of the Biodiversity Action Plan targets. It is believed that prior to 2005/2006, the (unallocated) spending on biodiversity was significantly lower. No estimates have been made for these years; therefore, some discontinuity will occur.

Landscape

Estimates of expenditure on land management regarding SSSIs, National Nature Reserves and other protected land areas are included. However, wherever possible expenditure relating to landscaping is excluded, as the main focus of this activity is for aesthetic reasons.

Spending by police forces on Wildlife Crime Units

The only Wildlife Crime Units are the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit in the National Criminal Intelligence Service, mainly funded by Defra, and the Wildlife Crime Unit in the Metropolitan Police.

Other police forces do have individuals who are wildlife crime leads in their area, in some cases, these may be referred to as units. Some officers work full time as wildlife crime officers, others incorporate wildlife crime duties in with work on other crime issues. No estimates of these costs are made.

Spending by the Metropolitan Police is difficult to capture as no separate budgets for wildlife crime were allocated until 2004 to 2005. Costs noted are estimated staff costs supplied by the Metropolitan Police. Spending in earlier years is assumed to be negligible on the understanding that prior to 2004 to 2005 much of the work was either carried out in the individuals’ own time or while they were engaged in other duties.

Financing issues

National Lottery funding

National Lottery funding from both the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Big Lottery Fund is classified as government spending on the grounds that government bodies decide who and what to fund. The People’s Postcode Lottery in not currently included.

Areas of expenditure on biodiversity in England not currently included in this indicator

There are several areas where funding for biodiversity in England is not currently included in this indicator. Examples of this include spending on local nature reserves and nature conservation by local authorities. Where gaps are identified, they can only be resolved if robust data from reliable sources are available across the entire time series for that funding stream, otherwise the trend assessment (particularly over the long term) will be affected.

Assumptions and adjustments made to the data

Where the relevant data are available, expenditure figures relating to biodiversity protection are separated out from general environmental spending. When this breakdown is not possible, estimates are made as to how much of the total spending can be attributed towards biodiversity protection. These estimates are mostly made through contacts within the organisations concerned, ideally by the person responsible for the relevant programme.

Although this process should mean that all relevant spending is captured, it does mean that we are sometimes dependent upon expert judgment which can have limitations. The process by which experts arrive at their judgment may not be documented, and subsequent assessments may not be made on a consistent basis. Also, these experts may have a different view of what constitutes spending on biodiversity and hence the estimates they supply may not always be directly comparable. We do try to maintain consistency by asking experts to explain or justify the reasons for any change in the estimated proportion of spend going on biodiversity.

There are a few cases where it has not been possible to obtain an expert view of the biodiversity-related proportion of the total spend of a scheme. In these cases, a judgment has been made based on the description of the scheme’s priorities.

Where possible, the data included in this indicator are reported on a financial year basis; if this is not possible, data have been allocated to the financial year beginning in the relevant calendar year, for example, 2023 data are included in 2023/2024.

Indicator assessment

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator is a measure of general inflation in the domestic economy – it captures the price changes over time. The deflator is expressed in terms of an index number. It is used here to convert historic prices into constant prices, thereby adjusting for the effects of inflation and allowing meaningful comparisons to be made between biodiversity expenditure in different years. The base year is always set to the most recent year of data available in the time series, therefore, data presented in the current publication are not directly comparable to those in previous publications because a new deflator is used to prepare each annual update.

Once the time series for the public sector spend indicator has been deflated, assessments are made by comparing the difference between the value of the measure in the base year and the value in the end year against a 3% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold. A 3-year average is used to calculate the base year, to reduce the likelihood of any unusual years unduly influencing the assessment.

Where the indicator value has changed by less than the threshold of 3%, the indicator will be assessed as showing ‘little or no change’, otherwise it will be assessed as either decreasing or increasing. The choice of 3% as the threshold is arbitrary but is commonly used across other government indicators; the use of this approach will be kept under review.

The assessment results only reflect the overall change in the measure from the base year to latest year and do not reflect fluctuations during the intervening years. Two assessment periods have been used for the indicator:

• Long term – an assessment of change since the earliest date for which data are available (2000/2001).
• Short term – an assessment of change over the latest 5 years.

Bibliography

• Environmental expenditure statistics, General Government and Specialised Producers data collection handbook, 2007 edition. Eurostat Methodologies and Working papers.

Organisations included in the public sector indicators

• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• Environment Agency
• Forestry Commission
• National Lottery Heritage Fund
• Highways Agency
• Joint Nature Conservation Committee
• Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew
• Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
• Met Police Wildlife Crime Unit
• Ministry of Defence
• Natural England
• The Big Lottery Fund

Caveats and limitations

There are over 10 organisations that this indicator sources data from. The data may be published by some of those organisations, but the method we use is to collect data directly from the organisations, specifically at the individual or contact level within those organisations. Data collection in recent years has proven to be more challenging than usual, which increases our uncertainty in the final estimates.

Development plan

Since our previous publication we have adapted the language and visualisations used in this indicator. We are keen to hear from our users about these changes, as well as our published development plan, please email us.