Nature Restoration Fund: interim evaluation

5 Case studies: Common themes

The case studies delivered as part of this evaluation provided a valuable source of qualitative data to inform and supplement the analysis of quantitative project data. The evaluation team conducted 15 interviews with Competitive Fund strand project leads. These were supplemented by five interviews with NatureScot topic leads who had been involved in reviewing applications for the Competitive Fund projects. Four interviews were conducted with representatives from four local authority areas to gather data on the delivery of the Edinburgh Process strand.

While the individual case studies highlight unique aspects of diverse projects, this section captures commonalities and trends which emerged from interviews with project and local authority representatives. The themes which were mentioned most frequently and emphasised as being important by project leads are discussed here, with cross-references to the corresponding case study in Annex 1: Full case studies.

This input from project leads and local authorities contributed to the evaluation team’s understanding of the practicalities of facilitating NRF project delivery on the ground, adding colour and context to the challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations presented in this report.

While the qualitative data collected via interviews with case studies is used throughout this report, it should be acknowledged that the number of case studies is a small fraction of the total number of projects / local authorities, therefore these results should be treated as illustrative rather than representative.

5.1 Importance of thorough engagement with relevant parties

All Competitive Fund strand case studies mentioned that engaging local people, partners, and other decision makers is important in ensuring the success of NRF projects.

• Early engagement and/or education of local actors was cited as an important success factor for projects (10 of 15 Competitive Fund strand interviewees; E.g. Black Hills Regeneration Project, Knoydart, Highland).
• Project leads often felt that the delivery of their project created a lasting benefit for people local to the project area, and/or formed new relationships among teams or individuals (10 of 15 Competitive Fund strand interviewees; E.g. Pentlands to Portobello Greening, The City of Edinburgh).
• However, project leads also shared that they encountered a variety of challenges engaging or working with local parties (9 of 15 Competitive Fund strand interviewees; E.g. Natural Devon – Pool of Muckhart Initiative, Clackmannanshire).
• In several cases, project leads indicated that they had shared learnings and other information with other nature restoration projects following project completion (7 of 15 Competitive Fund strand interviewees; E.g. Balgavies Loch Sediment Treatment Pond, Angus).

Local authorities sometimes struggled to engage their local communities in the delivery of their Edinburgh Process funds. Dundee City Council hired someone specifically to promote and manage community engagement using additional council revenue rather than NRF funds. However Perth & Kinross Council successfully managed a scheme to invite applications from community applications for funding they received through the Edinburgh Process Fund, cited as an example of directly empowering communities to take nature restoration into their own hands.

A strong theme emerging from case studies was around new relationships formed in local areas (e.g. with local contractors, development of new farm clusters, or between different departments within local authorities). In addition, projects gained familiarity with the typical timelines and stakeholders involved in NRF project delivery (e.g. new familiarity with procurement processes within local authorities). The combination of new collaborations and increased knowledge builds local capacity to deliver NRF projects, suggesting future NRF funding rounds will deliver outcomes for nature with increasing efficiency and coordination.

5.2 Challenges on the ground

Challenges are covered in previous sections as reported across the full range of projects (3.3 Competitive Fund strand: Challenges faced and 4.3 Edinburgh Process strand: Challenges faced). Similar themes, as well as some different ones, emerged from case studies. For the Competitive Fund strand projects:

• Securing contractors with suitable skills and availability during the time required to complete projects was a barrier for some project leads (6 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects; E.g. Pentlands to Portobello Greening, The City of Edinburgh), although others disagreed, highlighting that they had positive experiences finding contractors (3 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects; E.g. Landscape Scale Wetland and Connectivity Project, Highland).
• Many project leads cited challenges or delays associated with obtaining planning permissions to carry out projects, either from local planning authorities or SEPA (7 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects; E.g. Peffery Wet Woodland, Highland).
• Additional delays were also attributed to challenges working with utilities providers around, for example, needing to work around pylons for energy transmission or other infrastructure (6 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects; E.g. Quharity Burn Restoration, Angus).

Flexibility within the NRF was cited as being essential to overcoming these challenges. Being able to adjust timelines or move funds between budget lines to cover costs was hugely appreciated by Competitive Fund strand project leads (8 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects; E.g. Black Hills Regeneration Project, Knoydart, Highland).

Local authorities mostly struggled with delivering projects within the 1-year timeline associated with Edinburgh Process funding. Some local authority representatives shared that NRF funds being restricted to capital expenditure only limited the delivery of wider projects, which would require revenue funding as well. Rather than being strictly set by Scottish Government, local councillors felt that these capital restrictions are imposed by their own council finance teams, where other councils are able to use the funds more flexibly.

5.3 Holistic reflections

The strongest theme emerging across all interviews was interviewee’s desire to express their appreciation for the NRF. When asked whether they had anything else they would like to share, opening the floor at the end of the interview, participants often stressed the importance of the NRF in enabling them to contribute to nature restoration through their project / local authority (10 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects mentioned explicitly).

Other reflections included:

• Participants often indicated that NRF projects should consider / focus on how to enable transformational, landscape-scale change. This related to connectivity, with interviewees bringing up cases in which their project contributes to a nature corridor. It was also mentioned in terms of INNS, which require a coordinated and sustained effort to keep these species at bay (7 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects; E.g. Dalrymple Wetland Reserve, East Ayrshire and Scottish Solway INNS Control and Knowledge Programme, Dumfries & Galloway).
• Relatedly, participants shared in some cases that they were planning on delivering future projects, building on successes or learnings from the project in question, if they are able to secure further NRF or other funding (10 of 15 Competitive Fund strand projects; E.g. Black Hills Regeneration Project, Knoydart, Highland). This indicates that continued and improved impacts are likely through future rounds of the NRF.