Nature Restoration Fund: interim evaluation

3 Competitive Fund strand outputs, outcomes and challenges faced

This section presents the results of the data analysis for the Competitive Fund strand. The section structure reflects the Scottish Government evaluation framework and logic model as set out in 2 Methods. It covers the outputs (3.1 Competitive Fund strand: Output indicators) and outcomes (3.2 Competitive Fund strand: Outcomes), as well as challenges and lessons learned (3.3 Competitive Fund strand: Challenges faced; 3.4 Building the evidence base for future nature restoration). Selected insights from case studies are drawn into these sections as relevant.

3.1 Competitive Fund strand: Output indicators

Between 2021 and 2024, the Competitive Fund strand of the Nature Restoration Fund provided £16.21 million in funding, supporting 208^[15] projects. The projects funded under the Competitive Fund have supported nature recovery in over 114,000 hectares, through a wide variety of actions to create, restore and enhance habitats and ecological connectivity.

3.1.1 Number of projects established for nature restoration

Over the three-year period, the NRF received 452 applications, of which 222^[16] were successful in being awarded (49%). The number of applications declined over the three-year period from 199 in 2021/22 to 80 in 2023/24, while the percentage of successful applications increased from 31% in 2021/22 to 60% in 2022/23 and 70% in 2023/24 (Figure 2). The decline between 2022/23 and 2023/24, observed both at the expression of interest stage and the application stage, may partly be attributed to the introduction of multi-year funding in 2022/23, allowing recipients of these longer-term projects to focus on project delivery rather than reapplying annually. Increased applicant familiarity with the programme and NatureScot’s feedback to unsuccessful applicants may have strengthened applications over time and boosted the success rate. There is continued and strong demand for NRF funds and it is not atypical to have the greatest number of applications early in the introduction of a new programme.

Information was available for 102 unsuccessful applications. Nearly half (49%) of these were either withdrawn (33) or did not proceed to a full application (17), which may indicate that many who initially expressed interest may have lacked the time or resources to complete the process. Among the remaining unsuccessful applications, 14% were declined due to unclear activities or outcomes, while 10% were misaligned with NRF priorities, and others were unsuccessful for poor value for money (6), ineligibility (3), or lack of partnerships (3). Some were deprioritised in favour of stronger proposals (3) or directed to alternative funding sources (3). These figures suggest that many were unsuccessful due to strategic funding decisions or misalignment with NRF objectives.

3.1.2 Diversity of organisations and landowners engaging with nature restoration through NRF

In 2021/22, the Competitive Fund strand of the NRF saw a higher proportion of successful applicants who had previously received funding from NatureScot. This trend reversed in subsequent funding years. In 2021/22, the higher proportion of successful applicants in receipt of previous funding from NatureScot is to be expected, as funding was initially targeted towards existing and known initiatives (Figure 3).

These findings highlight that the balance was initially towards existing customers. However, over the first three years of the fund, this balance switched, with funding being increasingly secured by organisations, landowners and managers who had not previously received NatureScot funding.

The majority of successful applicants (91%) that had previously received NatureScot funding were registered charities/trusts (Figure 4). While charities also made up a high proportion of applicants who had not previously received funding, applicants without prior funding were more likely to include private individuals/ companies (and to a lesser extent public bodies), highlighting the NRF’s success in opening opportunities to a broader spectrum of organisations.

Registered charities and trusts accounted for 55.6% of applicants across the first three years (Figure 5). As a result, it is not surprising that they accounted for the highest percentage of successful applications (i.e. 63%: 139 of 222 projects). As shown in Figure 5, registered charities/trusts, and public bodies^[19] tended to have the highest success rate (77% and 83% respectively) with partnership / consortium lead projects having the lowest (31%). Few applications were received from constituted community groups, indicating potential barriers to participation. For example, lack of land ownership requires additional support and cooperation with landowners, alongside sufficient time and commitment from volunteers to administer projects. The following case study is an example from a community group which had to overcome these barriers:

• Case study: Community driven projects like Turning Tarmac into Wetland, Rewilding Kilminning, Crail, Fife are dependent on motivated volunteers to deliver on-the-ground works and to write and submit the applications. This project involved the rewilding of a derelict site, acquired by the community through a Community Asset Transfer, and transforming it into a welcoming public space, with enhanced value for wetland and meadow habitats and a plethora of species.

These findings suggest that organisations accustomed to grant writing, such as charities/trusts and public bodies, are more likely to succeed. This may point to a need for additional support or training in grant-writing. Organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations^[20] and TSI Scotland Network have the potential to provide such support.^[21] Furthermore, in April 2024, the NRF co-funded the ‘Neighbourhood Ecosystem Fund’ which is administered by Inspiring Scotland.^[22] This project is proactively supporting the development of community projects and offers support for grant writing and other preparatory actions.

With respect to the 102 unsuccessful applications, for which data was available, 68 applicants (67%) had not previously received NRF funding. Data on whether unsuccessful applicants had previously received NatureScot funding was only available for 21 applicants, 6 of which (29%) had not previously received funding. With the low level of reporting, this figure should be treated with caution.

3.1.3 Area (ha) where project activities have been undertaken

Over the 2021/22 to 2023/24 funding period, the Competitive Fund strand of the NRF supported actions to restore nature on a total of 114,000 hectares across 208 projects (Figure 6). Three large scale INNS projects accounted for 93% of this area (106,000 hectares). While the project “Eradication of Invasive Non-Native Stoat from Orkney” was targeted to Orkney and its linked isles,^[23] the other two projects had significant geographical scope with “Biosecurity for Seabird Islands” encompassing 38 unique islands/islands groups^[24] and “Scottish Invasive Species Initiative (SISI)” targeting watercourses across northern Scotland covering an area of over 29,500 km².^[25]

Excluding these large-scale INNS projects, the remaining area supported amounted to 7,800 hectares. It is important to note that not all projects report area-based metrics, particularly in the marine and coastal environment. For example, of 57 coastal and marine projects, 15 reported milestone data, though only five included area-based figures. Actions such as seagrass restoration, mini buoy deployment, and the development of a BeachTrack app^[26] demonstrate that NRF-supported restoration extends beyond land-based hectare metrics.

The geographic distribution of Competitive Fund strand projects varied across Scotland. Over the first three years of NRF funding, the local authority areas which were awarded the most Competitive Fund strand funding were Highlands (£2.26 million, 28 projects), Fife (£1.02 million, 14 projects) and Argyll and Bute (£0.99 million, 12 projects). Three local authorities did not receive any Competitive Fund strand funding: East Renfrewshire (2 applications), Inverclyde (0 applications) and Midlothian (2 applications). As the Competitive Fund invites applications from any location in Scotland, this geographic distribution of funding and projects reflects the number of successful applications made at the time and their respective project locations. The NatureScot website provides more information on the geographic distribution of NRF projects and a set of storymaps.

The greatest area supported was in 2021/22, primarily due to a large island INNS project covering 58,700 hectares – over half of the total area supported during the three years. However, even excluding the large-scale INNS projects, 2021/22 still supported the highest hectarage of nature. This may be attributed to directly-allocated funding provided in 2021, when NRF funding was targeted at existing initiatives that were already well-positioned for rapid implementation, with permissions secured, landowners and partners engaged, and strategies in place. Some projects that remain active and ongoing since 2022 are still to report data on area supported, so annual hectare figures may change as more data from projects is reported.

By 31 March 2024, 208 distinct projects were funded, of which 160 (77%) were successfully completed and 48 (23%) remained ongoing as planned. Several projects had faced changes or extensions due to unforeseen challenges (e.g. change of location, access / physical constraints, increased delivery timescales, increasing costs).

3.1.4 Extent of NRF funding awarded under the Competitive Fund strand

The Competitive Fund strand offered £30.7 million for delivery between 2021-2026, of which projects have received a total of £16.21 million as of 31 March 2024.^[27] Funding amounts offered ranged from £3,760 to £2,081,956 (average £146,823), and funding received ranged from £2,106 to £536,716 (average £79,461). Funding received increased annually, with projects receiving £4.37 million in 2021/22, £4.45 million in 2022/23, and £7.39 million in 2023/24.

Across the first three years of the NRF Programme, 78% of the budget allocated to those years was spent. The proportion of the allocated budget that was spent varied each year, with 87% spent in 2021/22, 62% in 2022/23, and 84% in 2023/24. Many receiving organisations complemented NRF funding with match contributions, totalling £7.1 million (£3.43 million cash and £3.66 million in kind). This highlights how the NRF provides an important vehicle to blend public and private financing, extending the impact of public funds by crowding in private investment.^[28]

Of the 128 projects reporting metrics relating to direct action on the ground (e.g. excluding large capital grants and developmental funding), 61 projects (48%) were funded for a single year. The remaining 67 projects (52%) received multi-year funding. Among these multi-year projects, 36 (28%) were still ongoing as of 31 Mar 2024. Therefore, the results below will underestimate the full extent of progress to date.

3.2 Competitive Fund strand: Outcomes

NatureScot categorised each successfully funded project to one of five long-term outcomes (as outlined in 2.1 Logic model for the NRF, including Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes). Most projects (i.e. 87.5%) focused on either the restoration of Habitat and Species, Freshwater, or Coastal and Marine environments. Fewer projects targeted INNS or nature across, and between, towns & cities (Urban) (Figure 7). Funding allocation mirrored this distribution, with 85.5% of the budget allocated to Habitat and Species, Freshwater, and Coastal and Marine projects. Notably, projects often delivered against multiple outcomes, making their assignment to a single theme somewhat arbitrary. For example, several projects undertaken in urban areas were classified as Habitat and Species, while some INNS initiatives, particularly projects targeting rhododendron to restore woodlands, were also categorised as Habitat and Species. This reflects the interconnected nature of the projects, which frequently addressed multiple objectives simultaneously.

The remainder of this section evaluates how projects supported under the Competitive Fund strand have contributed to the NRF’s eight programme outcomes. This draws from 128 projects where relevant data on the eight outcomes was available.

3.2.1 Extent of woodland and hedgerow restoration

Over the first three years of the NRF, the Competitive Fund strand:

• Planted over 194,600 trees
• Created 68.3 km of hedgerows

The first year saw the highest number of trees planted, with 11 projects supporting the planting of 81,000 trees. This value decreased and stabilised in subsequent years (Figure 8). Only three projects reported on tree species planted and they highlighted a range of species including hazel, oak, downy willow and native apple.

The Competitive Fund strand funded the planting of 68.3 km of hedgerows across 16 projects. Hedgerow creation increased each year, with the biggest increase in 2022/23 (Figure 8). Hedgerow creation was added as a standard metric in 2022/23, following its earlier reporting as a bespoke metric in 2021/22, consequently values in 2021/22 may be underestimated. The sharp increase in 2023/24 may partly be driven by a single project, the Luing Restoration Project, which delivered 21 km of hedgerows. This growth may also reflect a wider emphasis on ecological connectivity, aligning with ambitions for Nature Networks.

The following case studies provide illustrative examples of the deployment and impacts of projects which included tree and hedgerow planting:

• Case study: The Dalrymple Wetland Reserve, East Ayrshire planted 690 new native broadleaf trees and 856 new hedgerow shrubs. For this project, the community made the choice to implement this nature restoration project on a field of improved grassland along the village boundary, which they owned. The hedgerows were planted strategically to extend habitat corridors across the landscape, and there is potential for future projects to build on this work.
• Case study: The Black Hills Regeneration Project, Knoydart, Highland allowed deer populations to be reduced to a very low level (0.1 deer/100ha) across the project area (3,000 ha), which will enable the natural regeneration of native tree species. Future phases of the project, over the next five years, include additional tree planting, made more viable and cost-effective through this NRF project.

3.2.2 Extent of improved management of species rich grassland to increase habitat for pollinators

Since it commenced, the Competitive Fund strand of the NRF has restored or created:

• In excess of 282 ha of habitat for pollinators

The area of habitat created or enhanced for pollinators is likely to be underestimated, as several projects that clearly target pollinators did not report on this metric (e.g., DaisyChain: building a coastal meadow network for Edinburgh pollinators; Irvine to Girvan Nectar Network). Additionally, other actions, including hedgerow planting, improving the management of urban greenspaces and wetland creation also provide valuable resources for pollinators and should be considered when assessing the overall impact. The following case study is an example of a project which included measures which will support pollinators:

• Case study: Within the project area, which had formerly been an area of improved grassland, the Dalrymple Wetland Reserve, East Ayrshire project also created 0.24 ha of new meadow and planted 5,000 bulbs. The 856 new hedgerow shrubs will provide a key resource and connectivity for local pollinator species. The community partners will continue to monitor the site for new species moving in, Increased prevalence of pollinators would be a valuable ecosystem service boost for local farmers.

3.2.3 Habitat creation for priority species

Over the three-year period, the Competitive Fund of the NRF supported:

• 22 different actions to protect priority species

Fourteen projects reported 22 bespoke actions targeted to conserve priority species (Figure 9).

A wide range of species were supported, including the Arctic tern, great crested newt, small blue butterfly, pine hoverfly, and Natterjack toad. Species were supported through both action on the ground (e.g. the release of great crested newts enhancing populations of this protected species; planting of kidney vetch, a key food source for the small blue butterfly) alongside surveys and information gathering activities (e.g. migration pathways of wild Atlantic salmon; mapping of mature elm trees).

The area of habitat created, restored or managed for priority species was not captured as a standardised metric. Four projects reported specifically on the area of habitat managed or restored for priority species, totalling 22 hectares. However, a wide range of actions, delivered across many project types, contributed to this outcome. For example, the restoration of riverbank habitats and the planting of riparian woodlands will help protect priority species such as Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and iron blue mayfly. The removal of rhododendron from our ancient rainforests enhances habitat quality for priority species such as the red squirrel, pine martin and marsh fritillary butterfly. The Competitive Fund strand of the NRF therefore supports priority species through a variety of targeted actions, alongside broader actions to protect, enhance and create key habitats.

The following case studies provide illustrative examples of projects which have had direct benefits for priority species:

• Case study: The Landscape Scale Wetland and Connectivity Project, Highland created 26 new ponds across a farm cluster spanning 8,000 ha around the Moray Firth. The project has also re-meandered 1,000m of watercourses, re-wetted and restored a large marsh by creating new scrapes, removing fences, and re-profiling dangerous ditches. This has created a network of habitats important for ground-nesting birds, waders, and the great crested newt, all of which have moved into these habitats already.
• Case study: The Balgavies Loch Sediment Treatment Pond, Angus created an 850,000-litre pond as a defence for the Balgavies Loch Site of Special Scientific Interest against sediment pollution from the surrounding agricultural landscape during heavy rainfall events. The chain of measures has been effective in reducing the amount of field run-off entering the loch, including phosphates and sediment. This protects and maintains an important habitat for species such as water rail, great crested grebe, goldeneye, teal and wigeon.

3.2.4 Natural flood management measures

As of March 2024, the NRF Competitive Fund strand has:

• Created and restored over 314 ha of wetlands
• Created approximately 300 ponds and scrapes totalling 31 ha^[31]
• Re-meandered 4.4 km of watercourses
• Reconnected 5.1 km of backwater

Habitats such as wetlands and ponds store large quantities of water, slowing the rate that rainfall enters rivers and streams. Re-meandered watercourses can further help to dissipate energy in fast flowing waters, mitigating flooding downstream. Through creation and restoration of wetlands and ponds and re-meandering of rivers, the NRF has contributed to natural flood management, helping Scotland mitigate against the impact of climate change. The following case study gives a worked example of one such project on the ground:

• Case study: The Baron’s Haugh Wetland Project, North Lanarkshire, tackled the issue of an eroding bund separating the nature reserve from the River Clyde. By undertaking a controlled breach of the bund, water now flows more gradually into the reserve, creating new pools and channels that promote a naturally functioning wetland and enhance the overall habitat. This cost-effective approach is estimated to have saved £25 million in projected costs for restoring the bund.

Over the three years 2021-24, the area of wetlands and ponds created increased, with the greatest increase in 2023/24 (Figure 10).

2023/24 saw the greatest length of rivers re-meandered, totalling over 3.4 km. Re-meandering rivers and restoring and creating wetlands are major projects that take time to plan and deliver. Higher values in 2023/24 are likely due to these actions being more feasible following the implementation of multi-year funding in 2022/23.

3.2.5 Freshwater and riparian habitat restoration

Over the three-year period, the Competitive Fund strand has:

• Planted over 13,000 trees along watercourses
• Restored over 19 km of aquatic and riparian habitat
• Removed seven man-made obstructions from watercourses

The Competitive Fund strand has restored 19.6 km of aquatic and riparian habitat through a variety of actions including riparian planting, restoring instream habitat, and protecting riverbanks from diffuse pollution and erosion. There is overlap between some reporting metrics (e.g., Length of riverbanks protected from diffuse pollution vs. Length of eroded riverbank restored), which led to inconsistencies in how actions are categorised. Consequently, metrics were amalgamated into a single metric relating to the total length of riverbank and aquatic habitats restored, protected, and enhanced (Figure 11).

While the cumulative length of aquatic and riparian habitats restored/enhanced increased over time, the rate of increase slowed across the years. However, at end March 2024, four ongoing projects had outcomes relating to safeguarding freshwater habitats. Furthermore, the observed trend does not necessarily indicate a decline in restoration activity but may reflect the nature of project applications received and funded each year. The following case study is an example of a multi-year project delivering across a catchment:

• Case study: The Peffery Catchment Restoration Programme, Highland is working to restore sections of the River Peffery and its tributaries, which have been heavily modified over the past ~200 years. This project is in the process of installing leaky dams, re-meandering channelised sections, creating new wetlands, overflow channels, flood storage ponds, planting riparian plants, and restoring Dingwall’s Pefferside Park pond. These interventions will restore important wetland and riparian habitats by re-wetting areas of ground and the creation of new habitats and water bodies.

3.2.6 Urban habitat connectivity and nature-based solutions for communities

Over the first three years 2021-24, “Urban” projects funded under the Competitive Fund strand have supported:

• The restoration of 1,818 ha of urban greenspace in towns and cities.

While a number of projects are situated in urban settings, only two projects specifically reported on the “Area (ha) of urban greenspace created”. To provide more comprehensive information, this metric was therefore calculated from the “Total area supported” for all projects categorised as “Urban”. Seven Competitive Fund strand projects were classified as urban and these restored 1,181 ha of greenspace through actions such as wildflower meadow planting, wetland creation, tree planting and rain garden creation. The area supported decreased significantly from 1,751 ha in 2021/22 to 12 ha in 2022/23 and 55 ha in 2023/24, primarily due to a large urban project taking place in 2021/22 (1,745 ha).

There were several projects that were located in urban settings and delivered against multiple NRF outcomes. However, they were not classified under the long-term outcome, “Urban”. Consequently, the reported values above likely under-estimate the true impact of the NRF in urban settings. For example, projects like the Pentland and Portobello Greening project and Inshes Park Nature Rich Greenspace project, whilst categorised as “Habitat and Species”, directly supported and enhanced connection and integration of habitats and species to the urban fabric through actions like tree planting and wetland creation:

• Case study: Pentlands to Portobello Greening, The City of Edinburgh enhanced urban greenspaces by planting native hedges, enriching meadowgrass, creating wetlands, and planting riparian trees. These efforts improved habitat linkages and landscape connectivity within the urban environment. This project placed a particular focus on addressing vacant and derelict land, which will improve these spaces for the adjacent, deprived neighbourhoods as well as contributing to the wider green networks linking Edinburgh to the surrounding countryside.

Several actions were undertaken to help manage surface water, including creation of two raingardens (one project), installation of 10 leaky dams (one project), and the installation of 159 woody structures in watercourses (seven projects). These actions are most closely aligned to the Outcome 6 metric, “Extent and nature of mechanism created to help manage surface water.” However, not all these actions were undertaken in uban settings. Furthermore, they will contribute towards other outcomes, including Outcome 4 (natural flood management) and Outcome 5 (restoring aquatic habitats), highlighting the interconnected benefits of nature restoration efforts.

3.2.7 Managing invasive species in catchments

Over the three-year period 2021-24, the Competitive Fund strand:

• Protected and restored 103,436 ha from INNS
• Protected 216 km of habitat from INNS

Metrics relating to length of habitat protected from INNS^[33] varied considerably between projects, ranging from 25 m to 200 km. Similarly, two large scale island clearance projects accounted for 80% (83,074 ha) of the total protected area. The largest project, “Eradication of Invasive Non-Native Stoat from Orkney,” protected 58,725 ha, with the project “Biosecurity for Seabird Islands” protecting 24,349 ha. These large-scale projects drove annual trends, with the Orkney project delivered in the first year of the NRF (Figure 12).

Many INNS projects focused on plant species identified as priorities for action by the NRF, including rhododendron, giant hogweed, Himalayan balsam, American skunk cabbage, and Japanese knotweed. Four projects targeted tree mallow and elder, which are not identified as priority INNS species by the NRF.^[34]

It is important to consider the impacts of INNS removal in relation to the challenge of long-term management, a point raised by a NatureScot topic lead working in this area:

“With invasive plants, ‘rapid response’ can actually span decades. Some species remain in a catchment for 20 to 30 years before reaching a critical mass, at which point they spread rapidly. It’s not always about immediate action—it’s about long-term vigilance, which is the approach the Galloway Fisheries Trust is taking." – Project Topic Lead, INNS Species Advisor at NatureScot

The quote above references the following case study, which provides an example of implementation of projects targeting invasive non-native plant species:

• Case study: Scottish Solway INNS Control and Knowledge Programme, Dumfries & Galloway collaborated with local stakeholders to implement coordinated, long-term invasive non-native species (INNS) control across nine river catchments in Dumfries and Galloway. For each identified 'INNS unit' in need of control, the project officer met with relevant stakeholders, including anglers, landowners, and community groups, to discuss necessary actions and develop tailored plans. These plans outlined the monitoring and control measures to be carried out after the NRF project concluded. Additionally, the strong local engagement fostered by the programme provided a solid foundation for raising awareness about the use of biosecurity kits, with the project expanding following a successful funding award from the National Lottery Heritage Fund in 2024.

3.2.8 Enhancing and restoring marine habitats and environments

The NRF supported 50 coastal and marine projects between 2021-24, which deployed a wide range of measures and activities to benefit nature in these environments, including:

• 23 mini buoys deployed, and tern rafts were installed
• One seagrass nursery established
• 40,000 transplants produced to support saltmarsh restoration
• Surveys conducted on seagrass, salt marsh, and native oysters

Many of the reporting milestones were less applicable to the marine environment (e.g. area of habitat supported was only reported by five projects). Milestones for the marine and coastal environment were often bespoke (as illustrated in examples above), aligning with actions for priority species (e.g. deployment of tern rafts) and for marine environments (e.g., deployment of mini buoys, and establishing nurseries). In capturing these bespoke milestones, the NRF provides an avenue to identify how they could be categorised more broadly to provide more standardised milestones for marine and coastal projects to report in the future (e.g. number of surveys conducted).

Evidence collected via case study projects provides some insights for what impacts looked like for coastal and marine projects over the first three years of the NRF. These projects are benefitting habitats and species by restoring natural buffer zones between land and sea:

• Case study: A landscape scale example includes the Wilder, Wetter Caerlaverock, Dumfries & Galloway project which restored 200 hectares of wetlands in 2023/24, aiming to increase the land's water retention capacity rather than allowing it to rapidly runoff. The boundaries between agricultural landscapes, the sea and saltmarsh, and the watercourses running through them have been restructured, creating a smoother transition between habitats and land types, helping wildlife and enhancing coastal resilience against rising seawater.
• Case study: Additionally, the Link Caerlaverock, Dumfries & Galloway project is strengthening connections between existing and future biodiversity efforts through the creation of 37 coastal ponds within agricultural fields, transforming naturally wet areas into hubs for rare species habitats and enhancing ecological connectivity. Together, these efforts provide vital inland buffer zones to support both new and resident species facing the challenges of rising sea levels.

An additional source of data available on these projects is the expenses they incurred, which is a good indicator of the different activities they involved. Marine and coastal projects tended to include purchase of equipment, with 72% of all capital items being purchased by coastal and marine projects (Figure 13). Equipment was the most frequent capital expense and included cameras, microscopes, drones, and data loggers, diving equipment and protective equipment.

3.3 Competitive Fund strand: Challenges faced

Projects reported several challenges, which were assigned to 11 broad categories. Challenges were not identified for all projects (63% of completed projects in 2021/22 and 42% of completed projects in 2022/23 included details on challenges in reports). However, many projects reported multiple challenges, and these provide useful insights into factors that have impacted on progress. The following challenges were reported by Competitive Fund strand projects, with the number of projects reporting each challenge in parentheses:

• Weather (28)
• Difficulty in getting contractors (19)
• Difficulty in sourcing equipment / materials (17)
• Short / inappropriate timeframe (15)
• Restoration actions challenging (11)
• Costs (10)
• COVID / Ukraine war (10)
• Licensing, planning, or leasing issues (10)
• Access / consent issues (8)
• Remote / difficult to access (5)
• Other challenges (10)

Weather was the most common challenge, encountered by 28 projects. Case studies including Pentlands to Portobello Greening, The City of Edinburgh, Natural Devon – Pool of Muckhart Initiative, Clackmannanshire, and Link Caerlaverock, Dumfries & Galloway highlighted how drought and heavy rain disrupted project delivery. In the first project, drought and severe cold rendered the ground impenetrable, causing delays and preventing volunteer groups from planting bulbs and wildflower seeds at the optimal time. In the second case, droughts followed by heavy rain washed away wildflower seeds, undermining planting efforts. In the third case, unpredictable weather patterns in the Solway Firth required contractors to remain flexible, as they had to adjust their schedules to accommodate fluctuating weather conditions.

The availability of contractors was the second most common challenge (reported by 19 projects). Case studies further highlighted difficulties in securing contractors with the right expertise, capacity, and ability to deliver within time and budget. These challenges were particularly pronounced in remote and rural areas.

Among available contractors, there can be a shortage of practical expertise in conservation management and nature-based solutions. Project managers from the Forth Rivers Trust, who delivered the Natural Devon project, opted to train local contractors in natural flood management techniques as a more economically sustainable option, rather than commissioning larger or specialist contracting companies from further afield. This had direct benefits in terms of increasing contractor capacity, as one project manager explained:

“There is a deficit in contractors that are competent in natural flood management. We might as well support these contractors and help them in learning. It’s worked really well. We’ve got a couple of really good contractors now.” – Project lead, Natural Devon – Pool of Muckhart Initiative, Clackmannanshire

This approach of training available contractors was also used by the Landscape Scale Wetland and Connectivity Project in the Highlands. They worked with agricultural contractors, adapting their traditional skills to restoration techniques. Rather than outsourcing to specialised firms, the team chose to train local contractors, ensuring long-term capacity building and a more sustainable approach to project delivery:

“We’ve got a network of local contractors we have used for some projects beforehand, and they are fantastic. It’s interesting because it’s everything that they, traditionally, as agricultural contractors, do not do. You’re judged on how straight your ditches are, and we’re telling them to re-profile and wiggle the edges as much as possible. […] They worked it out, and you end up educating a whole new community of people who otherwise would just keep on keeping on.” – Project lead, Landscape Scale Wetland and Connectivity Project, Highland

Having a reliable, local network of skilled contractors with which to share the opportunity to deliver nature restoration is beneficial for the future of biodiversity improvement works.

A lack of practical skills in conservation management is recognised in NatureScot’s Nature-based Jobs and Skills Implementation Plan 2024-25^[35] which outlines steps to increase Scotland’s capacity to deliver nature restoration at scale. Building green skills is also supported by the Scottish Government Green Jobs Fund.^[36] Data collected under the NRF Competitive Fund strand could help pinpoint the type and location of skill gaps, helping to guide training and funding to priority areas.

Sourcing materials was identified by 13 projects as a challenge in 2021/22, but dropped to only 4 projects in 2022/23, suggesting this issue may have been linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or Ukraine war and the resulting global shortages.

Timescale-related challenges were also noted, with 15 projects identifying inappropriate time frames as a barrier. As noted by one project manager, the timing for receiving NRF funding sometimes caused cascading delays:

“There was a short lead-in time for the first project year […] money was given in September, which means you’re already on month five of the financial year. There was a lead-in time that took longer than expected for elements delivered by contractors, which made sourcing materials and stock even harder than it would have been had the project started on time, because certain items for planting were no longer in stock.” – Edinburgh & Lothians Greenspace Trust project officer, Pentlands to Portobello Greening, The City of Edinburgh

The Wilder, Wetter Caerlaverock project experienced delays in planned delivery, as they did not anticipate the need for licensing from NatureScot and SEPA to treat invasive species discovered on site. Once it became clear that these approvals were required, the lengthy processing time prevented work from being completed within the original timeframe. As mentioned by the project officer, rescheduling tasks meant some planned outputs had to be rescheduled:

“Because of licensing delays, we weren’t able to carry out that work in Year 1, but we couldn’t carry the funding over to Year 2. We’re doing that work, because it’s absolutely critical work, but we’re having to lose some of our other outputs and take it out of Year 2 funding.” – Project lead, Wilder, Wetter Caerlaverock, Dumfries & Galloway

These findings highlight the importance of addressing logistical and workforce constraints, as well as perhaps considering greater flexibility in the timing of NRF payments to optimise the impact of restoration efforts. Resilience to unpredictable weather, expanded contractor availability and refined funding structures will help minimise practical delivery constraints can positively contribute to the effectiveness of nature restoration efforts.

However, NRF funding structures include flexibility that can be used by projects to address some of the above challenge, which was referenced by this project manager:

“The payment structure is fantastic, monthly updates, being able to pay for things ahead and get paid back […] A real simplicity about it. It seemed like there was trust […] and that trust just blew away a lot of the bureaucratic, time constraining, boring bits of nature restoration. The more bureaucracy the NRF has, the less effective it would be, and the less nature for your pound you’d be getting.” – Project lead, Landscape Scale Wetland and Connectivity Project, Highland^[37]

Costs sometimes change between those projected in budgets included in applications and actual delivery. Multiple projects expressed gratitude for NatureScot funding officers for allowing them to shift funding within projects, where there was underspend on another budget line, to cover actual costs of delivery.

3.4 Building the evidence base for future nature restoration

NRF-funded projects provide a crucial evidence base to enhance the delivery and outcomes of future nature restoration projects. However, projects were not explicitly asked to report on how their activities contributed to building the evidence base, and qualitative data on this was limited. Despite this, twenty-four Competitive Fund strand projects (12%) reported successes over and above the delivery of the agreed activities. These examples help illustrate how projects generated new insights that may refine future restoration approaches.

Ecological successes demonstrated the multiple benefits achieved from nature restoration. For example, saltmarsh restoration in the Montrose Basin has resulted in the storage of blue carbon, provision of refuge and feeding sites for a range of wading birds, the first recording of the great white egret, and indirectly reconnected people with nature via the visitors’ centre. One project used thermal imagery at night to discover new bird species feeding and breeding in the wetland pools, areas where they had not been previously recorded. Additionally, nightjars were observed foraging on the site during the summer after restoration work, following two years of monitoring during which no sightings had been recorded.. The Wilder, Wetter Caerlaverock project officer highlighted the broader impact of these findings:

“The work that we’re doing is supporting more biodiversity, more relaxed grazing, more species rich grassland, more wetlands, so it’s increasing the invertebrate population.” – Project lead, Wilder, Wetter Caerlaverock, Dumfries & Galloway

Some projects also note greater stakeholder engagement and community support for nature restoration, which could inform strategies for expanding nature recovery efforts. This was the case for the Scottish Solway INNS Control and Knowledge Programme, which relied on stakeholder involvement for long-term INNS control. A project officer with deep regional knowledge and community connections played a key role in engaging stakeholders and establishing a sustainable maintenance plan beyond the funding cycle. This approach also secured additional community engagement funding to support ongoing INNS prevention and education efforts. The project lead from the Scottish Solway INNS Control and Knowledge Programme, emphasised the importance of transitioning long-term management to local stakeholders:

"The long-term strategy isn’t for the Galloway Fisheries Trust to handle the issue indefinitely. Our role is to reduce INNS to a manageable level, often using spraying contractors, and then transition responsibility to a key stakeholder. We identify any barriers they may face — whether it's a lack of understanding, training, equipment, or the need for regular reminders — and work with them to build the skills and confidence needed to take over long-term management." – Project lead, Scottish Solway INNS Control and Knowledge Programme, Dumfries & Galloway

The role of technology in specific projects was also noted. For example, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation project purchased telescopes to support species identification for shore watchers along the coastlines of Scotland and developed an app to help streamline data submissions. Different methodological approaches included proactive trapping that boosted catch rates of breeding female stoats as part of the RSPB’s stoat eradication project on Orkney; the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Trust’s collaboration with Scotland’s creel fishers to use a buoyant rope system for creel fishing to reduce entanglement of mega-fauna; and the RSPB’s use of specialised equipment enabling successful rat eradication to aid seabird recovery on Lamb Island in the Firth of Forth.

Knowledge-sharing initiatives helped strengthen the evidence base, with, for example, the SeaWilding Equipment Purchase project in Loch Craignish created a "how-to" video, providing resources for other community seagrass projects. Similarly, project leads of Rewilding Lettoch in Pitlochry have been actively approached by others seeking advice for similar rewilding projects. Projects like Link Caerlaverock near Dumfries demonstrate how knowledge sharing can increase the scalability of restoration, habitat creation, and biodiversity connectivity when individual efforts are connected into a broader regional strategy. The NatureScot Topic Lead for the Link Caerlaverock project highlighted the importance of this interconnected approach:

“Link Caerlaverock was like a crucial piece in a larger jigsaw, connecting two major sites—the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and the National Nature Reserve. Additionally, the estate indicated that more projects are planned elsewhere in the Solway. I hope that neighbouring landowners will follow suit, as tackling the biodiversity crisis requires more than isolated efforts on individual estates or farms. Conservation is far more effective when creating large, connected habitats rather than scattered fragments.” – NatureScot Topic Lead for Link Caerlaverock, Dumfries & Galloway

These examples provide valuable learning opportunities and illustrate how NRF-funded projects contribute not only to on-the-ground restoration but also to the broader knowledge and tools necessary for scaling nature recovery across Scotland. However, they do not comprehensively represent how NRF projects contribute to the wider evidence base. Improved mechanisms for capturing and sharing emerging insights—such as unexpected ecological outcomes, novel methodologies, and stakeholder engagement strategies—could enhance the fund’s role in informing future restoration efforts across Scotland.