Nature Restoration Fund: interim evaluation

6 Conclusions and lessons learned

6.1 NRF outputs and collective contribution to key outcomes

The Nature Restoration Fund is an unprecedented commitment by Scottish Government and provides a key vehicle to help Scotland meet its ambition to “be Nature Positive by 2030, and to have restored and regenerated biodiversity across the country by 2045”.^[54] Through its two strands, the NRF has supported nature recovery activities across 309,000 hectares of land and sea.

Since its start in 2021, the Nature Restoration Fund has provided £35.5 million to recipients for projects aimed to restore and revive nature across Scotland. To date, this funding has supported nature recovery in over 309,000 hectares targeted to deliver across eight NRF programme and five long-term outcomes (both strands; Figure 23). It is important to note that seven large scale projects accounted for 95% of this area (i.e. 293,659 ha).

The NRF has invested in approximately 800 projects supporting innovative and diverse activities, from eradicating non-native species from islands, to developing an app to report marine strandings, to re-meandering rivers and establishing riparian woodlands. Through data analyses and case study interviews, this evaluation concludes that the NRF serves as a key and valued delivery mechanism for nature recovery across Scotland. There are multiple factors which indicate the NRF’s impact over its first three years will continue to scale and expand:

• Ongoing projects: As flagged throughout the results presented, the data available means the figures reported here are likely to underestimate the impact of the NRF over its first three years. Furthermore, a proportion of funded NRF projects continued beyond the scope of this evaluation (31 March 2024) and will therefore deliver additional outcomes not captured in this report.
• Increased local capacity and efficiencies: This evaluation found many instances of skill building and new relationships formed in the delivery of NRF projects, for example between project leads, local contractors, partnerships / NGOs, and between teams within local authorities. By providing a multi-year, multi-round funding stream, these new skills, relationships and familiarity with NRF processes should lead to smoother delivery of NRF projects over time. The full extent of the benefits of multi-year funding will become apparent through future evaluations or comparative analysis.
• Nature’s timescales: Nature restoration projects take time to realise their full potential, as natural systems respond to the interventions deployed (e.g. trees growing, plant communities developing and species moving into new habitat). The full benefits to nature from NRF projects will continue to develop and unfold over the coming decades.

These findings indicate that the NRF is likely to continue to deliver increasingly impactful targets, meaningfully contributing to nature restoration. As a key public funding stream that provides multi-year funding for nature restoration in Scotland every effort should be made to boost this investment through the private sector to meet the scale of the nature crisis in Scotland.

The habitats created, restored and enhanced under the NRF support related policies and national targets beyond nature recovery: Wetland creation and enhancement and riparian restoration provide natural flood management, helping Scotland adapt to climate change and meet objectives outlined in the National Planning Framework 4^[57] and National Adaptation Plan 2024 to 2029.^[58] With many natural habitats (e.g. wetlands, peatlands, woodlands and hedgerows) sequestering and storing carbon, the NRF plays a role in realising ambitions to achieve net zero by 2045. This also includes creating green jobs and upskilling land-based businesses and contractors through taking part in contracts for nature restoration ground works.

Through these diverse projects, the results presented in this report evidence that the NRF is delivering progress across the eight programme outcomes with projects often delivering against multiple outcomes in parallel (see Section 3.2). As such the NRF provides an important vehicle for delivering SBS strategic objectives, most specifically, Objective 1: Accelerate restoration and regeneration and Objective 4: Protect and support the recovery of vulnerable and important species and habitats.

The Competitive Fund strand has opened funding to new participants and the Edinburgh Process strand has fostered collaboration to plan and deliver action locally by devolving nature restoration to local authorities. These two complementary strands have funded targeted actions to protect priority species and create, enhance and restore terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats across Scotland.

6.2 Key challenges, lessons learned, and future opportunities

6.2.1 Future reporting requirements and data used in this report

While the NRF has successfully aligned projects with funding priorities, reporting inconsistencies - particularly within the Edinburgh Process - made it difficult to fully quantify the outcomes achieved. NRF reporting of on-the-ground delivery is determined at individual project level and while a suite of selectable metrics to report against exists, these are not always applied consistently - nor to every individual action - making it difficult to fully quantify the outcomes achieved. It is acknowledged therefore that this report’s findings underestimate the extent of progress to date across both strands of the NRF.

This is not to say that the project monitoring process lacks rigour or structure. Competitive Fund strand projects are required to report on their progress against metrics through Progress and Claims forms and all projects are required to submit End of Grant report, all of which ensure projects achieve what they set out to deliver. This point relates to aligning the approach taken across projects, standardising the choices of metrics available to project managers, to increase comparability and accuracy when evaluating across all projects.

A structured framework could help standardise data collection both between projects and between strands of the NRF. The framework could help projects describe and report on their outcomes in an accurate yet consistent way by starting with broad-scale, widely applicable metrics, then narrowing gradually to capture detail through project-specific metrics. In particular, urban green-space improvements, habitat creation for priority species, and marine and coastal conservation would benefit from more granular data capture to better represent their full extent and contribution.

NatureScot is currently in the process of procuring a large-scale project that aims to address some of these issues. The Grant Management System (GMS) will aim to collate live data such that NatureScot can extract up-to-date data on projects at any time. The more standardised reporting framework suggested here could be integrated within the existing reporting mechanisms (e.g. at progress and claims stages), as well as carried through the design and deployment of the GMS.

For the Edinburgh Process, reporting across local authorities was inconsistent, both in the level of detail provided and in the submission of reports. Failure of some local authorities to report, or to provide all requested information, means that the outcomes of this strand are underestimated in this report. Determining barriers to reporting and seeking ways to overcome these barriers could result in more comprehensive reporting.

Future evaluations/reporting on the NRF may also benefit from inclusion of a cost benefit/value for money component within the analysis as a basis for determining the scale of impact relative to spend and/or in comparison to similar funding channels.

6.2.2 Increasing alignment between the two NRF strands

The Edinburgh Process and Competitive Fund strand are administered by different bodies, resulting in divergences in reporting. The Competitive Fund strand’s reporting metrics are directly linked to the logic model, which provides a strategic framework that connects funding inputs to NRF programme and long-term outcomes. Reporting requirements for the Edinburgh Process differed and the logic model therefore did not provide as suitable a framework. Consequently, direct links to programme outcomes were less clear.

Furthermore, because the Edinburgh Process return forms focused on qualitative reporting, it was difficult to track the scale of delivery of specific actions on the ground, pinpoint how funding was partitioned against programme and long-term outcomes or identify outcomes that require additional investment. Aligning reporting metrics in the two strands would allow for easier comparison between them and to evaluate how the NRF is delivering overall.

Aligning reporting between the two stands would also allow for them to be administrated in a way that ensures they further complement each other. For example, the comparatively low number of Urban projects under the Competitive Fund is counteracted by a high number of such projects funded under the Edinburgh Process. Similarly, the high number of Coastal and Marine projects in the Competitive Fund will help to counteract the lack of such projects in the Edinburgh Process. While both funding strands delivered relatively few INNS projects, such projects tended to have a large spatial footprint. Strategising between the two administering bodies will help ensure that steady progress is maintained across the eight programme outcomes of the NRF.

Relatedly, the distribution of projects under the Competitive Fund is strongly driven by the number and success of applications. As such, some geographical areas have not received Competitive Fund strand funding due to a lack of applications (e.g. East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and Midlothian). The Edinburgh Process provides a vehicle to assess reasons for uneven distribution and if necessary direct additional funding to these local authorities.

The two funding strands clearly have the potential to drive nature restoration in a more complementary fashion, and improved liaison between administrating bodies could help to achieve this.

6.2.3 Nature Networks

Nature Networks are central to the Scottish Government’s vision for biodiversity.^[59] Spatially targeting habitat creation, enhancement and restoration, provides a key vehicle to connect biodiversity and build resilient ecosystems that can adapt to environmental change.

This evaluation found that, except for Outcome 6 (i.e. Enhanced connection and integration of habitats and species to the urban fabric and increased urban nature-based solutions for healthy and resilient communities), the logic model’s programme outcomes do not adequately relate to Nature Networks. Consequently, specific metrics to capture ecological connectivity are lacking, an issue somewhat resolved in the Edinburgh Process strand’s more recent reporting. Consideration should be given to inclusion of metrics specifically relating to Nature Networks, across both strands. Reporting metrics that directly relate to Nature Networks will help ensure that restoration is spatially targeted to enhance connectivity (e.g. via reporting on contribution of actions to support and enhance Nature Networks and use of underpinning habitat network modelling to spatially target restoration).

Connecting people with nature is at the heart of Nature Networks. Many projects foster such links through training, community engagement, active participation or increasing accessibility (e.g. through footpaths). Connections (e.g. with community groups, schools, charities and NGOs) is captured in the Edinburgh Process strand, however, reporting for the Competitive Fund strand prioritises physical restoration metrics, which means social outcomes are excluded. While activities delivering community engagement and public access are not eligible for NRF funding, consideration of additional social metrics could promote these broader outcomes within the vision for benefits delivered via Nature Networks.

The recent release of the AECOM EcoUplift mapping tool provides a standardised platform for local authorities to spatially target actions to enhance connectivity and report how actions have supported Nature Networks. However, except for woodland networks, publicly available data on habitat networks and opportunity areas is lacking for many areas of Scotland. This makes it more difficult for Competitive Fund strand projects to spatially target restoration and report on their contribution to Nature Networks. A publicly available and free to use mapping tool could help the Competitive Fund strand meet this challenge.

6.2.4 Future evaluations and comparisons

This evaluation assessed the success of the two strands of the NRF at delivering against the outcomes identified in the logic model. The NRF is one of several policy vehicles that contribute to nature restoration in Scotland, including the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS), the Forestry Grant Scheme, Peatland ACTION, the Facility for Investment Ready Nature in Scotland, and others. This review did not set out to compare the outcomes of these different schemes, as they each have different objectives, audiences, and reporting structures.

Direct comparison between different project types, funding streams or geographical locations is challenging giving the complexity of factors that come into play. There are a multitude of ways to evaluate nature restoration – for example assessing how priority species are protected, how ecological connectivity is supported or how many ecosystems or ecosystem services have been restored or enhanced. Community awareness-raising and other social impacts may be also be factors to consider, depending on the expected outcomes of the project.

It is crucial to recognise that actions to restore nature vary in their difficulty to implement, and comparing metrics such as the area supported for different types of projects is unlikely to be valid. For example, supporting 100 m of hedgerow planting is much cheaper and easier to achieve than re-meandering the same length of river. Additionally, it is not just the type of project that impacts on delivery cost, but also their location, with restorative actions on remote Scottish Islands typically being more costly to implement than those in, for example, the Central Belt. Consequently, to compare different funding mechanisms, future evaluations would have to account for variations in costs, complexity, and geographical challenges.

6.3 Initial conclusions about the impact of the NRF 2021-2024

This report presents evidence that the NRF is achieving progress against its programme outcomes and represents a key delivery mechanism for the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045. Project delivery across the first three years of its deployment indicates that the NRF is supporting a breadth of project types and applicant groups for which there is no other funding available. This section reiterates some of the key strengths of the NRF and its uniqueness among other available funding streams. This report recommends that policymakers consider how to build on these strengths to optimise the positive impacts the NRF is having on nature recovery and maintain its provision of funding for projects that lack suitable alternative funding.

6.3.1 Flexibility and openness of the NRF

The Competitive Fund is an open fund, and applications can propose any project, which are then evaluated based on how they address NRF outcomes. This allows for an unlimited diversity of project and applicant types, thus showing greater flexibility with respect to both eligibility and actions permitted in comparison to Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS), Forestry Grant Scheme or Peatland ACTION. For example, it has provided capital investment allowing purchasing of machinery and equipment (e.g. marine echosounders, drones and vehicles) and has funded a range of actions to restore and enhance the marine environment such as the development of the BeachTrack App and deployment of monitoring buoys.

6.3.2 Driving new collaborations and scaling investment

The NRF has a strong focus on collaborative projects, which provide a wide range of benefits, including additional funding, support and expertise. The Competitive Fund Development Phase Projects provided a vehicle to support preparatory activity that helps secure the involvement and commitment of partners in order to be able to fully plan and design a transformational scale nature restoration project.

As natural capital markets emerge, the NRF has the potential to combine public and private investment through collaboration to optimise the outcomes achieved. It is widely acknowledged that public funds cannot meet the scale and pace of action required to meet Scotland’s goals for nature restoration and net zero.^[60] The Competitive Fund strand of the NRF has unlocked match funding from delivering organisations totalling £7.1 million over 2021-24, demonstrating the role that public finance has in crowding in finance from other sectors to support nature restoration, which supports the economy as a whole.

Through providing dedicated funding, the Edinburgh Process strand has enabled local authorities to work with a range of partners to restore and enhance nature and fostered internal collaboration between different teams within local authorities, who are responsible for different environmental areas (e.g. Open Space, Forestry, Roads, Climate and Flood Risk Management).

With lack of contractors identified as a key challenge, the NRF also provides an opportunity to increase practical conservation skills and boost green jobs across Scotland.

6.3.3 Provision of multi-year funding

Planning and implementing nature restoration projects is time consuming, particularly for ambitious projects that deliver at scale. In allowing multi-year projects from 2022/23, the Competitive Fund strand is likely to have facilitated the implementation of more ambitious projects, such as re-meandering rivers, wetland creation and floodplain restoration. As of March 2024, many multi-year projects were still ongoing and consequently the impact and scale of the NRF is likely to be underestimated at this stage. As these long-term projects come into fruition, it will be possible to gain a better understanding of their impact and contribution to the overall outcomes of the NRF. Future analysis to assess the value of multi-year funding in comparison to single-year funding may be important..

While the Edinburgh Process strand focusses on single year projects and funding, through its multi-year commitment to provide funds, the NRF has delivered stable financial backing required for local authorities to financially commit to partnerships and shared projects.

6.3.4 Current and future importance of the NRF

The NRF clearly provides an important vehicle to deliver nature restoration at scale across Scotland. This interim evaluation captures progress achieved to date and results indicate that the NRF is positioned to unlock additional and increasing benefits to nature over the remainder of its timeline to 2026. The fund addresses the complexities of nature restoration, funding a wide range of activities to restore and enhance the diversity of habitats and species Scotland supports. Through direct action, fostering collaboration, and providing opportunities to blend private and public financing, the NRF provides a crucial vehicle for Scotland to realise ambitions of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045, and broader nature-related outcomes, transcending policy areas.