Nature Restoration Fund: interim evaluation
Interim evaluation of the Nature Restoration Fund (2021-2024). The report examines the key outputs, outcomes and impacts of the fund, assessing its contribution to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
Footnotes
1 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045.
2 This figure is an aggregated estimate of the total area that NRF projects supported and operated over, based on available reporting data. This figure has some caveats and should be interpreted in its full context. Further detail is provided in the main report.
3 NatureScot Nature Networks Toolbox. Local authorities have been given access to an AECOM EcoUplift mapping tool, in addition to what is publicly available through the NatureScot Toolbox.
4 Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
6 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045
7 The NRF supersedes the Biodiversity Challenge Fund, a competitive fund administered by NatureScot which awarded three rounds of funding between Feb 2019 – May 2021. Biodiversity Challenge Fund.
8 Development funding is applied for separately, with potential to then apply for delivery funding. Each time, the applicant has to apply to an open competitive round, with no guarantee a delivery project will be supported.
9 The Edinburgh Process strand accounted for a little more than half (roughly 54%) of all NRF funding distributed over the three years included in this evaluation, 2021/22 – 2023/24.
10 IPBES Home page | IPBES secretariat.
11 Since Development Phase projects use different milestone reporting, the evaluation team did not receive any outcome reporting for these projects, and consequently did not evaluate their outcomes. They are still included in the reporting of Outputs, however, as well as in case studies.
12 The figures in this report are based on the return forms submitted by local authorities and project leads to the Scottish Government and NatureScot. While these forms provide valuable overview data, they may not fully capture the entire scope of activities, evidence-gathering, communications and outputs that projects engaged with around nature restoration and biodiversity. The data should be regarded as ‘self-reported’ data, based on what was available to report on and was reported at the time, for each year. Some figures should be treated as estimates.
13 A diverse set of milestones were available to choose from with standard reporting for the Competitive Fund strand. This flexibility allowed for more detailed reporting but also introduced inconsistencies in data collection and gaps in reporting. For instance, not all projects reported on all relevant milestones (e.g. area of trees planted vs. number of trees planted), resulting in underestimation of certain outcomes. To try and fill known gaps in reporting, for some projects where this could be done robustly, missing data was addressed through estimation. An aggregated metric, "Area supported," was added for all projects to provide a catch-all measure across different milestones (e.g., “Area (ha) improved”, “Area (ha) of habitat created”, “Area (ha) of habitat managed”, etc.). “Area supported” is used throughout the Results section and captures all types of nature restoration activity funded via the NRF.
14 Metrics with high-quality data, providing more reliable results, have been prioritised for inclusion in the Results section of the main report, while those with inconsistent or incomplete reporting have been excluded. Access to the evaluation framework with full results can be provided upon request.
15 Excludes 3 projects that were withdrawn. To avoid double counting, 11 projects given additional funding are counted once.
16 Includes 3 projects subsequently withdrawn and 11 projects that successfully applied for additional funding.
17 Data not available for six applicants.
18 Data not available for six applicants.
19 There were only specific limited circumstances in the Competitive Fund strand when public bodies were eligible to apply, particularly in the first year of the programme and when NRF was able to provide additional funding in January 2023 to local authorities.
20 Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
22 Neighbourhood Ecosystem Fund - Inspiring Scotland
23 Eradicating Stoats | Orkney Native Wildlife Project
25 About Us | Scottish Invasive Species Initiative
26 SMASS, Beachtrack - Scottish Marine Environmental Enhancement Fund
27 Allocated in principle to projects based on application budgets. Refer to Annex 3 for clarifications and terminology used throughout the report.
28 Scottish Government Natural Capital Market Framework.
29 31 projects reported data directly. Values for remaining five projects estimated from ‘area of woodland created’ assuming the Woodland Trust’s recommended tree planting density (1100 trees per ha): Planning and Designing a Woodland - Woodland Trust
30 Two values estimated for length of hedgerows.
31 30 projects reported creating ponds with six projects reporting both the area and number of ponds. This provided the evaluation team with a median value, which was used to estimate pond number for four projects and pond area for 19 projects.
32 Pond area estimated for 19 projects
33 Reporting metrics captured data on both protecting and restoring habitats from INNS. Since the distinction between these two categories is not clear and to streamline reporting, metrics that recorded the area (or length) of habitat protected or restored were combined by the evaluation team under the term “protected” for simplicity.
34 The INNS species which are listed as priorities within the NRF can be found on NatureScot’s website: Nature Restoration Fund - Priorities for Action | NatureScot
35 Nature-based jobs and skills Implementation Plan 2024-25 | NatureScot
36 Scotland's Economy Scotland’s growing green economy - Scotland's Economy
37 Within the NRF, advance payments are only made in strict circumstances by exception with evidence of cashflow issues, invoice submitted, and no further payments made until receipted invoice submitted. The standard process is payment in arrears.
38 Note: Output A and Output B of the Scottish Government’s evaluation framework were not applicable for the Edinburgh Process and consequently no evaluation against these was conducted.
39 “Supported” captures all NRF-funded activities (e.g. habitat created, restored, managed etc.). See Methods section for further clarification.
40 In 2021/22 local authorities did not explicitly report number of projects. Project numbers perhaps unclear in some cases, because a summary description of various work and measures, potentially across a range of locations and projects, was provided in the first set of returns in 2021/22. For 16 local authorities it was possible to estimate the number based on the project description. However, the estimated number of 78 projects in 2021/22 underestimates the actual number, since 12 local authorities provided no indication of number of projects.
41 Based on figures of ongoing projects submitted by 55 local authorities across 22/23 and 23/24. 6 local authorities who submitted forms, did not provide a response to this metric. Forty-one projects were reported as not completed in 22/23, 61 in 23/24 and 7 projects were terminated. These numbers add up to 446 projects while 497 were reported to have been supported. However, this is in line with what was reported by councils, who did not consistently report across these fields. This data was not reported in 21/22.
42 Overspent means that the local authority reported a total project spend that exceeded the total NRF funding received. Local authorities did not report on how the additional spending was financed.
43 Shetland, Argyll and Bute, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, Eilean Siar and Scottish Borders.
44 This figure excludes the 32 projects that did not report delivery of any measures. Exploring these projects highlighted that this was primarily due to a lack of reporting rather than a failure of projects to deliver against the listed outcomes. These projects were explored in greater depth and manually assigned outcomes by SAC Consulting.
45 Unlike the Competitive Fund strand, where projects reported against the long-term outcomes, Edinburgh Process projects reported delivery against Priority Themes. However, these NRF Priority Themes are broadly aligned with the long-term outcomes.
46 NatureScot (2024) Nature Networks explained.
47 Only 20 of 30 local authorities reported on whether opportunity areas were on council-owned land.
48 Includes two projects for which local authorities failed to assign actions to any programme outcomes. These were reviewed and manually assigned by SAC’s evaluation team.
50 Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) - 2021 Habitat Connectivity Map | NatureScot
52 See Aberdeenshire Council – Ugie Catchment Small Scale Tree
53 Within the ‘Other’ category, projects reported access/consent issues (2), uncertainty about future funding (2), organisational restructuring (1) and the lack of existing nature networks (1).
54Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045
55 Three large scale INNS projects accounted for 93% of the figured area under Competitive Fund strand, equivalent to 106,000 hectares. Excluding the large-scale INNS projects, the remaining area supported under the Competitive Fund strand amounted to 7,800 hectares. See 3.1.3 Area (ha) where project activities have been undertaken.
56 Four large scale projects accounted for 96% of the figured area under Edinburgh Process, equivalent to 187,659 hectares. Excluding these large-scale projects, the remaining area supported under the Edinburgh Process amounted to 7,447 hectares. See 4.1.1 Area (ha) where project activities have been undertaken.
57 National Planning Framework 4 - gov.scot
58 Climate change: Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029 - gov.scot
59 “Nature Networks across our landscapes will underpin the resilience and health of species and habitats.” (Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045)
60 Scottish Government Natural Capital Market Framework
61 The project team reviewed the regions of Scotland covered by Competitive Fund strand case studies and prioritised Edinburgh Process projects to fill any gaps.
62 The interview guide for the Edinburgh Process case studies was structured differently from that of the Competitive Fund strand to garner insights at both specific project level, as well as wider insights at local authority level, across multiple project years. This approach ensures case studies illustrate local authority project delivery beyond the information provided in individual return forms.
Contact
Email: biodiversity@gov.scot