Nature Restoration Fund: interim evaluation

4 Edinburgh Process strand outputs, outcomes and challenges faced

This section presents the results of the data analysis for the Edinburgh Process strand. The section structure reflects the Scottish Government evaluation framework and logic model as set out in 2 Methods. It covers the outputs (4.1 Edinburgh Process strand: Outputs) and outcomes (4.2 Edinburgh Process strand: Outcomes), as well as challenges and lessons learned (4.3 Edinburgh Process strand: Challenges faced). Selected insights from case studies are drawn into these sections as relevant.

Between 2021 and 2024, the Edinburgh Process strand of the NRF provided £19.3 million to local authorities, which delivered more than 575 projects. The projects supported nature restoration across an estimated 195,106 hectares and 74% of projects were delivered in collaboration with partners and community groups.

4.1 Edinburgh Process strand: Outputs

4.1.1 Area (ha) where project activities have been undertaken^[38]

An estimated 195,106 hectares of nature restoration were supported^[39] under the Edinburgh Process across the three years of funding. However, of the 32 local authorities in Scotland, only between 16 and 25 local authorities reported area metrics each year, therefore the actual area of restoration is likely higher. The area supported was notably lower in 2021/22. While fewer councils reported this metric in the first year (20 versus 23 in 2022/23 and 25 in 2023/24), lack of reporting is unlikely to fully account for the magnitude of this change.

The second year of funding supported the largest area, driven by three exceptionally large projects: Orkney’s whole island initiative (99,000 ha) to control greylag geese, a large-scale INNS removal project of gunnera (40,000 ha) across the Outer Hebrides, and Edinburgh City’s fish migration project targeting the entire River Almond catchment.

In 2023/24, multiple projects in Dumfries and Galloway targeted an entire seascape (11,159 ha). Excluding these four large-scale projects, the data shows a steady increase in the area supported over the three years (Figure 14).

The lower figure in 2021/22 may reflect the challenges of launching a new funding program, with local authorities initially unfamiliar with the eligible activities and needing more time to plan and implement larger projects. Early projects may have been smaller in scale, as councils tested processes, contributing to the lower area reported in the first year. At the same time, the steady increase in area supported over the three years suggests that authorities grew more familiar with the fund's processes and requirements, allowing them to plan more effectively and implement projects efficiently as soon as funding was allocated.

Between 2022 and 2024, at least 575 projects were supported by NRF funding under the Edinburgh Process.^[40] The majority of projects were completed successfully within the original project timelines, with 337 projects (69%) completed at the point of year-end reporting during 2022/23 and 2023/24 (Figure 15). In 2022/23, 191 projects were completed, and 146 were completed in 2023/24. Additional projects were expected to have been completed as part of the 2021/22 funding round; however, local authorities did not report this metric. The figure likely further underestimates the actual number of completed projects, given that five councils did not report this metric in 2022/23 and 2023/24.

Projects usually required the entire time available in each funding round, with only seven projects ending early, six in 2022/23 and one in 2023/24 (Figure 15). Again, this metric was not reported in 2021/22, and six local authorities did not report on this metric in subsequent years. Local authorities did not report on the reason for projects ending early. Such information could help identify actions that result in successful and timely completion.

Despite the high number of successfully completed projects, a total of 102 projects were not completed at the point of reporting – this is 21% of all projects supported by the Edinburgh Process in 2022/23 and 2023/24.^[41] In 2022/23, 41 projects were reported as not completed or ongoing, while in 2023/24 61 projects were reported as not completed or ongoing. Local councils did not report on this in 2021/22. This would indicate that single-year funding, particularly when delivered late in the year, could impede progress towards meeting nature restoration targets. Exploring the potential of funding multi-year projects, or allowing funds to be transferred between years, would provide flexibility and potentially facilitate the implementation of larger, more ambitious action on the ground.

4.1.2 Extent of NRF funding awarded under the Edinburgh Process strand

Between 2021 and 2024, £19.3 million of funding was received by local authorities. The funding allocations ranged from £16,000 in 2021/22 (Orkney) to £676,000 in 2023/24 (Highland), with an average (mean) allocation of £222,000 and a median of £183,000. The funding increased each year, with local councils receiving £4.4 million in 2021/22, £5.9 million in 2022/23, and £9 million in 2023/24 (Figure 16).

Most of the allocated funding was spent. In 2021/22 local councils collectively spent 20% more than their NRF allocation, with Glasgow City’s spending exceeding NRF allocation by 53%.^[42] However, in 2022/23 there was a 9% underspend, followed by a 4% underspend in 2023/24, leading to an overall underspend of just 0.13% across the three years.

Funding received, funding spent, and the number of projects delivered by each local authority across the three reporting rounds (2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24) were summarised. Reporting was incomplete for seven local authorities^[43] (i.e. reporting forms not completed for one or more years, or some key metrics omitted). Consequently, these local authorities have been excluded from the discussion.

Over the three years, Fife received the most money through the NRF, totalling £1.41 million (Figure 17). However, Glasgow City Council reported the highest spending on NRF supported projects at £1.45 million, significantly exceeding the £0.866 million allocated through the Edinburgh Process. Local authority funding distribution was based on a formula specified by NatureScot. The Highland Council delivered the highest number of projects (50), followed by East Dunbartonshire (40) and Renfrewshire (34).

4.2 Edinburgh Process strand: Outcomes

Local authorities reported against 16 different outcome measures, which refer to categories of actions or themes that align with the intended outcomes of the NRF. These measures were self-reported by local authorities based on their activities and do not always indicate observed or quantified impacts on the ground. Instead, they provide an overview of the types of interventions undertaken, as selected from a predefined list in the reporting form.

Local authorities marked “Yes” for all measures that applied to their projects. As summarised in Figure 18, most projects delivered multiple measures. On average, projects delivered four measures, with some projects reporting delivery of as many as 12 measures.^[44] However, this was often due to local authorities combining reporting for multiple projects. The total number of outcome measures reported by each local authority (across all projects) ranged from 1 to 88, with an average of approximately 35 measures. The observed discrepancy between local authorities may partly be due to differences in reporting detail and may not necessarily reflect true differences in delivery.

Reported measures were relatively balanced between urban (605 reported, 617 including assigned) and rural (474 reported, 488 including assigned) measures. The highest totals were for Action for pollinators (urban) (141 reported, 149 including assigned), Nature Networks (urban) (125 reported, 127 including assigned), and Planting of wildlife corridors, and removal of barriers to movement, Pollinator planting (rural) (91 reported). Rain gardens received the lowest delivery figure, with only 17 projects reporting delivery against this outcome measure.

When looking at delivery against NRF long-term outcomes, the greatest number of projects have delivered outcomes related to Habitat and species restoration, as well as Urban: Enhancing and connecting nature^[45] (Figure 19). There are comparatively few initiatives relating to Coastal and Marine initiatives and Control of INNS.

Edinburgh Process projects tended to be highly collaborative, with 74% of projects working with partners and/or community groups (Figure 20). Only 26% of projects had neither partner nor community group involvement. The exact number of partners and community groups ranged widely, and this information was inconsistently reported, with some reporting just one project partner and others reporting up to ten partners.

Project partners ranged from delivery or operational partners, to groups who owned or managed the land on which projects took place, to other types of support. Partners included a range of organisations and groups, including trusts, conservation groups, government bodies (e.g. SEPA), local councils, universities, and NGOs (e.g. Tweed Forum). Community groups included local volunteer organisations, schools, "Friends of" groups, or clubs that participate in on-the-ground activities such as tree planting, habitat restoration, or engagement efforts.

Projects often took a collaborative approach to delivery, involving a wide spectrum of community, educational, governmental, and specialist organisations to drive the success of NRF projects.

An example from case study data was Aberdeenshire Council, who leveraged their stakeholder network to get results from the funding available that worked well for local communities. The council supported at least 20 projects and workstreams, including purchasing greenspace equipment, site-specific habitat enhancements, and providing continued assistance to community-led initiatives. As an Environmental Planner from Aberdeenshire Council explained:

"Through the NRF, 150 community groups have benefited—not through direct funding, but by receiving materials like plants to enhance public green spaces. […] In reality, without support, it might have just meant cutting back on mowing and dealing with complaints. Instead, we've been able to have a completely different conversation—one focused on collaboration and actively working with communities to enhance their local environments." – Environmental Planner, Aberdeenshire Council

4.2.1 Outcomes and their associated actions

Unlike the Competitive Fund strand, the Edinburgh Process does not require projects to report quantitative data for NRF programme outcomes (e.g. Area of wetland created, Length of eroded riverbank restored). While some local authorities provide quantitative information (e.g. area of meadows created) this is done inconsistently, with others simply reporting actions undertaken. With varying levels of detail reported by local authorities, actions were summarised across all submissions to provide an overarching view of activities undertaken.

Local authorities were encouraged to elaborate on actions that were undertaken as part of NRF projects. This qualitative data showed a breadth of activity in support of nature restoration. The below list provides a succinct overview of the number of projects that delivered against NRF outcome measures and relevant actions that were undertaken. Projects included, for example, tree planting, meadow creation, wetland restoration, and riverbank stabilisation, with many initiatives supporting biodiversity corridors and Nature Networks. The summary highlights the diversity of interventions and the role of localised efforts in supporting national restoration.

The following list summarises NRF programme outcomes for the Edinburgh Process. This does not include Outcome 1, 3, 5, since they did not have specific outcome measures. Figures in brackets denote the number of projects reported by local authorities plus additional projects assigned to that outcome by SAC Consulting in situations where local authorities had not assigned projects to these specific outcomes (flagged with an asterisk *).

Outcome 2: Improved management of species rich grassland to increase habitat for pollinators

Outcome Measure : Action for pollinators; 149 projects (141 + 8*)

Key Actions: Meadow creation, specialised grass cutting equipment, relaxed mowing, wildflower plugs, removal of INNS, thinning of woodlands, solitary bee nests

Outcome 4: Implemented natural flood management to lessen the impact of climate change

Outcome Measure : Natural Flood Management; 55 projects (47 + 8*)

Key actions: River and wetland reconnection, pond creation, woody debris installation

Outcome 6: Enhanced connection and integration of habitats and species to the urban fabric and increased nature-based solutions for healthy and resilient communities

Outcome measure: Wee Forests; 42 projects

Key actions: Tree corridors, urban woodland creation, community planting. 134,213 trees planted (incl. projects reported under other measures).

Outcome measure: Rain gardens; 17 projects

Key actions: Surface water management, habitat for pollinators, educational engagement

Outcome measure: Improving greenspaces for outdoor learning; 80 projects (78 + 2*)

Key actions: Biodiversity kits and bird/bat boxes, interpretative signage, enhance accessibility of natural sites (e.g. board walks, pond dipping platforms), restoration of woodland trails near educational centres, involvement of community volunteers in monitoring.

Outcome measure: Improving local nature reserves; 48 projects.

Key actions: Habitat restoration, invasive species removal, equipment for grassland management, engagement through volunteer programs.

Outcome measure: Greening active travel routes; 52 projects.

Key actions: Tree planting, wildflower meadows along routes, hedgerow planting to enhance biodiversity.

Outcome measure: Urban woodlands; 55 projects.

Key actions: Tree planting, woodland management (coppice and scrub, INNS clearing), restoration of woodland paths.

Outcome measure: Nature Networks; 224 projects (220 + 4*)

Key actions: Connect urban and rural greenspaces, removal of physical barriers (e.g. fencing), river restoration, wildflower meadow creation. 85 urban, 62 rural nature networks.

Outcome 7: Controlled INNS in a catchment, or protected a previously uninvaded catchment, to protect habitats and halt biodiversity loss

Outcome measure: INNS removal; 70 projects (67 + 3*)

Key actions: Herbicide spraying, stump removal, and natural regeneration.

Outcome 8: Contributed to the long-term enhancement, conservation status and recovery of the marine and coastal environment and of priority marine features

Outcome measure: Coastal habitat enhancement; 57 projects (56 + 1*)

Key actions: Native vegetation planting, dune access infrastructure, invasive species control, seagrass and oyster habitat surveys.

4.2.2 Outcomes: Nature Networks

A Nature Network connects nature-rich sites and restoration areas through areas of suitable habitat, habitat corridors, and stepping-stones. As well as supporting regional and national approaches to protect and restore nature, they provide local benefits to wildlife and people. To ensure Scotland's nature can thrive, nature-rich areas must be connected through a series of networks linking them all together.^[46]

The NRF directly allocated an additional £5 million funding to local authorities specifically for Nature Networks in FY 2023-24. This was aimed at helping to develop projects that contributed to Nature Network development and meeting local priorities for climate and nature.

Reporting on Nature Networks was introduced in 2022/23, with local authorities indicating whether actions undertaken had contributed to Nature Networks. Local authorities reported in more depth on Nature Networks in 2023/24, answering a suite of questions on their progress towards identifying and implementing Nature Networks, in addition to questions relating to developing new partnerships and securing funding.

When asked specifically whether they had spatially identified Nature Networks, as of March 2024, only four councils reported that they had identified Nature Networks across their local authority area, with just one council integrating Nature Networks into their Local Development Plan. Accessing the AECOM EcoUplift mapping tool is expected to help other councils define the boundaries of their Nature Networks. This mapping tool was made available to local authorities just before the final reporting round, therefore local authorities previously lacked a standardised methodology by which to identify Nature Networks.

Even though most local authorities had not spatially identified Nature Networks, 21 local authorities reported that they had identified opportunity areas for creating or enhancing Nature Networks. Sixteen councils reported they started to develop projects targeting these areas. On average, of the land identified as potential opportunity areas, councils estimated that 61% is under their ownership.^[47] Given that Nature Networks focus on connectivity, landownership will provide a key challenge when it comes to implementing action in identified opportunity areas.

From the total number of Edinburgh Process projects across all local authorities, 220 projects^[48] reported a diversity of different actions relating to the identification and implementation of Nature Networks (Figure 21).

Between 2022/23 and 2023/24, 125 projects reported that they supported urban Nature Networks, and 95 projects supported rural Nature Networks (this information was not reported on in 2021/22). Relevant activities included:

Enhancing and restoring habitats:

• Several projects focussed on enhancing the quality of ecologically important sites, as these will form core components of Nature Networks.
• Projects engaged in habitat restoration efforts, including river restoration (e.g., 1.5 km of river restored) to support aquatic and riparian species. River catchments and waterways are frequently recognised for their importance in Nature Networks.
• Projects also reported on enhancing connectivity between existing wildlife habitats, Local Nature Conservation Sites, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

Connecting habitats:

• Nature Networks were used to connect urban and rural greenspaces, to create pollinator corridors (e.g. Ayrshire Nectar Network, which creates and maintains connected nectar and pollen-rich sites) and to link isolated habitats to support species movement.
• Some projects removed physical barriers like fencing. For example, in Dumfries and Galloway, the Threave Landscape Restoration Project removed 8,000 m of fencing to allow wildlife movement and create uninterrupted habitat corridors.
• Wildflower meadows were created and wild hedgerows planted to form habitat mosaics and improve pollinator pathways. Urban tree planting and hedgerow initiatives were implemented to create new networks and enhance habitat diversity.
• Projects that improved urban greenspaces point out that this will help form important corridors between ecologically rich urban areas.

For most projects, it was unclear the degree to which actions were spatially targeted to promote connectivity. However, several projects built on existing network models, including B-Lines,^[49] Central Scotland Green Network's habitat networks,^[50] the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Modelling.^[51] As local authorities begin to spatially map their Nature Networks and better understand what these should look like, we can expect more joined-up actions and impacts on the ground.

In 2023/24, local authorities were requested to outline how they felt Nature Networks had mainstreamed biodiversity. Twenty-one councils noted that Nature Networks have facilitated the mainstreaming of biodiversity within local authority policies and practices, increasing awareness of nature-based solutions for planning, climate adaptation, and bringing together different teams within local authorities, responsible for different areas including Open Space, Forestry, Roads, Climate and Flood Risk Management. Building on these new collaborations, many councils are taking steps to incorporate Nature Networks into local action plans/strategies including Local Biodiversity Action Plans, Climate Adaption Plans, Open Space Strategies, and Sustainable Development Plans.

Twenty councils reported they are supported by partnerships with community groups, NGOs, regional bodies other local authorities and governmental agencies. Around half of the councils (15) have supplemented NRF funding with additional funding. The exact amount of additional funding is difficult to estimate, since only six councils report additional funding figures. However, of those who do report, additional funding is substantial, equating to a total of £1.69 million. The sources of additional funding are diverse - local councils often supplement with their own funds while also getting funds from, for example, Net Zero Bio Fund, SEPA WEF fund, the National Heritage Lottery fund, and Levelling Up Parks Fund.

Councils reported that Nature Networks have helped them to mainstream biodiversity in the following ways (number of councils reporting this in brackets):

• Collaboration between different departments (11)
• Development of strategies and/or action plans (11)
• Raising awareness (10)
• External collaboration (2)

Aberdeenshire Council has reported on delivering against Nature Networks but faced barriers around capital spending restrictions within the council. Nonetheless, the broader impact of projects supported by the NRF has naturally contributed to strengthening ecological connectivity:

"Our Council has a strict interpretation of what qualifies as capital spending […] For example, if we wanted to spend money on a paper-based exercise, such as mapping Nature Networks, it would have to directly lead to a capital investment. We actually attempted to fund Nature Network mapping through the NRF during the years under evaluation, but our own internal processes prevented it. As a result, we had to source internal revenue funding instead, since the Nature Restoration Fund is strictly capital. This presents an interesting challenge: Within councils, at least in our case, NRF funding must be spent on tangible project delivery. When we report back, in all honesty, there won’t be a single project where the primary goal was explicitly delivering Nature Networks. However, almost everything we do contributes to them in some way.” – Environmental planner, Aberdeenshire Council^[52]

4.3 Edinburgh Process strand: Challenges faced

In 2022/23 and 2023/24, local councils were asked to report on their main challenges. A recurring issue, mentioned 41 times, was the timescale of receiving and utilising funding (Figure 22).

Councils highlighted that they received funding late in the year while being required to spend it by year-end. This is illustrated in the Aberdeenshire Council – Ugie Catchment Small Scale Tree case study, where projects intended for funding are shortlisted at the beginning of the year to ensure swift action once funds are received. However, if the funding amount or disbursement date changes, some projects may remain unfunded, hindering the Council's ability to meet its expected contributions to nature restoration.

It can also leave insufficient time for planning, procurement, and implementation, particularly for projects influenced by seasonal factors, such as INNS initiatives. As a result, councils often had to prioritise smaller, less impactful projects to meet deadlines. The tight timelines also contributed to another significant challenge: the lack of available staff, contractors, and experts to support project delivery, which was reported 21 times.

This mirrors the Competitive Fund strand, in which project leads also identified difficulties in securing contractors and experts. Additionally, councils raised concerns about the restrictions on how the funding could be used, specifically the capital nature of funding.