Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase...

Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase II Final Report

9 February 2015

This page is intentionally blank

Local Nature Partnership Phase II Evaluation – Final Report

Local Nature Partnership Phase II Evaluation Final Report

A report submitted by ICF Consulting Services in association with

Rick Minter

Date: 9 February 2015

Job Number 30260033

Matt Rayment

ICF Watling House

33 Cannon Street

London EC4M 5SB

T +44 (0)20 7611 1100 F +44 (0)20 3096 4800

www.icfi.com

http://www.icfi.com/


Document Control

Document Title Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase II – Final Report

Job number 30260033

Prepared by Eoghan Daly, David McNeil, Matt Rayment, Rick Minter

Checked by Matt Rayment

Date 9 February 2015

This report is the copyright of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and has

been prepared by ICF Consulting Services Ltd under contract to Defra.

ICF has used reasonable skill and care in checking the accuracy and completeness of information

supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project under which the report was produced.

ICF is however unable to warrant either the accuracy or completeness of such information supplied by

the client or third parties, nor that it is fit for any purpose. ICF does not accept responsibility for any

legal, commercial or other consequences that may arise directly or indirectly as a result of the use by

ICF of inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this

project or its inclusion in this project or its inclusion in this report.

This report and Research Briefing by ICF are published by Defra (Defra Project Code NR0160) and

are available from the Department’s Science and Research Projects Database at

http://randd.defra.gov.uk. While the research was commissioned and funded by Defra the views

expressed reflect the research findings and the authors’ interpretation; they do not necessarily

reflect Defra policy.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/


Contents

Glossary............................................................................................................................. i

Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 1 Background and study objectives ............................................................................................................ 1 Approach and method ............................................................................................................................. 1 The analytical framework ......................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation findings .................................................................................................................................. 2 What next for LNPs? ............................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction .........................................................................................................8

2 Background and study objectives ..........................................................................9 2.1 Local Nature Partnerships ....................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Objectives of the evaluation ..................................................................................................... 9

3 Approach and method ........................................................................................ 11 3.1 Overall approach .................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Initial document review........................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Online survey ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 LNP interviews ....................................................................................................................... 12 3.5 Thematic evaluation ............................................................................................................... 12

4 The analytical framework ................................................................................... 14 4.1 The role of LNPs .................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Intervention logic .................................................................................................................... 14

5 Evaluation findings ............................................................................................. 18 5.1 LNPs’ development – a snapshot .......................................................................................... 18 5.2 Inputs...................................................................................................................................... 26 5.3 Activities ................................................................................................................................. 35 5.4 Outcomes ............................................................................................................................... 42 5.5 Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 52

6 What next for LNPs? ........................................................................................... 53 6.1 LNPs could play a more significant role locally, developing and enhancing links with LEPs

and getting more involved in different policy areas ................................................................ 53 6.2 LNP funding is and will remain a key issue............................................................................ 57 6.3 LNPs’ future role depends on their credibility ........................................................................ 57

7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 63 7.1 Progress in Development of LNPs ......................................................................................... 63 7.2 LNP Inputs ............................................................................................................................. 63 7.3 LNP Activities ......................................................................................................................... 63 7.4 LNP Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 63 7.5 LNP Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 64 7.6 The Future of LNPs ................................................................................................................ 64

Annexes (under separate cover)

Annex 1 Evidence review

Annex 2 LNP participation in the stakeholder consultation and thematic workshops

Annex 3 Interview topic guides

Annex 4 Detailed intervention logics

Annex 5 Findings from the stakeholder consultation


Annex 6 Thematic discussion papers

Annex 7 Survey responses: chairpersons and coordinators

Annex 8 Online survey questions

Table of tables

Table 4.1 Overall intervention logic for LNPs.................................................................................... 17

Table 5.1 Examples of how LNPs have raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural

environment among partners and stakeholders ............................................................... 44

Table 5.2 Examples of how LNPs have enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local

environment ...................................................................................................................... 46

Table 5.3 Examples of LNPs influencing the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national

priorities are supported by the activities of local stakeholders ......................................... 47

Table 5.4 Examples of LNPs contributing to the better implementation of actions that improve

natural areas ..................................................................................................................... 49

Table of figures

Figure 3.1 Project workflow ................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 5.1 LNPs have made good progress in setting up governance structures, obtaining

coordinator support and setting out overall visions, and are starting to work towards

delivering their vision ........................................................................................................ 19

Figure 5.2 LNP chairpersons and coordinators are from a wide variety of sectors, the majority of

members are from the local government and environment sectors ................................. 21

Figure 5.3 Chairs and coordinators agree that, in general, the right organisations are involved ...... 22

Figure 5.4 LNPs are working on a wide range of priorities ................................................................ 24

Figure 5.5 The main source of LNP funding is local government, Defra delivery bodies and

environmental NGOs ........................................................................................................ 27

Figure 5.6 The main sources of other kinds of support are LEPs, community groups and education /

research organisations ...................................................................................................... 29

Figure 5.7 Responses to the survey suggest the source of financing has a significant influence on

LNPs’ work ........................................................................................................................ 30

Figure 5.8 Challenges experienced by LNPs and their significance .................................................. 31

Figure 5.9 Although some LNPs have obtained some funding, almost a third of the respondents to

the online survey (10 of 35) stated that funding is not at all secure post-2013, while 15 of

35 stated that funding is not very secure post-2013. Only one LNP thought that funding is

very secure beyond 2014. Funding is not secure for the majority of LNPs ..................... 32

Figure 5.10 Environmental organisations, Defra agencies and local government are the most

engaged with LNPs ........................................................................................................... 35

Figure 5.11 Outcomes of LNP activities ............................................................................................... 43

Figure 6.1 Cycle supporting LNPs influence and enhancing their mandate ...................................... 59

Table of boxes

Box 1 Many LNPs are keen to get involved with biodiversity offsetting but are unsure of their potential role………………………………………………………………................................................ 24

Box 2 Examples of potential sources of funding……………………................................................... 32

Box 3 The Devon LNP and the local health sector…………………………………………………….... 34

Box 4 LNPs and others collaborating on biodiversity offsets…………………………………….......... 35

Box 5 There are opportunities available for LNPs to work with the local health sector…………....... 36


Box 6 North Yorkshire and York LNP: Linking the natural environment to an economic strategy..... 37

Box 7 Wild Anglia (Local Environment and Economic Development Toolkit)……………………....... 38

Box 8 Additional examples of successful LNP and LEP cooperation……………………………........ 38

Box 9 LNPs suggested that a natural capital approach could help them to engage more successfully with LEPs……………………………………………………………………………………...

40

Box 10 Ecological networks have provided the basis for collaboration among LNP participants….. 48

Box 11 LNPs interpretation of their mandate varies in terms of scope and type………………......... 57


i

Glossary

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Partnership

LEP Local Enterprise Partnership

LHWB Local Health and Wellbeing Board

LNP Local Nature Partnership

LNP

member

Organisation or individual involved with an LNP but not as a

chairperson or coordinator.

LNP

participant

Collective term used in this report to refer to any person and / or

organisation involved with an LNP, for example, as a chairperson,

coordinator, board member and member.

LNP

stakeholder

Organisations involved with LNPs at a national level.

NEWP Natural Environment White Paper

NIA Nature Improvement Area

RDPE Rural Development Programme for England


1

Executive summary

Background and study objectives

The 48 Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) comprise a broad range of local organisations, businesses

and individuals, and cover almost the whole of England. Their establishment was announced in the

2011 Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)1 which stated: ‘LNPs will enable local leadership and

may operate across administrative boundaries. They will raise awareness about the services and

benefits of a healthy natural environment, and will be encouraged to form strong links with Local

Enterprise Partnerships in order to strengthen the green economy’. The Government has encouraged

local areas to establish LNPs voluntarily, where there is an interest in doing so, and announced the

provision of one-off funding of £1 million in 2011/12 to help to build their capacity. Defra hopes to

build a close relationship between LNPs across the country, to encourage mutual learning and to help

them collectively to deliver on national priorities.

As well as reflecting the localism agenda, the establishment of LNPs emphasises the importance of

local action in connecting people with nature, recognising and strengthening the benefits that

ecosystems provide to society, and bringing together the different actors and decision makers who

influence the natural environment and green economy. LNPs have a key role to play in guiding,

influencing or contributing to many of the initiatives and ideas set out in the NEWP, such as

biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, catchment based approaches, local public

health initiatives and landscape-scale conservation projects.

Objectives of the evaluation

ICF was commissioned by Defra in October 2013 to undertake an evaluation of LNPs. The purpose of

this evaluation was to examine the implementation and outcomes of LNPs, and support LNPs to work

with other partnerships and bodies to determine the potential to improve coordination between other

initiatives. The study was completed in October 2014, with the main research tasks taking place

between December 2013 and July 2014. The evaluation:

■ Assessed the achievements of the LNPs to date;

■ Examined their working relationships with Defra’s delivery bodies;

■ Assessed their future sustainability;

■ Supported them to work with other partnerships and organisations;

■ Worked with them to advance learning on priority themes;

■ Discussed and shared emerging good practice; and

■ Identified the need for guidance, tools and data for LNP activities.

Approach and method

The evaluation was undertaken through the following stages:

■ An evidence review of LNPs’ own materials, references and outputs;

■ An online survey of LNP chairpersons and co-ordinators, which was completed by 23 chairpersons

and 24 co-ordinators, representing 35 LNPs in total;

■ Interviews with 30 chairpersons, 31 coordinators, 88 members and 9 organisations involved with

LNPs at a national level;

■ A thematic evaluation of 7 topics selected by LNPs; and

■ Workshops with LNP representatives covering the 7 topics.

Overall, all but two of the 48 LNPs in England participated in the survey and interviews.

The 7 topics identified by LNPs for more detailed learning and evaluation, including through thematic

workshops, were:

1. Biodiversity offsetting: what is LNPs’ role?

1 HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. http://www.official-

documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf



2

2. LNPs’ role in identifying new and enhancing existing ecological networks.

3. Strengthening the LNPs’ mandate: developing a vision and role for LNPs.

4. LNP funding and resources: examples of how LNPs have identified and secured funding.

5. LNPs and LEPs: working together to protect and enhance the natural environment and strengthen

the economy.

6. Natural capital: Making the economic case for investing in the natural environment.

7. LNPs and the local health sector: working together to protect and enhance the natural environment

and deliver positive health outcomes.

The analytical framework

An overall and several detailed LNP intervention logics were prepared as frameworks to guide the

evaluation. The detailed intervention logics addressed each expected outcome (awareness,

knowledge, influence, delivery, collaboration) individually. Because LNPs are still at a relatively early

stage in their development, the evaluation framework was designed to assess the inputs, activities and

outputs of LNPs to date, as well as progress towards their intended outcomes and impacts. Our

findings in this report are analysed within the elements of this framework.

The overall intervention logic highlights that LNPs are strategic influencing organisations rather than

delivery bodies. That is, LNPs are intended to add value and effect change by influencing decision

making and improving the co-ordination and effectiveness of LNP members’ activities and initiatives.

This role is highlighted in Defra policy and guidance and confirmed by discussions with LNPs

regarding their understanding of their purpose and objectives.

Evaluation findings

LNP governance and participants

LNPs have made good progress in setting up governance structures, obtaining coordinator support,

and setting out – and beginning to deliver - their vision. More developed LNPs are identifying and

pursuing actions on agreed goals and strategies. Less developed LNPs are reviewing priorities and

preparing strategy documents.

The majority of LNPs see their role as a strategic rather than delivery body. Some would like LNPs to

have more of a delivery role if additional resources were available. Other LNPs are keen to avoid

becoming involved in delivery, to avoid duplication of effort with other organisations.

LNP participants come from local government, environment, business and other sectors including

education, health, local conservation groups and independent experts. Online survey responses

indicated that the level of engagement with LNPs varied by sector, with strongest engagement with

environmental organisations (with 91% of responding LNPs indicating that such organisations were

“very engaged”), Defra agencies and delivery bodies (89%) and local government (57%). LNP

members’ most commonly cited reason for becoming involved was to ensure they had access to

funding, while chairpersons and coordinators tended to cite the potential to have a strategic

influencing role as their primary motivation.

Interviewees among LNP chairs, co-ordinators and members identified the importance of a board that

includes organisations from a diversity of sectors to the success of LNPs.

The presence of a funded coordinator was identified as an important factor in the successful

establishment of an LNP. A funded coordinator provides the secretariat function necessary to

maintain the LNP’s momentum, organise meetings, prepare and circulate documents and generally

contribute to the progress of an LNP.

LNP funding, resources and central support

Funding sources utilised by LNPs include: subscribing members; fees for services (e.g. planning

advice; ecological mapping); support in kind from members; venue provision; and donated/seconded

staff time. The main sources of funding to date have been from local government (19/35 LNPs), Defra

delivery bodies (16/35), environmental NGOs (13/35), businesses (4/35) and the Heritage Lottery

Fund (4/35). LEPs, community groups and education and research bodies provide the main other

forms of support.


3

The majority of LNPs (34/35 responding to online survey) are encountering considerable challenges

with resource constraints, capacity, and time constraints. LNPs are running on donations of time and

resources and the majority do not have an independent or sustainable source of funding. A lack of

resources is compromising the ability of LNPs to meet their objectives as described in the NEWP and

subsequent Defra (2012) paper on the role of LNPs. LNPs’ reliance on voluntary contributions of time

and resources makes it difficult for them to progress as quickly as they would like.

Two categories of resources were identified: ‘core’ resources for the administrative and secretariat

functions, and ‘project’ resources necessary to deliver initiatives or actions. Core resources are the

priority for most LNPs, and are crucial in pursuit of the partnerships’ strategic influencing goals. LNPs

estimated that the amount of funding necessary to ensure the viability of the partnerships is on

average £50,000 per year.

Factors that contribute to an LNP successfully obtaining funding include: a long-term funding plan, the

use of different and innovative funding structures, and the definition of a clear offer or service which

the LNP can provide to other organisations.

LNPs identified the next 12 months as a crucial time. Without demonstrable progress, several senior

participants on LNP boards stated that they would find it difficult to justify their continued involvement.

Activities

LNPs have engaged in a wide range of activities and have begun to make progress on a variety of

different agendas and to work with various sectors and organisations.

Much early effort has been devoted to influencing Local Enterprise Partnerships and their strategies,

in line with the recent effort by LEPs in defining their economic strategies and funding priorities. The

majority of LNPs report progress in influencing LEPs, but there is also frustration that to date only a

few have identified tangible outcomes from this engagement. These outcomes include influencing

LEP strategies and funding decisions, and working together on collaborative projects.

Other areas of significant progress include improving the local evidence base and use of evidence,

supporting ecological networks and influencing catchment management. There has been less

progress in influencing the public health agenda, identified as a priority by most LNPs, although there

are a few good examples of successful engagement. LNPs report that greater credibility, a stronger

presence, improved awareness of the relevance of their agenda, as well as more resources would

enhance their effectiveness and influence.

Outcomes

LNPs are making good progress against their intended outcomes, particularly in increasing

collaboration and coordination, enhancing knowledge sharing, engaging a wider range of stakeholders

in natural environment actions, and increasing awareness about the natural environment.

The evaluation identified numerous specific examples of progress in these areas by individual LNPs.

These include examples which can be expected to have direct benefits, for example by securing

funding for natural environment investments, delivering natural environment projects, enabling target

audiences to identify opportunities for natural environment action, providing information that has

directly influenced decisions relating to the natural environment, and improving the co-ordination and

delivery of existing natural environment actions. Further details are given in the main report, and

selected examples of collaboration between LNPs and LEPs are summarised in the box below.

Examples of successful LNP and LEP cooperation

The examples below were provided by LNPs during the stakeholder consultation and the thematic

evaluation.

Buckinghamshire

and Milton Keynes

LNP and LEP have undertaken joint workshops through Natural England. Local

property / land developers also attended the workshops. The LNP’s contribution

helped to influence the local growth strategy by emphasising the importance of


4

natural capital to the local area.

Dorset The LNP and LEP are working towards a Joint Planning Charter that will set out their

joint position on issues relevant to the natural environment and local economy, such

as biodiversity offsetting.

Tees Valley The LNP enabled different organisations with different views to contribute to the

development of the LEP strategy. The LNP provided suggestions to the LEP about

how local environment priorities could be reflected in the LEP’s strategy, suggestions

that the LEP took on board.

Cornwall and Isles

of Scilly

The LNP had the status and credibility to engage with the LEP and influence its

economic strategy for the 2014 – 2020 period. The LNP’s contribution resulted in the

inclusion of objectives and plans related to the natural environment.

Birmingham and

Black Country

The LNP offered advice on the LEPs sustainable water and conservation plans,

resulting in changes to the LEP’s economic strategy.

Gloucestershire The main achievement has been the engagement with the LEP. The LNP provided

its inputs into the LEP’s EU funding strategy and economic plans. As a result, the

LEP incorporated environmental sections in its economic plans.

Hull and East

Yorkshire

The LNP engaged with the LEP about the importance of the natural environment,

highlighting the potential to improve the quality of specific areas of green

infrastructure and enhance the economic potential of the area. The result of the

LNPs work with the LEP was the allocation of £1.7m of EU funding over the 2014 –

2020 period.

Wiltshire and

Swindon

Following a difficult start, the LNP established a good working relationship at an

operational level with the LEP. The key breakthrough was a meeting between the

LNP and a consultant working on the LEP Strategy, which provided the opportunity

for the LNP to articulate what the LNP could offer the LEP and what value the LNP

could add to discussions. The LNP was then invited to participate in a series of

workshops for key stakeholders to help identify potential priorities for the European

Structural and Investment Fund Strategy being developed. The LNP participated fully

and, subject to final approval, has secured an element of the funds for Natural capital

investment projects.

There is an LEP representative on the LNP board however to date there is no LNP

representative on the LEP board.

Lowland

Derbyshire and

Nottinghamshire

The LNP structure has helped to facilitate engagement between the LEP and LNP

members, engagement which would have been unlikely to occur in the absence of

the LNP. There is a senior LA planner, who is part of the LEP, working with the LNP

on the development of its strategy. The LNP has a representative on a management

steering group of the LEP, and also a representative on the LEP board.

The collaboration between the LEP and LNP has resulted in the preparation of

detailed information about potential natural tourism business opportunities.

Contributing to Biodiversity 2020 targets under Outcome 1 of the strategy is a priority area for many

LNPs. The majority are currently unable to identify progress towards the targets, but highlight the

potential to do so in future, particularly through strategic influencing contributions rather than delivery

work. Examples of potential contributions include through influencing biodiversity offsetting, habitat

restoration, development of new environmental land management schemes, and contributing to

Nature Improvement Areas and other ecological networks. Such LNPs typically have a biodiversity

action group that includes individuals and organisations involved in local biodiversity work prior to their

involvement with LNPs, for example as part of a Local Biodiversity Action Plan.


5

Success criteria for LNPs

Success criteria suggested by Defra, and endorsed by the LNPs interviewed, include whether an LNP

has the following:

■ A shared strategic vision and set of priorities.

■ A broad membership that includes economic, health and environmental interests.

■ Effective and accountable governance and leadership.

■ Influence and knowledge about the natural environment and its services.

■ A good overview of the range of activities and partnerships concerned with the sustainable

management of the natural environment in its area.

LNPs expect to deliver positive change by building on the existing activities of local partners and

stakeholders. Their primary role is to influence, co-ordinate and better inform a range of activities

relating to the natural environment, rather than to act as delivery bodies. This raises some challenges

for evaluation, which requires examination of the value that LNPs add to the existing activities of

members and stakeholders.

Most LNPs (29 of 35) have not completed an evaluation plan and almost a third do not intend to

prepare one. It will be difficult to determine the added value of LNPs unless there is a process for

recording and reviewing their progress and results. However, several LNP participants pointed to the

difficulty of attempting to evaluate the strategic influencing role of the LNP, suggesting it was difficult to

determine the added value of LNPs with respect to awareness-raising and other outcomes. It is

noted, however, that, in the absence of central funding, LNPs’ ability to survive and to secure

resources for continued activity will be a good indicator of their effectiveness and relevance to local

stakeholders.

Impacts

Over time, LNPs are expected to contribute to the three overall themes of the Natural Environment

White Paper:

■ An improved natural environment;

■ A stronger green economy; and

■ Stronger connections between people and nature.

These impacts are also influenced by a wide range of external influences and activities. It is therefore

unsurprising that, at this early stage, the overall effects of LNPs’ activities on these longer term

impacts have yet to be observed. However, by continuing to progress their chosen activities and to

deliver against their intended outcomes, LNPs can be expected to deliver positive impacts for the

natural environment, green economy and local communities in the long term.

What next for LNPs?

LNPs are well established and are starting to move beyond priority setting to contribute to local

decision making affecting the natural environment. The results of the thematic evaluation suggest that

there is scope for LNPs to work more closely with LEPs, and play a more significant role with local

health organisations, biodiversity offsetting and ecological networks. However funding remains a

significant challenge for LNPs, and may limit the extent to which they can add value to local decision

making affecting the natural environment.

Closer working with LEPs

The evaluation found that there is scope for LNPs to provide a stronger advisory role to LEPs. LNPs

could draw on their membership to:

■ Act as a conduit to data related to local environment concerns and the mitigation of environmental

risks relevant to local businesses;

■ Play an advisory role on biodiversity offsetting, explaining how it works and how to make it

effective;

■ Advise on the links between policy areas such as tourism and social inclusion, and describe their

relationship to environment-economy related issues;


6

■ Highlight possibilities for innovative nature-based solutions to pressing local problems, such as

flood management; and

■ Provide a link to national strategies, particularly on issues of key relevance to the local economy

such as the New Environmental Management Scheme (NELMS).

Most LNPs are struggling with resource limitations that significantly constrain engagement with LEPs.

Influencing LEPs will take time and will require that LNPs have the necessary credibility and status.

Influencing the health sector

Most LNPs (33/35 of those responding to the online survey) have identified working with the local

health sector as a priority. LNPs are multi-disciplinary partnerships potentially capable of embracing

the diverse connections between health, wellbeing and engagement with nature.

Through their membership LNPs could provide the intelligence and platform for partners to build

service offers. LNPs are well placed to offer a ‘brokering’ role for local health organisations that want

information about and access to the natural environment. Having an LNP board member from the

local health sector would help the LNP keep abreast of developments in the sector, and would help to

identify opportunities for collaboration.

Biodiversity offsetting

The majority (33/35) of LNPs have prioritised input to biodiversity offsetting, but LNPs do not want to

spend time considering offsetting in detail without greater certainty about the policy framework. The

following potential LNP roles were identified during the thematic evaluation:

■ A technical advisory role; to maximise the conservation benefits of offset delivery;

■ A communication role to ensure that local stakeholders are clear about the offsetting process,

what it entails and what it can deliver;

■ Help to engage landowners to facilitate access to land for offsetting; and

■ Advice to local planning authorities considering offsetting schemes.

Ecological networks

Nearly all (34/35) of LNPs are either working to support ecological networks, or intend to do so. The

thematic evaluation concluded that LNPs’ brokerage and coordination role on ecological networks

could include:

■ Integrating existing initiatives under the concept of a local ecological network;

■ Providing the necessary scale and experience, and a strategic integrated approach to bid for

national or EU funding;

■ Disseminating best practice and highlighting key examples;

■ Harmonisation of standards for monitoring and reporting; and

■ Coordinating the development of decision-support tools.

Understanding and strengthening LNPs’ mandate

LNPs believe that they would be more credible and influential if, collectively, they had a stronger

presence and clearer mandate, building on that already set out in the Natural Environment White

Paper. In particular, they believe that a stronger voice and recognition at national level would help to

reinforce efforts to raise awareness and influence stakeholders locally, as well as to secure funding

and resources from partners.

While LNPs will continue to set their own priorities locally, and rely on local resources, the evaluation

also highlighted scope for action across the network to strengthen their collective presence and to

reaffirm their purpose and relevance.

Collective discussion with LNPs identified several steps which could be taken to develop and

strengthen their mandate:

■ Define service offers that describe what individual LNPs can provide to local organisations;

■ Prepare a national LNP prospectus setting out the capabilities, activities and achievements of

LNPs and what they can offer other local organisations;


7

■ Select a national LNP coordinator, either from within or in addition to the existing network, to

engage with national-level strategy and policy making and integrate LNPs with relevant new

initiatives; and

■ Establish national LNP working groups to share experience on particular themes, offering mutual

support and linking with the central coordinator role.

Defra could also consider the need to reconfirm the LNPs’ mandate as set out in the NEWP. Since

the NEWP was published LNPs have been established and are operational. A refreshed message

could draw on practical examples from across the LNP network and could complement or be

incorporated into the LNP promotional document described above. LNPs would like to see more

recognition and support across government, including from the Departments for Business, Innovation

and Skills and Communities and Local Government, which play an important role in driving the agenda

they are trying to influence at local level. LNPs suggested that broader central governmental support

would help to strengthen their remit and may influence LEPs and others to take them more seriously.

Possible priorities for future support

LNPs are keen to work together nationally, in collaboration with Defra, to further define their role and

to explore how they can develop their collective offer and enhance their profile and influence.

Defra may wish to consider whether some centrally provided resources for LNPs could make a

significant contribution in helping them to strengthen their mandate. This could include funds for a

national co-ordinator and a small budget for publications and meetings. Defra could facilitate, rather

than direct, this process, working with LNPs to help them define their role, reassert the mandate for

LNPs set out in the NEWP and update it to reflect progress to date, and help to raise the profile of

LNPs across government.


8

1 Introduction

This is the final report of the evaluation of Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs). The evaluation

was delivered by ICF for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

ICF worked with the support of Rick Minter.

The aim of the evaluation was to examine the implementation and outcomes of LNPs, and

support and enable LNPs to work with representatives from other partnerships and

organisations to determine the potential to improve coordination between other initiatives.

This report presents the findings of the evaluation.

The report is structured as follows:

■ Section 2: Background and study objectives.

■ Section 3: Evaluation approach and method.

■ Section 4: The analytical framework applied in the evaluation.

■ Section 5: Findings of the evaluation.

■ Section 6: Consideration of LNPs’ next steps.

■ Section 7: Conclusions.

A number of annexes are included in a separate document:

■ Annex 1: Results of the evidence review.

■ Annex 2: LNP participation in the stakeholder consultation.

■ Annex 3: Interview topic guides.

■ Annex 4: Detailed intervention logics.

■ Annex 5: Survey responses: chairpersons and coordinators.

■ Annex 6: Thematic discussion papers.

■ Annex 7: Online survey questions.


9

2 Background and study objectives

2.1 Local Nature Partnerships

Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) are partnerships of a broad range of local organisations,

businesses and people who aim to help bring about improvements in their local natural

environment. Their establishment was announced by the Government in the 2011 Natural

Environment White Paper (NEWP)2 in order to strengthen local action on natural

environment issues. The NEWP stated that ‘LNPs will enable local leadership and may

operate across administrative boundaries. They will raise awareness about the services and

benefits of a healthy natural environment, and will be encouraged to form strong links with

Local Enterprise Partnerships in order to strengthen the green economy’.

As well as reflecting the localism agenda, the establishment of LNPs emphasises the

importance of local action in connecting people with nature, recognising and strengthening

the benefits that ecosystems provide to society, and bringing together the different actors

and decision makers who influence the natural environment and green economy. LNPs

have a key role to play in guiding, influencing or contributing to many of the initiatives and

ideas set out in the NEWP, such as biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services,

catchment based approaches, local public health initiatives and landscape-scale

conservation projects.

The Government has encouraged local areas to establish LNPs voluntarily, where there is

an interest in doing so. The NEWP envisaged that around 50 partnerships might form

around England, and announced the provision of one-off funding of £1 million in 2011/12 to

help to build their capacity. In addition, it was announced that an annual Ministerial event

will be held, at which partnerships can come together to share best practice, discuss

implementation issues and celebrate success.

There are now 48 LNPs, covering most of England. Defra hopes to build a close relationship

between LNPs across the country, to encourage mutual learning and to help them

collectively to deliver on national priorities. The first Ministerial event for the 48 LNPs was

held in February 2013. A second Ministerial event was held on the 12th March 2014.

2.2 Objectives of the evaluation

Most LNPs are now around two years old, and can be expected to have made further

progress and to increase their influence since the Phase 1 evaluation carried out between

October 2012 and April 2013 by the Tavistock Institute and Ursus Consulting Ltd.

The aim of the Phase 2 evaluation was to continue evaluation of LNPs, assessing

implementation and outcomes across all LNPs and working more intensively with a smaller

number of LNPs to provide in-depth evaluation and support progress on key topics. Where

appropriate, the evaluation aimed to support and enable LNPs to work with representatives

from other partnerships and organisations to improve coordination between landscape scale

and other similar initiatives.

The assignment assessed the achievements of the LNPs to date, examined their working

relationships with Defra’s delivery bodies, assessed their future sustainability, supported

them to work with other partnerships and organisations, and worked with them to advance

learning in relation to key themes and priorities. It provided opportunities for dissemination

and sharing good practice and identified the need for other support in terms of guidance,

tools and data to help LNPs to achieve their objectives.

The objectives of the evaluation were:

2 HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. http://www.official-





10

1. To assess the progress of all LNPs to identify the extent to which they are achieving their

objectives and helping to deliver national policy priorities, including the Natural

Environment White Paper and Biodiversity 2020. The evaluation aimed to improve

understanding of what is working well and less well, and provide advice and support to

LNPs to ensure they are able to make the most of opportunities.

2. To assess the sustainability of LNPs, particularly in relation to the different models LNPs

are adopting, how transferable these are and the conditions needed for other LNPs to

adopt them.

3. To assess the relationships LNPs are developing with Defra’s delivery bodies, including

identification of ways of working that are working well and any issues that may need

resolving.

4. To work more intensively with a smaller number of LNPs to provide in-depth evaluation

and support progress on key topics. This work included collective learning and

evaluation on particular themes.

5. To support and enable LNPs to work with representatives from other partnerships and

organisations to improve coordination between landscape scale and other similar

initiatives. This objective was also supported by the thematic learning and evaluation

work.

6. To provide opportunities for dissemination and sharing good practice and to gather

information on what other support in terms of guidance, tools and data would help LNPs

to achieve their objectives.


11

3 Approach and method

This section summarises the evaluation approach and method.

3.1 Overall approach

The evaluation was organised in 6 stages, summarised in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Project workflow

The main research tasks included an evidence review, online survey, interviews, thematic

workshops, and a thematic evaluation of 7 topics selected by LNPs. The list of organisations

that participated in the consultation and the workshops is included in Annex 2.

3.2 Initial document review

The evaluation was informed by an evidence review, incorporating information provided by

Defra and additional resources obtained by the study team through desk research. The

project team searched online for information about each of the 48 LNPs. The purpose of the

review was to establish LNPs’ implementation progress, determine which organisations and

sectors are participating in LNPs, and identify LNPs’ priorities. The results of the evidence

review are included in Annex 1.

The information collected about LNPs during the evidence review contributed to the

preparation of the overall and detailed intervention logics (section 4.2 and Annex 4,

respectively), the online survey (Annex 8) and interview pro-forma (Annex 3).

3.3 Online survey

The online survey was conducted between 17 December 2013 and 7 February 2014. An

invitation to complete the survey was emailed directly to chairpersons and coordinators in

each of the 48 LNPs. A total of 89 people were invited to complete the survey, 48

chairpersons and 41 coordinators3. Contact details for both groups were provided to ICF by

Defra. Coordinators were also invited to circulate the survey among the members of their

LNP. Two reminder emails were sent to chairpersons and coordinators to complete the

survey, one on 9 January and another on 22 January 2014. Chairpersons and coordinators

3 Only 41 coordinators were contacted as some LNPs had the same contact listed for the chairperson and

coordinator.

Stage 1 InceptionStage 3 Surveys &

interviews

Stage 2 Methodological

development

Stage 4 Thematic evaluation &

learningStage 5 Reporting

Mobilisation

Inception meeting

Preparation

Deliverable 1 Inception report

Document review

Development of logic models

Identification of research topics

Preparation of research instruments

Methodology / scoping report

Deliverable 3 Interim report I

Online survey

LNP chairs / coordinatorsLNP membersInterviews

LNP chairs / coordinators

LNP members

LNP stakeholders

Deliverable 4 Interim report II

Deliverable 5 Interim report III

Topic identification & briefing paper preparation

Identify participants for thematic evaluation

Thematic workshops and learning papers

Deliverable 6 Draft final report

Deliverable 7 Final report

Draft final report

Final report

Stage 6 Dissemination &

learning

Distribution of learning papers, evaluation briefing & dissemination event

National dissemination event

Deliverable 2 Methodology

report


12

were also reminded about the survey when contacted by the project team to schedule

interviews.

A total of 87 responses to the survey were received: 23 chairpersons, 24 coordinators and

40 other LNP members. A survey response from either a chairperson or coordinator was

received from 35 LNPs. Including members, a survey response was received from a total of

38 LNPs. Of the 10 LNPs that did not provide a survey response, 2 did not participate in the

interviews (that is, only 2 LNPs did not participate in either the survey or the interviews).

The results of the online survey from the 35 LNPs are the basis of the findings presented in

section 5. Responses from chairpersons / coordinators from the same LNP have been

combined. Scaled responses, for example significant, very significant etc., were combined

and averaged. Binary responses, that is, responses indicating whether a feature was

present / not present, were combined by including positive responses over null responses.

Chairperson responses were excluded if they contradicted coordinator responses to

questions about whether features were present or not. It was assumed that LNP

coordinators would have a better overview about LNPs’ administrative details.

3.4 LNP interviews

Interviews with LNPs were conducted between 3 January 2014 and 14 February 2014.

Contact details for LNP chairpersons and coordinators were provided to the study team by

Defra. To identify LNP members the study team reviewed LNP websites to identify

participating organisations, and also asked LNP coordinators to suggest up to 4 LNP

members.

A total of 158 interviews were completed: 30 chairpersons, 31 coordinators, 88 members

and 9 organisations involved with LNPs at a national level. Interviews were completed with

chairpersons or coordinators in 38 LNPs. Eight chairpersons and eight coordinators declined

to participate, either because they were too busy, had only been in the post for a very short

period, or because they suggested that someone else would respond on their behalf (for

example, a chairperson would not participate in an interview as the coordinator would

respond on their behalf). For several LNPs, a single person assumes the role of both

chairperson and coordinator. The organisations involved with LNPs at a national level,

referred to as ‘LNP stakeholders’ in this report, generally had a limited overview of how LNPs

were progressing. Those with a better understanding of how LNPs are progressing were

typically involved with a particular LNP but did not have a handle on LNPs progress in

general.

Most LNPs responded to either or both the online survey and interviews. Only for 6 LNPs

did neither the chairperson nor the coordinator take part in either an interview or the survey.

In four of these six LNPs, another partner (other than the chair or co-ordinator) took part in

the online survey and/or the interviews. Only two LNPs did not participate at all in either the

interviews or the online survey.

3.5 Thematic evaluation

Through the interviews and survey ICF identified seven topics of interest to LNPs for the

thematic evaluation:

■ Biodiversity offsetting: what is LNPs’ role?

■ LNPs’ role in identifying new and enhancing existing ecological networks.

■ Strengthening the LNPs’ mandate: developing a vision and role for LNPs.

■ LNP funding and resources: examples of how LNPs have identified and secured funding.

■ LNPs and LEPs: working together to protect and enhance the natural environment and

strengthen the economy.

■ Natural capital: Making the economic case for investing in the natural environment.


13

■ LNPs and the local health sector: working together to protect and enhance the natural

environment and deliver positive health outcomes.

A set of discussion papers, one for each thematic topic, was prepared and circulated in

advance of thematic workshops with LNPs and other stakeholders. Desk research was

undertaken to summarise the latest policy developments in each area. The results of the

LNP consultation, and the desk research, informed the identification of potential LNP roles,

and helped to identify a series of questions for consideration at each thematic workshop.

The seven thematic topics were addressed during a series of workshops held at the end of

June / beginning of July 2014. A total of 35 participants attended the workshops,

representing 25 LNPs. At least one person from Defra attended each workshop, and a

Natural England representative attended 2 workshops.

The results of the thematic evaluation are included in discussion papers for each thematic

topic (the full set of papers is included in Annex 6) and are integrated into Section 5 on the

findings of the evaluation, and Section 6 about the next steps for LNPs.


14

4 The analytical framework

This section describes the analytical framework used to prepare the research tools (online

survey and interview topic guides) and analyse the results of the evaluation. The section

briefly summarises the role of Local Nature Partnerships and then presents an intervention

logic for LNPs.

4.1 The role of LNPs

In a 2012 paper4 Defra stated that the overall purpose of an LNP is to:

■ Drive positive change in the local natural environment, taking a strategic view of the

challenges and opportunities involved and identifying ways to manage it as a system for

the benefit of nature, people and the economy.

■ Contribute to achieving the Government’s national environmental objectives locally,

including the identification of local ecological networks, alongside addressing local

priorities.

■ Become local champions influencing decision-making relating to the natural environment

and its value to social and economic outcomes, in particular, through working closely

with local authorities, LEPs and Health and Wellbeing Boards.

The 2012 paper suggested that LNPs have a role to play in relation to three overall themes

and a number of specific initiatives within each theme:

■ Sustainable land use and management – identifying and embedding ecological

networks, informing the Government’s biodiversity strategy, sustainable land

management, green infrastructure, maintaining countryside character, working with

National Park Authorities and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, working with local

initiatives on flooding and water management, protecting and improving public access to

the countryside, and promoting biodiversity offsetting.

■ Green economic growth – working with Local Enterprise Partnerships on the natural

environment/ economy interface, engaging local businesses in initiatives such as

payments for ecosystem services (PES) and offsets, and engaging with other

partnerships such as Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) LEADER

groups on natural environment issues.

■ Quality of life and local health and wellbeing – working to strengthen the contribution

of the natural environment through green infrastructure and public access, and by

working with Local Health and Well-being Boards (LHWB).

The three themes map closely, but not exactly, onto three of the four main themes of the

Natural Environment White Paper.5

4.2 Intervention logic

The information collected during the evidence review in Stage 2 was used to define models

of intervention logic for LNPs. Intervention logics identify the inputs, activities, outcomes and

impacts associated with a programme or initiative in pursuit of its stated objectives. By

providing a theoretical reference point to guide the examination of LNPs’ progress and

impacts, the intervention logics helped in the design of the methodology and in the

identification of the key research questions to be included in the online survey and interview

4 Defra (2012) An overview of the Local Nature Partnership role. Accessed online 21/10/2014

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192580/local-nature-partnerships-overview120402.pdf. 5 Protecting and Improving our Natural Environment; Growing a Green Economy; Reconnecting People and

Nature). The fourth main theme of the NEWP is International and EU Leadership.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192580/local-nature-partnerships-overview120402.pdf



15

topic guides. They also provide a framework to structure the analysis of the evaluation

findings (section 5).

The LNP intervention logics include the following elements:

■ Inputs: The financial and human resources, support and other inputs necessary for

LNPs to operate come from a variety of sources including the Capacity Building Fund,

members’ time and resources and other funding and grants accessed by LNP

participants.

■ Activities: Inputs are used by LNP participants to undertake activities related to

protecting and enhancing the natural environment. In the majority of cases these

activities involve communication, engagement and sharing data, for example, rather than

activities that involve direct management of initiatives or schemes related to the natural

environment. That is, activities undertaken by LNPs are generally about influencing,

catalysing and co-ordinating decisions and actions related to the natural environment

rather than implementing specific programmes.

■ Outcomes: Outcomes are the changes brought about by the activities of LNPs. These

outcomes may include changes in behaviour or decisions that affect the natural

environment. For example, an LNP outcome may include improved partnership working

(e.g. two organisations collaborating on a grant application), or enhanced awareness

resulting in better decision making (e.g. enhanced information about the natural

environment in local planning).

■ Impacts: Impacts are changes that occur to the environment, economy and society as a

result of the activities and outcomes of LNPs. These may include, for example, impacts

on the natural environment through more sympathetic land management, growth in the

green economy and/or greater interaction between local people and their environment.

Because LNPs are strategic rather than delivery bodies, their impacts may often be

indirect, take time to manifest, and be difficult to attribute solely to LNP activities.

Indeed, while outcomes can typically be attributed directly to LNPs’ actions, impacts are

changes in the wider world which are affected by a variety of exogenous factors and

changes in wider context.

One overall and several detailed LNP intervention logics were prepared during Stage 2 of

the evaluation. The detailed intervention logics address each expected outcome

(awareness, knowledge, influence, delivery, collaboration) individually. The models describe

how LNPs use inputs and undertake activities in pursuit of each of these outcomes (see

Annex 4). The overall LNP intervention logic, presented below, is a summary of the detailed

intervention logics.

It should be noted that the intervention logic is a simplification of the complex world in which

LNPs operate. It assumes a linear progression from inputs to activities, from activities to

outcomes, and from outcomes to impacts. In reality the process is often iterative and there

may not be a necessary cause and effect relationship between these dimensions. There are

also numerous external influences which affect the work of LNPs and the effects of their

activities. For example, changes in circumstances may lead to the achievement of major

outcomes even though the inputs remain unchanged. We would also expect feedback

effects where changes in outcomes lead to changes in inputs and activities.

While the intervention logics are a useful conceptual tool to prepare and conduct an

evaluation, the current status of LNPs means that evaluation findings cannot be reported

comprehensively across the intervention logic. The evaluation found that LNPs are still at a

relatively early stage in their development and most are making progress towards their

outcomes, rather than being able to report substantial measurable outcomes to date. While

there are examples of positive achievements, and tentative signs that LNPs are likely to

achieve outcomes in the near future, most have only recently finished establishing

governance structures and deciding on priorities due to the time it has taken to establish

LNPs and the limited resources available. The evaluation therefore provides evidence of

inputs and activities, reviews progress towards outcomes and gives numerous examples of

early achievements. There is little evidence to date of overall environmental, economic or


16

social impacts, as defined in the logic model, as we might expect at this early stage in the life

of LNPs.

To assess the progress of all LNPs, and to identify the extent to which they are achieving

their objectives, the evaluation set out to identify whether and how LNPs add value over and

above the work already undertaken by LNP members. Identifying LNP added value is

complicated by the lack of a clear division between what can be attributed to an LNP or an

LNP member. For example, LNP members often provide access to information and work

with other organisations to improve the coherence of initiatives, activities also undertaken by

LNPs.

The added value of the LNP in this context is its contribution to the outcomes identified in

the intervention logic, over and above the outcomes which would be expected had the

partners and stakeholders acted independently, and not in the context of the Local Nature

Partnership. In order to assess added value, it was necessary to rely to a large extent on the

judgement of LNP members and stakeholders regarding the specific contribution that the

partnership has made to the results identified.

The purpose of the overall intervention logic presented in Table 4.1 is to set out how the

evaluation could assess LNP implementation and related outcomes. It builds on the theory

of change included in the Phase I evaluation of LNPs and reflects the information identified

during the evidence review. That is, although it is generic in form it reflects the range of

different LNP priorities, activities and outcomes.

The overall intervention logic confirms that LNPs are strategic influencing organisations

rather than delivery bodies. That is, LNPs are intended to add value and effect change by

influencing decision making and improving the coherence of LNP members’ activities and

initiatives. For example, by drawing on skills, expertise and contacts of their members, LNPs

should improve access to and use of information, and provide a means for organisations

working on natural environment issues to work towards similar or shared objectives.

Local Nature Partnerships Evaluation Phase II

17

Table 4.1 Overall intervention logic for LNPs

Context: Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) are partnerships of a broad range of local organisations, businesses and people. Announced in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)

they aim to strengthen local action on natural environment issues. LNPs have a key role to play in guiding, influencing or contributing to many of the initiatives and ideas set out in the NEWP.

Rationale: NEWP highlighted a need for local areas to work in a joined up and strategic way to help manage the natural environment. The ambition for LNPs is that they promote joined-up

partnership action and help their local area to manage the natural environment as a system and to embed its value in local decisions for the benefit of nature, people and the economy.

Inputs Activities Outcomes Impacts

■ Defra support

■ Capacity Building Fund

■ Secretariat and

administration

■ Members’ time and

resources

■ Funding and grants

■ Other sources of ad hoc

income (e.g. planning

gain-related funding;

payments for ecosystem

services; one-off

sponsorship of events

and publications; top-

slicing project funding)

■ Data and information.

■ Expertise.

■ Establishing membership and governance

structures, and producing documents and publicity

material

■ Engaging and consulting with wider stakeholders,

partnerships and communities (e.g. other LNPs,

Total Environment Initiatives, Catchment

Pathfinders and local community groups)

■ Managing data and contributing to information

systems (e.g. Biodiversity Action Reporting System)

■ Raising awareness about policies and initiatives

(e.g. biodiversity offsetting), and advocating for the

natural environment

■ Trialling new approaches (e.g. agri-environment

schemes and payments for ecosystem services)

■ Promoting strategic coordination between partners,

and development of shared strategic priorities and

actions

■ Contributing to local plans and strategies (e.g. Local

Plans and Catchment Flood Management Plans)

■ AWARENESS: raised

awareness of the value and

benefit of the natural

environment amongst partners

and stakeholders

■ KNOWLEDGE: enhanced

expertise and data sharing

about the local environment

amongst partners, stakeholders,

and the public

■ INFLUENCE: effective influence

on the decisions of partners and

stakeholders so that national

priorities (NEWP) are supported

by the activities of local

stakeholders

■ DELIVERY: better

implementation of actions that

promote improvement of natural

areas

■ COLLABORATION: improved

collaboration and coordination

among local organisations, and

between local and national

organisations

■ Enhanced understanding and

evidence of local natural

environment priorities and

needs

■ Improved integration of local

natural environment priorities

into plans, actions and

strategies

■ Increased capacity of local

decision makers with respect

to natural environment

priorities and need

■ Improved access to, or better

use of, income / funding for

LNP participants

■ Better and more joined up

delivery of initiatives in

accordance with local

priorities

■ An improved natural

environment

■ A stronger green

economy

■ Stronger connections

between people and

nature


18

5 Evaluation findings

This section presents the overall evaluation findings based on the results of the online

survey, stakeholder consultation and thematic evaluation. The findings of the consultation

are described in detail in Annex 5. The final set of discussion papers, revised following the

thematic events, is included in Annex 6.

Following a brief summary of the current state of LNPs’ development (Section 5.1), the

evaluation findings are presented under the headings included in the overall LNP

intervention logic (Table 4.1): inputs, activities, outcomes and impacts.

5.1 LNPs’ development – a snapshot

As discussed in section 4, LNPs are expected to make a positive contribution to the

management of the local natural environment by enhancing strategic coordination among

local organisations and influencing decision-making. The 2012 Defra paper on the role of

LNPs noted that, to fulfil this role, an effective LNP is likely to have:

■ A shared strategic vision and set of priorities.

■ A broad membership that includes economic, health and environmental interests.

■ Effective and accountable governance and leadership.

■ Influence and knowledge about the natural environment and its services.

■ A good overview of the range of activities and partnerships concerned with the

sustainable management of the natural environment in its area.

There are now 48 LNPs, covering most of England, which have reached various stages of

development. Some LNPs are starting to have an effect locally but most have not and

consider it too early to gauge LNP effects. Due to the importance of their strategic

influencing role and the need to engage broadly, LNPs have been keen to take the time

necessary to attract and engage the right partners and senior board members. This has

been done in a relatively short period of time and with few resources.

LNPs have made good progress in setting up governance structures, obtaining coordinator

support and setting out overall visions, and are starting to work towards delivering their

vision (Figure 5.1). The majority have a chairperson, coordinator and a steering group or

board in place. Fewer LNPs have an action plan prepared although it is not uncommon.

Some chairpersons and coordinators emphasised the importance of a thorough

establishment phase, even if this delayed subsequent activity. Such respondents

considered that, due to the importance of the strategic influencing role of LNPs and the need

to engage broadly, it is important to attract and engage the right partners and senior board

members. More developed LNPs have started to identify and consider specific actions and

initiatives to deliver on agreed goals and strategies, while those that are less developed are

still reviewing priorities and preparing strategy documents.

The majority of LNPs considered that the role of the LNP was as a strategic rather than

delivery body. Some would like LNPs to have more of a delivery role, if additional resources

were available to at least sustain a full-time dedicated coordinator. Other LNPs are keen to

avoid becoming involved in delivery. Reasons cited included potential duplication with the

work of other local organisations, and the recognition that the strategic role of LNPs is

important and would probably not be met if LNPs were also responsible for delivery of

environmental actions.

Several LNP stakeholders expressed satisfaction with how LNPs were established and

considered it a success that there are now partnerships up and running, working on local

issues. The majority of LNP stakeholders did not have a good understanding of what is

happening across the network, with some stakeholders suggesting that increased

coordination and cooperation between LNPs would help in the articulation of successes and

progress.


19

Figure 5.1 LNPs have made good progress in setting up governance structures, obtaining coordinator support and setting out overall visions, and are starting to work towards delivering their vision

Q8: …please indicate how far, in your view, the LNP has progressed on the following? (Please indicate progress for each item listed below)

N = 35 LNPs

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and coordinators’ survey responses. A response was provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators for 35 LNPs.

25

1917

98

65

32

10

7

14

9

1417

15

67

3

4

6

10 8

11

1412

5

7

14

1

2

9

1

3

22

10

4

1 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Establishmentof governance

strutures

Coordinatorand or admin

support

Setting outoverall vision

Gathering data Identifyingplaces

Initialconsultation

Developingplan of work

Establishing acom strategy

Establishing anevaluation plan

No

. o

f L

NP

s

Completed Making good progress Started but still early Plans are in place No plans to do No response


20

LNP participants6 include individuals from the local government, environment, business and

‘other’ sectors (Figure 5.2). The ‘other’ sectors include education, health, local conservation

groups and independent experts.

LNP members’ most commonly cited reason for becoming involved was to ensure they had

access to funding. These members considered that, although there was no funding

available now, funding may become available at some stage in the next few years. Several

members were of the opinion that LNPs are likely to be an important structure in the future

for securing funding and coordinating local action.

Access to funding was not cited by any chairpersons or coordinators as a reason for their

involvement with LNPs. Instead, they tended to cite the potential to have a strategic

influencing role as an important reason to become involved with the LNP. These individuals

expressed a desire for LNPs to facilitate more cohesive and joined up local policy and

projects to benefit the natural environment. LNPs were identified as providing a means to

embed a ‘natural environment agenda’ in organisations not typically considered as working

on environmental issues, for example by getting local businesses and LEPs involved.

Chairpersons and coordinators often became involved with LNPs as they had been involved

with pre-existing biodiversity partnerships / environmental networks. This was also a

common reason cited by LNP members; 21 of 88 members interviewed had become

involved through their involvement with pre-existing initiatives / networks.

Of the 149 LNP participants interviewed, 34 became involved as participation of LNPs as

part of the remit of the organisation they work for. Of the 31 coordinators interviewed, 8 had

become involved as part of the remit of the organisation they work for. For example, one

coordinator became involved as her employer, a local authority, had agreed to provide some

part-time resource to the LNP for a coordinator. Several members from the health and

business sectors became involved as they were invited to represent their organisation or

sector.

6 ‘LNP participants’ is a collective term used in this report when referring to individuals and / or organisations

involved with an LNP in any capacity, for example, as a chairperson, coordinator, member and board member.


21

Figure 5.2 LNP chairpersons and coordinators are from a wide variety of sectors, the majority of members are from the local government and environment sectors

Q6: Which of the following sectors do you primarily represent on the LNP? (Please select the most relevant)

N = 87 survey responses (23 chairpersons, 24 coordinators, 40 members)

In general, LNP chairpersons, coordinators and members considered that the organisations

involved are generally the right ones, but that there is some room for improvement (Figure

5.3). During the interviews, respondents commented that organisations most involved with

LNPs are those traditionally working on improvements to the natural environment, for

example, local Wildlife Trusts and government environment specialists. The same

respondents considered that their respective LNPs would benefit from the contributions of

other organisations not typically associated with environmental work, such as organisations

from the health sector and also LEPs. LNPs often found it difficult to engage with

organisations from the health sector, such as LHWBs, and with LEPs.

In the comment box following a survey question, respondents from 14 out of 35 LNPs stated

that their board members are working well together, and that this was an important factor

contributing to the overall success of the LNP7. Members, chairpersons and coordinators

were unanimous that LNP boards are well balanced and do a good job of balancing the

views, opinions and priorities of LNP participants. The diversity of LNP boards was identified

as a particular strength by LNP participants, helping to ensure that LNPs focus on a wide

range of priorities. LNP participants also expressed satisfaction with the extent to which their

contributions were valued and acknowledged. A committed and enthusiastic chairperson

also helps to maintain momentum, obtain support from board members, and attract senior

level appointments to the LNP.

A board that includes organisations from a diversity of sectors was also identified as

important to the success of LNPs. It helps to ensure that the LNP is focused on a balanced

set of priorities that extend beyond the usual set of natural environment issues.

7 The point about board members working well together was made by 14 LNPs in open response boxes in the

online survey, it was not a response provided to a specific question. As such, the absence of a comment from the other 21 LNPs does not mean that their board members are not working well together.

2

5

7

3

1

2

1

1

1

8

5

7

1

1

1

1

16

12

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Local Government (upper tier: county / unitary)

Environmental organisations

Other

Businesses and/or business organisations

National parks and AONBs

Defra agencies / delivery bodies

Education / research organisations

Health organisations

Local Government (lower tier: district)

Local Records Centre

Unspecified sector

Land owners / land managers / farmers

Number of respondents

Chair Coordinator Member


22

Respondents noted that the legitimacy of an LNP is strengthened when the board works well

together and the opinions and viewpoints of all board members are acknowledged. Doing so

helps to obtain and maintain the buy-in and support of participating organisations. This in

turn helps to garner the support necessary to engage with organisations not typically

involved with protecting or enhancing the natural environment.

Figure 5.3 Chairs and coordinators agree that, in general, the right organisations are involved

Q11: To what extent do you think that the right organisations are involved with the LNP?

N = 35 LNPs N = 40 LNP members

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and

coordinators’ survey responses. A response was

provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators

for 35 LNPs.

The figure is based on LNP member survey

responses. A response was provided by 40 LNP

members.

5.1.1 LNPs are working on a broad range of priorities

Some LNPs are concentrating their efforts on overarching priorities, for example, providing

guidance and support to members and facilitating the exchange of information. LNPs that

evolved from pre-existing initiatives or networks often have priorities that reflect work which

was already underway. Other LNPs are working on more focused priorities that typically

relate to specific topics, for example working to restore and conserve particular landscape

areas. Figure 5.4 summarises LNPs’ priorities.

The priorities for which LNPs considered they were most commonly “achieving results” /

“making good progress” include engaging in the development of LEP strategies (25 of 35)8,

improving the evidence base or use of the evidence (17 of 35), supporting ecological

networks (15 of 35) and activity relating to catchment management (14 of 35, Figure 5.4).

The good progress made engaging with LEP reflects the policy timetable and the need to

influence LEPs in the phase of their economic strategy development.

The relatively high proportion of LNPs that reported making progress influencing LEP

strategies contradicts feedback which suggests their effects on LEPs has been limited to

date. This contradiction relates to the level of effort LNPs expended compared to what they

consider to be the results of the engagement. LNPs often put significant resources into

8 The relatively high proportion of LNPs that reported making progress influencing LEP strategies contradicts

feedback which suggests their effects on LEPs has been limited to date.

Very much so, 11

To some degree, 20

Not sure, 4

LNPs

Very much so, 9

To some degree, 29

Not really , 2

LNP members


23

encouraging LEPs to meet with them, consider LNPs’ suggestions and work together to

prepare LEP plans and strategies. LNPs sometimes felt that the effort expended outweighed

the outcomes realised. However the timing of LNP engagement helped to increase their

influence, as LEPs were preparing their plans and strategies when LNPs were engaging with

them.

The majority of respondents are satisfied with the progress LNPs have made, emphasising

that they are particularly pleased with the progress that has been made with the limited

resources available to them. LNPs stressed the significant progress that has been made in

setting up governance structures, identifying priorities and agreeing a strategy in a relatively

short period of time and with few resources. When pressed about satisfaction with the

results of LNPs, that is the difference LNPs have made, most respondents considered that it

was too early to tell. Dissatisfaction with the extent of LNP progress was expressed by

some, but this dissatisfaction was related to the constraints posed by the limited amount of

resources available.

The presence of a funded coordinator was identified as an important factor in the successful

establishment of an LNP. A funded coordinator provides the secretariat function necessary

to maintain the LNP’s momentum, organise meetings, prepare and circulate documents and

generally contribute to the progress of an LNP. Interviewees suggested that LNPs’ progress

depends on the work of the coordinator, and that progress would be severely limited in their

absence.

A few LNP stakeholders commented that the local nature of LNPs, in that they define their

own priorities, means that it is and will be difficult to coordinate a national response to

environmental issues. For example, two LNP stakeholders suggested that the delivery and

oversight of Biodiversity 2020 would not be advanced by LNPs in any meaningful way as not

all LNPs are focusing on biodiversity and those that are focusing on biodiversity may not be

undertaking initiatives that fall within the scope of Biodiversity 2020 objectives. The LNP

stakeholders suggest that, for certain issues, it would be effective to have more influence on

the LNPs’ priorities and activities. However, the stakeholders acknowledged that a more

centralised would not be a panacea and would have its own problems and limitations.


24

Figure 5.4 LNPs are working on a wide range of priorities

Q13: The following are priorities which some LNPs might be working on. Please score all that apply.

N = 35 LNPs


6

5

5

5

5

5

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

19

10

8

6

12

1

6

4

8

2

4

12

7

2

5

10

5

9

1

6

12

7

10

11

2

9

7

5

11

8

9

5

4

8

9

11

12

3

7

13

11

4

1

5

10

14

14

13

12

13

9

17

14

13

12

18

3

2

3

15

8

1

7

3

1

2

14

6

1

5

2

2

1

1

1

25

3

1

2

4

1

2

3

2

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Involvement/engagement in the development of LEP strategies

Activity supporting other ecological networks

Activity supporting the restoration and creation of new habitats

Work relating to strategic land use planning such as through the Local Plan

Improving the evidence base and/or improved use of evidence

Other (please specify)

Working with current nationally funded Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs)

Identifying new locally determined NIAs

Protecting and or improving woodlands and forests

Work on pollinators

Work relating to access to the natural environment

Activity related to catchment management

Activity relating to climate change adaptation

Protecting and or improving marine or coastal environments

Informing the targeting/delivery of agri-environment schemes

Activity relating to biodiversity offsetting

Activity relating to flood risk management

Other work relating to local public health and wellbeing

Work with local providers/beneficiaries on payment for ecosystems services schemes

No. of LNPs

Achieving results Making some progress Started but still at an early stage

The intention is there, but work hasn’t started No intention to work on this priority Option not selected


25

Priority identification and selection was often heavily influenced by the resources available to

LNPs, and also the resources that are likely to be available in the future. Many LNPs are

conservative in their ambition due to the low levels of funding available and their reliance on

voluntary contributions (of time and funding). Priorities are often based on existing initiatives

as there is typically some sort of funding or support already in place. LNPs’ conservative

approach to priority setting also means that they remain focused on having a strategic

influence rather than becoming involved in delivery.

All of the chairpersons and coordinators interviewed considered that the priorities identified

for their LNP were the right ones. The majority of chairpersons and coordinators were

involved in identifying and selecting the priorities, and emphasised that the priorities were

identified through a consultative process and in agreement with other LNP participants

(typically the board, but sometimes also the wider membership). The majority of LNP

members also agreed that the priorities were the right ones, but there were some dissenting

voices. Four LNP members, representing 4 LNPs, thought that the priorities were not right.

Reasons offered included that the priorities selected were unrealistic and unlikely to be

achievable, that they omitted locally important natural environment issues, and were too

broad and high level to give direction to member organisations.

The majority of LNPs (34 of 35 that responded to the survey) identified biodiversity offsetting

as a priority issue but many are unsure what their role may be. Box 1 presents a summary

of the findings of the thematic evaluation related to LNPs role in biodiversity offsetting. The

related discussion paper is included in Annex 6.

Box 1 Many LNPs are keen to get involved with biodiversity offsetting but are unsure of their potential role

Biodiversity offsetting is considered by the Government as potentially providing a way to meet

existing requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning regimes with

regard to biodiversity and geological conservation.9 Organisations involved with biodiversity

offsetting in England expect that offset delivery will escalate in the next 2 years as it provides a

useful mechanism to enable local authorities to achieve compensation for residual development

impacts.

LNPs are interested in biodiversity offsetting, and 34 of 35 LNPs that responded to the online survey

have included biodiversity offsetting as a specific priority area. Progress to date has been limited,

reflecting uncertainty about the role of offsets and the relative immaturity of the offsets market in the

UK.

There is no single framework for voluntary biodiversity offsetting. A range of options are available to

project developers and local planning authorities intending to develop and implement biodiversity

offsetting. LNPs could potentially have a role in each option; the most appropriate will depend on the

stakeholders participating in an LNP and the capacity of the LNP to get involved. For example, the

benefits of biodiversity offsetting could be enhanced through local strategies to guide offset delivery

at the landscape scale, and LNPs could play a key role in guiding this process, as well as advising

on other aspects of offset design and delivery.

A key question regarding the role of LNPs is whether they should have an implementation role or an

advisory role. During the thematic workshop some LNP members were of the opinion that an

advisory role is more suited to LNPs’ structure, strategy and resources. Moreover, as in many

cases, LNPs are not established as an executive body, so an advisory role would better fit with their

mandate. On the other hand, some LNP members considered that being actively involved in the

management of a scheme and its implementation would provide the opportunity to reinforce LNPs’

mandate, and could also offer a source of LNP funding. Others voiced concerns that this could add

unnecessary administration and costs to the offsets process.

The biodiversity offsetting discussion paper (Annex 6) provides an overview of the potential role for

9 Section 11 of the NPPF on Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, paragraphs 109 to 119, is

particularly relevant. The full NPPF is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf


26

LNPs in the development and operation of a biodiversity offsetting system. It also describes the

current state of play with respect to biodiversity offsetting in England.

5.1.2 LNPs often overlap with the boundaries of more than one LEP or LA, and sometimes overlap with other LNPs

A map published by Natural England shows that there are 9 LNPs that overlap with several

other LNPs. Many more LNPs overlap with more than one LEP and / or with more than one

LA.

The consequence of overlapping LNPs is generally considered to be minimal, and in most

cases there is some communication and coordination between overlapping LNPs. Several

overlapping LNPs pointed to good experiences of working collaboratively with their

neighbouring LNP, for example undertaking joint engagement with the same LEP. Other

benefits of overlapping LNPs identified by LNP participants include the scope for LNPs to

focus on issues of particular importance in certain geographies, and to collaborate with

overlapping LNPs to plan and deliver more strategic initiatives. Collaboration between

overlapping LNPs also provides access to a wider range of expertise than would otherwise

be available.

In some instances the overlaps require additional LNP effort and resources, for example

requiring more time to identify complementary priorities. Overlapping LNPs have also

sometimes required additional effort to engage with local authorities and LEPs. Overlapping

LNPs need to work together to ensure that engagement is coordinated and does not

overburden LAs and LEPs.

Several LNPs may overlap with a single LEP, potentially complicating engagement between

LNPs and LEPs. LNP participants stated that LEPs do not typically understand why there is

more than one LNP in an area and why two LNPs in the same area might be addressing

different priorities related to the natural environment. However several LNPs found that

working together with other LNPs can improve their credibility with LEPs and put the LNPs in

a stronger position when attempting to influence LEP economic strategies.

LNPs frequently overlap with more than one LEP. Engaging with more than one LEP

increases demand on already limited LNP resources. Rather than attempt to engage with all

overlapping LEPs, some LNPs decided to engage with a select few only. For example, the

Peak District LNP decided to engage with only 3 of the 6 LEPs it overlaps.

Some LNPs also overlap with more than one LA, but this does not appear to cause issues

similar to those described above for LEPs.

5.2 Inputs

This section discusses LNP inputs - the funding and resources required by LNPs to

undertake their activities.

5.2.1 LNPs have obtained resources from a variety of sources

Figure 5.5 and Figure 1.1 describe the types of resources provided to LNPs by a variety of

organisations and sectors. The main sources of LNP funding and staff time / expertise are

local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs. During interviews with

coordinators and chairpersons, local government and local Wildlife Trusts were cited as the

primary funders of LNPs. Defra delivery bodies, the Environment Agency and Natural

England, were identified as sources of LNP funding but much less frequently than local

government and local Wildlife Trusts10

.

10

Figure 5.5 indicates that 16 of 35 LNPs have received funding from Defra delivery bodies. The interviews suggest that much fewer than 16 received funding from Defra delivery bodies for ongoing LNP activities. The 16 LNPs may relate to the seed funding provided to initiate the LNP programme.


27

LEPs, community groups and education / research organisations were identified as the main

sources of other forms of support. Examples of other forms of support include assistance in

preparing bids for EU funds, development of logos and branded material, and provision of

meeting rooms and facilities.

Figure 5.5 The main source of LNP funding is local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs

Q24: What kind of support have you received from the following organisations / sectors (apart from the original capacity fund)?

N = 35 LNPs

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and coordinators’ survey responses. A response was

provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators for 35 LNPs.

19

16

13

4

4

2

1

1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20

Local government

Defra delivery bodies (eg Natural England)

Environmental NGOs

Individual businesses or business representatives

Heritage Lottery Fund

Education/Research

Health/public health

LEPs

Big Lottery Fund

Other (inc other European or government funds)

No. of LNPs

Funding


28

The main sources of staff time / expertise are local government, Defra delivery bodies and

environmental NGOs


N = 35 LNPs



32

31

31

25

21

20

20

20

12

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Local government


Environmental NGOs

Farmers/land managers/land owners



Education/Research

Community groups

LEPs

Heritage Lottery Fund

No. of LNPs

Staff time


29

Figure 5.6 The main sources of other kinds of support are LEPs, community groups and education / research organisations


N = 35 LNPs



5.2.2 The source of LNP financing and resources affected LNP’s priorities and achievements

89 of 149 LNP participants considered that the source of funding received by LNPs has a

significant or very significant effect on LNPs’ priorities, work and / or type of achievements

(Figure 5.7). However, LNP chairs and co-ordinators were less likely to express this view

than other participants; only 9 of 40 LNP thought that funding has had a significant effect

while 13 of 40 thought it has not been very significant.

The most commonly identified effect was an influence on LNPs’ priorities, but the majority of

participants emphasised that any effect was minimal and benign. For example, one

respondent described how an LNP board is considering funding the LNP through carbon

offsetting programmes, something that several board members are familiar with. The

respondent considered that it is likely that the LNP will become more focused on activities

related to carbon offsetting as a result, but that this is not a problem as the LNP should work

on whatever activities it can sustain. Another example was provided by an LNP member

about how the organisation providing the coordinator to sustain the LNP has influenced the

focus and direction of the LNP’s work. The LNP member did not think that the influence was

negative, and considered it to be inevitable that organisations providing funding or resources

will have some sort of influence.

During the interviews a majority of LNP participants (140 of 149) identified the lack of

available funding as the most significant influence on LNPs’ work and priorities. The majority

of LNP funding has been received from local government, Defra delivery bodies and

environmental NGOs (Figure 5.5), suggesting that LNPs are more likely to be focused on the

interests of these three types of organisations. During the interviews a limited number of

respondents expressed some frustration at LNPs’ lack of focus on economic and health

priorities. However, the majority of interviewees are broadly content with LNP priorities and

indicated that priorities have widespread support among board and wider members.

7

7

4

3

3

3

2

2

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LEPs

Community groups

Education/Research

Environmental NGOs


Farmers/land managers/land owners

Local government



No. of LNPs

Other


30

LNP stakeholders also considered that LNPs’ funding deficit is significant and is likely to

reduce their effectiveness beyond 2015. Several LNP stakeholders stated that the lack of

funding available to LNPs, and the effect on their activities will start to undermine the

partnerships’ credibility. The LNP stakeholders suggested that this would probably result in

LNPs losing the local political support necessary to maintain their role as strategic

influencers.

During the interviews the local Wildlife Trusts and local government were identified as the

organisations with the most significant influence on the work of LNPs, but respondents

tended to argue that this influence is generally benign as LNP boards are doing a good job of

balancing the inputs of all members.

Figure 5.7 Responses to the survey suggest the source of financing has a significant influence on LNPs’ work

Q25: To what extent have the sources of funding received had an impact on the LNP’s priorities, work and / or type of achievements?

The impact on the LNP’s priorities, work and / or type of achievements has been…

N = 35 LNPs N = 40 LNP members

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and

coordinators’ survey responses. A response was

provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators

for 35 LNPs.

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons and coordinators

survey responses. A response was provided by

chairpersons and / or coordinators for 35 LNPs

5.2.3 Identifying and obtaining resources is a challenge for LNPs

Despite LNPs’ progress in obtaining funding and resources from a wide variety of sources,

serious difficulties have been encountered along the way and funding and support remains

one of the key issues identified by LNP participants.

The majority of LNPs are encountering considerable challenges with two closely related

issues: resources, and capacity and time constraints (Figure 5.8). Significant or very

significant challenges associated with finding funding for LNP work were encountered by 33

of 35 responding LNPs. Almost all LNPs responding to the survey, 34 of 35, encountered

significant or very significant challenges associated with capacity or time constraints. The

figures for LNP members are relatively similar; 38 of 40 responding members consider

funding to be a significant or very significant challenge, and 36 of 40 consider capacity and

time constraints a significant or very significant challenge.

Very significant,

16

Significant, 5

Not very significant, 7

Don’t know / not sure ,

2

No option selected, 5

LNPs

Very significant,

9

Significant, 8

Not very significant,

13

Don’t know / not sure ,

3 No option selected, 7

LNP members


31

Figure 5.8 Challenges experienced by LNPs and their significance

Q22: Please select the challenges that are relevant to your LNP and tell us how significant the challenges have been

N = 35 LNPs



5.2.4 LNPs’ reliance on voluntary contributions of time and resources make it difficult for them to make progress in good time

Two categories of resources were identified during interviews: ‘core’ resources for the

administrative and secretariat functions necessary to sustain an LNP, and ‘project’ resources

necessary to deliver initiatives or actions. Core resources were identified as a significantly

more urgent priority than project resources. Respondents commented that without core

resources it is much more difficult, if not impossible, for LNPs to identify and pursue project

resources. This point was also made by LNP stakeholders with reference to the network as

a whole – that the reliance on voluntary contributions of time and resources slows LNPs’

progress and could potentially reduce their effectiveness over 2015.

Although many LNPs have managed to secure a funded coordinator on at least a part-time

basis, many others have not. Often the individuals acting as coordinators are performing the

role on a voluntary basis in addition to a full-time job. LNPs without adequate coordinator

support reported that it is extremely difficult to maintain their momentum. LNP participants

estimated that, as a minimum, LNPs require at least one dedicated full time position to

progress the LNP and maintain momentum between meetings. LNP participants

emphasised that there is no shortage of expertise or enthusiasm, but that the reliance on

voluntary contributions of time and resources make it difficult for LNPs to make progress in

good time.

The lack of dedicated coordinator resource available slows everything down and can reduce

the extent to which LNPs can engage with other organisations. Engaging with other

organisations requires that LNPs have the capacity to follow-up agreed actions and maintain

support for joint initiatives. Many expressed doubts that, without the support of a dedicated

coordinator, the LNP would continue to make progress. That is, the LNP would not progress

29

26

16

10

9

8

7

5

3

1

4

8

14

16

16

14

15

14

16

2

2

8

6

10

12

13

13

1

3

1

3

3

1

2

3

34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Finding funding for LNP work

Capacity and time constraints

Establishing links with Local Enterprise Partnerships

Making a connection to Health and Wellbeing Boards or Public Healthsector

Getting the right people involved with the right skills and/or expertise

Engaging senior local government officers and/or elected members

Establishing connections with the farmers, land owners and/or landmanagers

Identifying the right priorities to focus on

Establishing effective work and collaboration between partners in theLNP

Other

No. of LNPs

LNPs

Very significant Significant Not very significant Not at all significant Option not selected


32

beyond the identification of priorities and the preparation of a strategy to a stage where it can

effect change.

A majority of LNPs commented that the uncertainty attached to their funding and resources

constrains their ability to engage with others; LNPs cannot be sure that voluntary

contributions will be maintained and do not want to commit to actions they may not be able

to deliver.

5.2.5 The future security of LNP depends on continued support

Figure 5.9 Although some LNPs have obtained some funding, almost a third of the respondents to the online survey (10 of 35) stated that funding is not at all secure post-2013, while 15 of 35 stated that funding is not very secure post-2013. Only one LNP thought that funding is very secure beyond 2014. Funding is not secure for the majority of LNPs

Q29: Looking into the next year and beyond, how secure is the funding for the LNP?

N = 35 LNPs



Another factor potentially undermining the security of LNPs, which is related to a lack of

funding, is the risk that participating individuals and organisations could become dis-

interested if the LNP does not start having an impact. LNPs identified the next 12 months as

a crucial time. The previous 12 – 18 months have been spent establishing LNPs; the next

12 will be a test of whether the LNP can start to make a difference. Respondents expressed

concerns that without any tangible impacts the senior decision-makers on LNP boards could

find it difficult to justify their continued involvement. Without senior-level support LNPs will

not have the credibility to provide a strategic influencing role.

Respondents also highlighted that the dedication and enthusiasm of LNP participants needs

to be maintained if LNPs are to start having an impact. The LNP participants stated that this

will only be maintained if there is continued support and promotion of LNPs by Defra and

across government, for example by the Department for Communities and Local Government

and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Defra’s support helps to maintain

the profile of LNPs, strengthens their credibility, and ensures that LNPs have the status to

engage with other organisations.

LNP participants provided examples of how the lack of funding and capacity is undermining

the credibility of the partnerships. In one case, an LNP had established a relationship with

the local authority and agreed to provide input to local plans and local plan evidence

documents. When the time came to provide input, the LNP did not have the resources

available to provide input or even provide access to its members. The LNP member

Very secure, 1

Somewhat secure, 9

Not very secure, 15

Not at all secure, 10


33

providing the example considered that missing the opportunity to influence local plans has

undermined the credibility of the LNP in the eyes of the local authority, and will make it more

difficult for the LNP to have an impact in the future.

LNPs may also compete with other local priorities for the time and resources provided by

their members. One LNP member stated that their involvement in the LNP had reduced the

time available for them to work on local biodiversity issues. The LNP member providing the

example was helping to coordinate the LNP at the expense of other work related to local

biodiversity improvements.

LNPs’ effectiveness, that is their ability to effect change, is constrained by the limited funding

available. Respondents commented that searching for funding occupies a significant

amount of board members’ energy and time, reducing their capacity and ability to deliver on

the LNP’s priorities. Accessing grant funding also takes time, slowing LNP progress and

potentially undermining the ability of LNPs to keep board members interested and involved.

5.2.6 Despite challenges, some LNPs have secured a reliable income to sustain their activities

Although the majority of LNPs are struggling to identify and secure funding there are

examples of LNPs that have a reliable income sufficient to sustain their activities (the

examples are described in detail in the funding discussion paper in Annex 6). The funding

sources utilised by LNPs include:

■ Subscribing members.

■ Fees for services (for example, planning advice; ecological mapping, activities for health

sector; activities for business sector etc.).

■ Support in kind from members including charity organisations (for example, coordinator

role; venue provision, donated staff time, etc.).

■ Secondments from members.

■ Funding bids to organisations such as the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Although examples are unlikely to be directly transferable due to the unique circumstances

of individual LNPs, some potentially transferable activities were identified. These include the

development of a long-term funding plan, the use of different and innovative funding

structures, and the definition of a clear offer or service the LNP can provide to other

organisations.

The thematic evaluation identified a number of potential sources that LNPs may be able to

exploit (Box 2).

Box 2 Examples of potential sources of funding

The potential sources of funding listed below were identified by LNPs during the thematic evaluation.

Environment Agency funding opportunities

Significant amounts of money are spent on flood defences. For example it has been estimated that

maintaining existing levels of flood defence would require flood defence spending to increase to over

£1 billion per year by 2035.11

Specifically the Environment Agency had a budget of £268 million from

2012/2013 for flood and coastal erosion risk management.12

LNPs pointed out that EA initiatives are not always well coordinated with initiatives that are already

underway locally. There may be scope for LNPs to work with the Environment Agency to increase

the multi-functional benefits of spending on flood defence, and by doing so, obtain funding to support

LNP activities.

11

UK Parliament (2014), Flood Defence spending in England. .Accessed online 21/10/2014: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05755/flood-defence-spending-in-england 12

Defra (2014), Defra Funding for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England


34

Co-ordinating with LA planning departments to explore funding opportunities

There may be opportunities to use Section 106 / Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding for

natural environment improvements. Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism

which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be

acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development. S106

agreements are often referred to as 'developer contributions' along with highway contributions and

the Community Infrastructure Levy.13

LNPs could potentially have a role in identifying potential sites and initiatives, and also for

coordinating action between LNP participants and other organisations. There may also be scope for

LNPs to provide pre-application advice to developers and to charge for this advice.

Enhancing partnership working with LEPs

LNPs have found it difficult to obtain funding from LEPs. The thematic evaluation suggests that

LNPs should be clear about what they can provide to LEPs rather than looking for funding

specifically. That is, LNPs need to communicate a clear ‘offer’ to LEPs before they think about

approaching LEPs for funding.

LNPs could proactively and positively identify what it is they can do for LEPs and why precisely LEPs

should fund them. Doing so would help to engage LEPs and provide LNPs with the credibility to be

considered in planning and development.

Health

The findings of the thematic evaluation suggest that the public health sector may be a potential

source of funding in the future (see the health discussion paper in Annex 6 for description of how

LNPs and the local health sector could work together). LNPs could have a role, for example, in

working with local service commissioners to increase the amount of exercise undertaken by patients.

There was agreement that it would be useful to have a national view of the potential opportunities,

and a clear description of the current state of play in the local health sector (including likely changes

in the future).

LNPs could, for example, act as the conduit to the local health sector for natural environment

organisations. This may involve putting health and environment organisations in contact with each

other, and also help to avoid the local health sector becoming overburdened with requests for

information.

Fees from members – providing a niche service

LNPs may be able to charge membership fees. This is unlikely to be suitable for all LNPs. However

in some cases LNPs have been able to offer a specific role or service and charge for the provision of

the service.

Changing the legal structure to operate more independently

Several LNPs have created a new legal structure to enable them to operate independently and as a

way of becoming increasingly attractive to investors. However LNPs stressed that for many there is

no appetite to form a not-for profit company, particularly as it is considered difficult to do so. In

addition LNPs stressed that if they were to do so they would need to have a very clear mandate and

role for investors.

Engaging with local businesses

There may be scope for LNPs to exploit corporate social responsibility (CSR) opportunities with

businesses that want to enhance the local natural environment. LNPs could, for example, provide

branding for businesses to use to alert customers that they contribute to the local environment.

LNPs may have to ensure that such activity doesn’t overlap with similar activity undertaken by LNP

members. In some cases local businesses may also be able to provide in-kind funding to support

LNPs. For example, one LNP has received staff time from John Lewis as part of its CSR activities.

13

Planning Advisory Service (2014). Accessed online 21/10/2014: http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-

infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE. Additional information available at

http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE.

http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE


35

5.3 Activities

LNPs engage and consult with wider stakeholders, partnerships and communities to develop

links across local organisations and improve the alignment of decisions affecting the natural

environment.

This section discusses the extent to which LNPs have established links with organisations

not typically involved with the natural environment and also the extent of LNP engagement

with LEPs.

5.3.1 LNPs are successfully engaging with a variety of organisations

LNPs are engaged with organisations from a wide variety of sectors but the level of

engagement varies between sectors (Figure 5.10). It is highest among the local government

and environment sectors and lower among the community, health, property development,

businesses and LEP sectors. LNPs are also well engaged with Defra agencies / delivery

bodies, and national parks / areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). There has also

been good initial engagement with the education sector and research organisations, which

has included collaborative work on ecological networks and other important LNP priorities,

and there is much potential to build on this to enhance the local knowledge base.

Several LNP stakeholders emphasized that the support of Defra network organisations, for

example, Natural England and the Forestry Commission, has been important to the progress

some LNPs have made. The LNP stakeholders considered that it provided LNPs with

access to expertise, contacts and a wider network, and in some cases, resources in-kind

such as meeting spaces.

Figure 5.10 Environmental organisations, Defra agencies and local government are the most engaged with LNPs

Q10: Please indicate how engaged the following are in the LNP

N = 35 LNPs



The thematic evaluation identified numerous examples of LNPs working and cooperating

with local organisations to inform decision making and planning related to the natural

environment. The blue boxes below provide some examples, identified through the thematic

evaluation, of how LNPs are working and cooperating with local organisations to inform

32

31

20

17

13

9

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

5

2

2

11

4

10

11

10

16

14

11

1

16

15

14

2

1

2

2

4

7

9

14

7

8

15

8

10

12

13

8

2

4

2

4

4

2

6

4

3

18

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

28

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Environmental organisations

Defra agencies / delivery bodies

Local Government (upper tier)

National parks and AONB

Local Government (lower tier)

Local Records Centre

Land owners / land managers / farmers

Local Enterprise Partnerships

Education / research organisations

Businesses and/or business organisations

Other

Health organisations

Community organisations

Local planners

Developers

No. of LNPS

Very engaged Somewhat engaged Not very engaged Not engaged at all Option not selected


36

decision making and planning related to the natural environment. Additional examples are

included in the discussion papers in Annex 6.

Box 3 The Devon LNP and the local health sector

One of Devon LNP’s seven priority areas is ‘Naturally Healthy’ which aims to ensure everyone in

Devon has the opportunity and confidence to be ‘naturally active’ and improve their health and

wellbeing. The goal is to champion Devon’s natural environment as a way of promoting health

equality and improving health, with a focus on those at risk of or suffering from poor health in

order to reduce dependence on treatments and health services, those who do not currently

engage with the natural environment, and children and young people along with their families and

schools.

The LNP has established good working relationships with public health organisations in Devon.

The LNP’s Naturally Healthy Task and Finish Group sets the direction on the Naturally Healthy

priority theme and is led by the Devon County Council public health team. Also, the Executive

Director of Devon Public Health is a member of the LNP Board, representing the Devon Health

and Wellbeing Board and the Naturally Healthy theme.

The LNP signed a compact with Devon HWBB Board in March 2014. The shared aim is to

maximise the health and wellbeing impact of the natural environment in Devon through shared

strategic approaches. These approaches include: that the Devon HWBB Board and the LNP

commit to making explicit strategic objectives in both the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and

the LNP’s Prospectus and delivery plan; that through the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment data

and evidence will be shared and promoted; and that commissioning plans of both the Devon

HWBB Board and the LNP will set out relevant actions as appropriate.

The Naturally Health group has commissioned evidence on the barriers to accessing the natural

environment and solutions to promote better access. The report, Reconnecting People and

Nature (2012) looked at how communities engage with the natural environment, the barriers to

engagement, and if there are inequalities of engagement for particular sectors of the community

and how these can be addressed. It found that lack of engagement follows national trends with

limited activity across Devon to encourage under‐represented groups.

More recently, Devon LNP commissioned research on access to green space in terms of

perceptions, motivators, and barriers and limitations to access. Research participants were

mostly low-income people living in an area of deprivation with access to green space. The study

found that:

■ Perceptions were often that local green space was a local park or playing field, mainly within

walking distance.

■ Barriers to accessing green space beyond walking distance were practical issues (lack of

car, cost of public transport), support / motivation issues, lack of awareness of where to

go/what to do, not being in habit of accessing green space.

■ Solutions for increasing access to green space were increased information and awareness

about what is available, more family based learning and action activities in local

woods/forests, coordinated visits to key natural assets run by community groups, working

with transport providers to overcome access issues, addressing vulnerability and isolation

concerns in remote spots, and addressing safety and cleanliness concerns in local green

spaces.

Devon LNP is using this research to offer target groups reasons for accessing green space. The

LNP will do this by directing and shaping the services of partners. The LNP is therefore providing

a brokering role whereby partners are invited to take actions based on the information gathered.

Box 4 LNPs and others collaborating on biodiversity offsets

Wild Anglia, the LNP for Norfolk or Suffolk, worked with local authorities and project developers to

mitigate the potential environmental and biodiversity impact of a planned housing development.

It was agreed that the project developers would, under the terms of a section 106 agreement,

finance biodiversity compensation activities in the local area. To manage the fund of section 106


37

payments, Wild Anglia and Norfolk County Council created the ‘Connecting Nature Fund’. The

fund will use mitigation funds from local developers to support habitat development in Norfolk, for

example, creation of new habitat and / or enhancement of existing ones. Wild Anglia LNP will de

facto act as the offset broker, negotiating directly with the project developers about the nature,

location and type of offset schemes created.

Based on this experience Wild Anglia LNP is considering establishing the partnership as a local

branch of existing biodiversity offset brokers, such as the Environment Bank, or potentially as an

independent biodiversity offset broker. Acting as an offsets broker could potentially provide the

LNP with a source of funding.

Source: Stakeholder consultation during the thematic evaluation

5.3.2 Establishing links with other, non-environment, organisations

5.3.2.1 Links with the local health sector

Some LNPs, as the boxes above demonstrate, have managed to forge good links to local

organisations. LNP chairpersons and coordinators would like to work more closely with

organisations from the health sector but only a minority are doing so. Reasons cited include

the difficulty of identifying who to engage with in local health sectors, and difficulty in bridging

the gap between natural environment and public health.

The majority of LNPs that completed the survey (33 of 35) have a priority related to public

health and well-being (Figure 5.4), but only 13 of 35 have started to make any progress

against health related priorities. LNP participants typically do not have experience of

engaging with local health and are unsure of the ‘angle’ that will make the natural

environment relevant to other sectors not traditionally involved with local natural environment

issues and decision-making. Their lack of engagement with the sector has, in the opinion of

the LNP participants, constrained LNPs’ ability to work on health related issues.

The findings of the thematic evaluation suggest that there are opportunities for LNPs to

engage with local health organisations. These are summarised in Box 5.

Box 5 There are opportunities for LNPs to work with the local health sector

During the thematic evaluation, some LNPs considered that they have been given the mandate to

work with, among others, the local health sector to influence decision-making related to the natural

environment and its value to social and economic outcomes14

. The natural environment is

recognised as a key determinant of health in the current England public health strategy15

. The

strategy states that ‘local communities will be empowered to design communities for active ageing

and sustainability’ which will include ‘protecting green spaces, volunteer led walk programmes,

promoting community ownership of green spaces and improved access to land’.

The Public Health Outcomes Framework 2013 - 201616

establishes the natural and built environment

as key factor influencing public health, and includes an indicator (1.16) related to the percentage of

people using outdoor space for exercise / health reasons. In addition, the Health and Social Care

Act 2012 provided local authorities with incentives to co-ordinate health and environment policies to

protect the natural environment and enhance wellbeing. Under the Act, there is increased scope for

commissioners of health care services to consider the natural environment and its links to public

14

Defra (2012). An overview of the Local Nature Partnership role. Accessed online 21/10/2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192580/local-nature-partnerships-overview120402.pdf 15

Department of Health (2010). Heathy Lives, Healthy People: our strategy for public health in England. Accessed online 21/10/2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/healthy-lives-healthy-people-our-strategy-for-public-health-in-england 16

Department of Health (2014). Accessed online 24/10/2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/healthy-lives-healthy-people-improving-outcomes-and-supporting-transparency

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/healthy-lives-healthy-people-our-strategy-for-public-health-in-england

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/healthy-lives-healthy-people-our-strategy-for-public-health-in-england


38

health.

Guidance published by the Department of Health for local health organisations demonstrates the

potential for natural environment stakeholders to contribute to the production and delivery of health

needs assessments and strategies for the delivery of health services17

. The guidance states that

local Health and Well-Being Boards should work closely with other local partners such as Local

Nature Partnerships, Environmental Health Officers, and local planning authorities.

Although the majority of LNPs have plans to work on issues related to local public health and

wellbeing many have found it difficult to identify who to engage with, and difficult to make the local

environment relevant to the sector.

Participants at the health thematic workshop agreed that before approaching local health

organisations LNPs should define their role and what they can offer. Suggestions included:

■ Exploiting LNPs’ unique role in offering holistic, multi-disciplinary thinking to embrace the diverse

connections between health, wellbeing and engagement with nature. This should help to develop

coherent and coordinated multi-stakeholder service offers to local commissioners of health

services.

■ Through local networks and face-to-face contact with communities LNPs and the LNP

membership could facilitate engagement with communities about the links between the natural

environment and health.

■ LNPs could provide the intelligence and platform for partners to build service offers – a kind of

brokering role. LNPs could raise awareness of the barriers to accessing green space, which can

then be addressed by others (for example, public transport or walking maps).

A more detailed discussion of how LNPs could potentially engage with the local health sector is

provided in the health discussion paper in Annex 6.

5.3.2.2 Links with LEPs

23 of 35 LNPs either agree or strongly agree that LNPs have increased awareness about the

natural environment. LNPs have helped to raise general awareness among LEPs of the

environmental assets that exist in local areas, and the potential economic benefits of

enhancing and protecting them. Most of these are ‘outreach’ awareness raising activities that

involve LNPs undertaking specific initiatives to disseminate information about the benefit and

value of the natural environment.

Engaging with LEPs is a high priority action for virtually all LNPs. As such, much initial

activity has taken place in trying to engage with LEPs, and for most, some early examples of

results and progress have been made with around 24 of 35 LNPs. Some LNPs have had

good levels of engagement with LEPs, reflecting the policy timetable and the need to

influence LEPs in the phase of LEP establishment and strategy development. In such

cases, LNP engagement has led to the inclusion of objectives or plans related to the natural

environment. Several examples were identified of LNPs informing the development of LEP

economic strategies and plans, and of LEPs incorporating objectives related to the natural

environment. Some LNPs have established close working relationships with LEPs, and the

majority have made some progress in influencing LEP strategies (Figure 5.4).

In addition to providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, a handful of LNPs

also facilitate the delivery of collaborative projects or initiatives between LNP members and

between the LNP and other (non-member) organisations. The evaluation identified only one

example of this happening with a LEP.

The boxes below provide examples of collaboration between LNPs and LEPs.

17

Department of Health (2013). Statutory Guidance on Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies. Accessed online 21/10/2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223842/Statutory-Guidance-on-Joint-Strategic-Needs-Assessments-and-Joint-Health-and-Wellbeing-Strategies-March-2013.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223842/Statutory-Guidance-on-Joint-Strategic-Needs-Assessments-and-Joint-Health-and-Wellbeing-Strategies-March-2013.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223842/Statutory-Guidance-on-Joint-Strategic-Needs-Assessments-and-Joint-Health-and-Wellbeing-Strategies-March-2013.pdf


39

Box 6 North Yorkshire and York LNP: Linking the natural environment to an economic strategy

North Yorkshire and York (NY&Y) LNP is collaborating with the LEP, and other local business

interests, on a £250,000 LEADER programme, focusing primarily on tourism, skills and farming

(specifically, environmental outcomes and efficiency of farming and land management).

The LNP targeted key people with the LEP to act as advocates, helping to identify opportunities for

small-scale economic growth and rural development projects that converge with a natural capital

approach. While support from local civil society groups was important to facilitate engagement with

the LEP, key success factors include:

■ A positive and proactive orientation from the start.

■ Understanding LEP needs and trying to speak the same language.

■ Using different ‘entry points’ by building relationships with LEP members.

Box 7 Wild Anglia (Local Environment and Economic Development Toolkit)

Wild Anglia LNP recently participated in a pilot project, together with New Anglia LEP and Norfolk

and Suffolk County Councils, for an ecosystem services assessment toolkit (the Local

Environment and Economic Development (LEED) toolkit) designed to help LEPs and local

authorities meet their economic growth targets by fully realising the role that the natural

environment can play. The pilot was conducted in the context of New Anglia’s Green Economy

Manifesto, which considered in detail how environment can contribute to growth and how this

information could be better integrated into a Strategic Economic Plan, which targets creation of

80,000 additional jobs and 10,000 additional businesses by 2015.

The toolkit was developed by the Defra network (Environment Agency, Natural England and the

Forestry Commission) and is designed to systematically consider the evidence relating to the local

economy / environment relationship in order to reveal opportunities and threats and consider

appropriate responses. The toolkit produces accessible, non-technical outputs that can assist

strategic economic decision-making, feeding into a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and

threats (SWOT) analysis. Ecosystem services are evaluated alongside more ‘mainstream’

economic concerns such as resource efficiency and waste management. Environmental benefits

are also defined in the counterfactual, that is, the impact on the economic activity if a given

ecosystem function was lost. Another benefit of the process was building understanding of

beneficiaries, with the highest opportunities being associated with the development of markets for

local food produce, for example.

Based on Wild Anglia’s implementation of the tool, they found that it highlighted strategic and

operational factors which required cooperation between local bodies (for example, investment in

Green Infrastructure for flood protection benefits and a LEP-wide defence system against invasive

species or diseases), and helped build good working relationships. A local Water Management

Partnership Group was established as one outcome of the process, for example.

Box 8 Additional examples of successful LNP and LEP cooperation

The examples below were provided by LNPs during the stakeholder consultation and

the thematic evaluation.

Buckinghamshire

and Milton Keynes

The LNP and LEP have undertaken joint workshops through Natural

England. Local property / land developers also attended the workshops.

The LNP’s contribution helped to influence the local growth strategy by

emphasising the importance of natural capital to the local area.


40

Dorset The LNP and LEP are working towards a Joint Planning Charter that will

set out their joint position on issues relevant to the natural environment

and local economy, such as biodiversity offsetting.

Tees Valley The LNP enabled different organisations with different views to contribute

to the development of the LEP strategy. The LNP provided suggestions

to the LEP about how local environment priorities could be reflected in

the LEP’s strategy, suggestions that the LEP took on board.

Cornwall and Isles

of Scilly

The LNP had the status and credibility to engage with the LEP and

influence its economic strategy for the 2014 – 2020 period. The LNP’s

contribution resulted in the inclusion of objectives and plans related to the

natural environment.

Birmingham and

Black Country

The LNP offered advice on the LEPs sustainable water and conservation

plans, resulting in changes to the LEP’s economic strategy.

Gloucestershire The main achievement has been the engagement with the LEP. The LNP

provided its inputs into the LEP’s EU funding strategy and economic

plans. As a result, the LEP incorporated environmental sections in its

economic plans.

Hull and East

Yorkshire

The LNP engaged with the LEP about the importance of the natural

environment, highlighting the potential to improve the quality of specific

areas of green infrastructure and enhance the economic potential of the

area. The result of the LNPs work with the LEP was the allocation of

£1.7m of EU funding over the 2014 – 2020 period.

Wiltshire and

Swindon

Following a difficult start, the LNP established a good working

relationship at an operational level with the LEP. The key breakthrough

was a meeting between the LNP and a consultant working on the LEP

Strategy, which provided the opportunity for the LNP to articulate what

the LNP could offer the LEP and what value the LNP could add to

discussions. THE LNP was then invited to participate in a series of

workshops for key stakeholders to help identify potential priorities for the

European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy being developed. The

LNP participated fully and, subject to final approval, has secured an

element of the funds for Natural capital investment projects.

There is an LEP representative on the LNP board however to date there

is no LNP representative on the LEP board.

Lowland

Derbyshire and

Nottinghamshire

The LNP structure has helped to facilitate engagement between the LEP

and LNP members, engagement which would have been unlikely to occur

in the absence of the LNP. There is a senior LA planner, who is part of

the LEP, working with the LNP on the development of its strategy. The

LNP has a representative on a management steering group of the LEP,

and also a representative on the LEP board.

The collaboration between the LEP and LNP has resulted in the

preparation of detailed information about potential natural tourism

business opportunities.

Although many LNPs have managed to establish collaborative relationships with LEPs, a

point that consistently emerged during the evaluation was that LNPs are often disappointed

with the extent to which they are working with LEPs and would like to establish much closer

relationships. While LNPs have had some successes engaging with LEPs they are

dissatisfied with the influence on LEP economic strategies. 30 out of 35 LNPs reported that

establishing links with LEPs posed significant or very significant challenges.

LNPs linked the difficulty of engaging with LEPs to several issues, the most frequently cited

was the relatively limited credibility LNPs have with LEPs. Chairpersons and coordinators,


41

and some members too, considered that the purpose of LNPs and their role is not

adequately defined, and that LNP responsibilities are not well articulated. The majority of

chairpersons and coordinators suggested that more leadership from Defra (and other central

government departments) would help to increase LNPs’ credibility with LEPs. It was

suggested that Defra should set out a vision to provide a clear role and purpose for LNPs to

work towards. Some respondents suggested that a national network of LNPs, similar to the

national LEP network18

, would help LNPs to work together and increase the visibility of LNPs

among other organisations. Respondents also saw a role for central government

departments to encourage LEPs to work with LNPs. Suggestions included promoting the

role and function of LNPs to LEPs, requiring (rather than encouraging) LEPs to work closely

with LNPs, and providing the resources necessary to maintain a full-time dedicated

coordinator.

Another commonly cited barrier to engaging with LEPs was a perceived lack of

understanding among LEPs about why they should be concerned with the natural

environment. LNP participants also suggested that LEPs have little incentive to engage with

LNPs about the potential opportunities offered by the natural environment. LEPs are

advised to engage with LNPs, but are not required to demonstrate how the views and

opinions of LNPs have been incorporated into LEP economic strategies.

The lack of LNP resources was another frequently cited issue reducing the credibility of

LNPs with LEPs. Without the resources necessary to action or implement anything,

respondents commented that LNPs are not taken seriously by LEPs and are often viewed as

‘talking shops’ of limited consequence. However the lack of backing for LNPs and their

limited profile were considered to be more significant than the lack of resources. LNPs felt

that an increase in resources would be less effective at improving credibility compared to the

potential benefits of an enhanced mandate defining what LNPs are for and why they matter.

LNP participants expressed concerns that a failure to engage with LEPs may result in plans

for development and growth that fail to adequately reflect the importance of the natural

environment. This could potentially delay development, as natural environment

considerations are included late in the process, or could result in negative impacts on the

natural environment. In addition, LNP chairpersons and coordinators are concerned that a

failure to adequately engage with LEPs could reduce the scope for funding of natural

environment initiatives during the 2014 – 2020 EU funding period.

The thematic evaluation included consideration of how a natural capital approach could help

to facilitate engagement between LNPs and LEPs. Box 9 includes a summary of the related

discussion paper (the full paper is included in Annex 6).

Box 9 LNPs suggested that a natural capital approach could help them to engage more successfully with LEPs

Several LNPs identified the concept of natural capital as having the potential to provide them with the

tools and language necessary to engage with businesses and economic decision-makers. Natural

capital provides a framework for defining, measuring, investing in and monitoring natural assets and

their importance to the local economy over time. It is a concept that is being applied nationally and

can be translated to the local level.

For example, the Valuing Surrey Project, a collaborative project between Surrey Nature Partnership,

Surrey Connects, Bioregional and the Aldersgate Group will assess and value Surrey’s natural

capital. The decision was taken to examine natural capital, as opposed to ecosystem services, since

the project’s focus is on communicating the existing value of Surrey’s landscape as a means to

influence decisions.

The project consists of three phases: the first phase, a gap analysis of existing work at local,

national, and international levels, considered strategically what an assessment of natural capital at

this level would need to achieve. This process was aided by communication materials that framed

18

The LEP Network. Accessed online 21/10/2014 http://www.lepnetwork.net/

http://www.lepnetwork.net/


42

the concept of natural capital for different audiences, sometimes drawing on storytelling approaches.

The second phase (currently in progress) focuses on the development of a series of scenarios for the

management of natural capital at the county level, focusing on areas of risk and opportunity. The

final phase will disseminate the evidence used by organisations across Surrey in their decision-

making, as well as dissemination of results at the World Forum on Natural Capital in November

2014.

The findings of the thematic evaluation suggest that LNPs are most suited to playing a coordination

role in natural capital projects, linking LEPs and local authorities to sources of environmental

information at the local and national levels through established networks. By doing so they can help

provide a strategic overview of local environment-economy links. Once the evidence base has been

gathered, more ad-hoc forms of partnership delivery may emerge to focus on the maintenance of

specific benefits or elements of natural capital. LNPs need to focus on finding ‘hooks’ for natural

capital, shared areas of interest that are critical for business success and can be expanded over

time.

The natural capital discussion paper in Annex 6 discusses how LNPs can take a natural capital

approach to engage with LEPs and other organisations.

5.4 Outcomes

This section discusses LNPs’ outcomes under the five outcome types presented in the

overall LNP intervention logic in Section 4.2:

■ Awareness: raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment

amongst partners and stakeholders.

■ Knowledge: enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment amongst

partners, stakeholders, and the public.

■ Influence: effective influence on the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that

national priorities (NEWP) are supported by the activities of local stakeholders.

■ Delivery: better implementation of actions that promote improvement of natural areas.

■ Collaboration: improved collaboration and coordination among local organisations, and

between local and national organisations.

The section also discusses LNPs’ contribution to Biodiversity 2020, the added value of

LNPs, and the extent to which LNPs have prepared evaluation plans.

5.4.1 LNPs are making good progress against their outcomes

The outcomes most commonly reported by LNPs include increasing collaboration and

coordination, increasing knowledge sharing, engaging a wider range of stakeholders in

natural environment actions, and increasing awareness about the natural environment

(Figure 5.11). Only a minority of LNPs have so far delivered initiatives related to the natural

environment, or led to a better use of funds / resources for managing the natural

environment.

The sections below describe the extent to which LNPs are achieving each of the five

outcomes and reviews the issues preventing outcomes being achieved. The sections also

include examples of LNP achievements under each outcome.


43

Figure 5.11 Outcomes of LNP activities

Q14: Please state the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: The LNP has…

N = 35 LNPs


10

10

7

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

2

2

17

13

16

13

14

14

13

21

12

9

5

12

8

3

3

7

4

4

8

2

6

6

12

6

11

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

7

8

8

8

10

10

8

6

10

14

13

13

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Increased collaboration and coordination

Engaged a wider range of sectors in natural environmental actions

Increased awareness about the natural environment

Increased the amount and/or quality of data and evidence on thelocal natural environment.

Increased the integration of the natural environment into localdecision making

Led to a more joined up, strategic and better targeted approach tomanaging the natural environment

Led to a greater focus on local priorities.

Increased knowledge sharing

Increased the pool of local expertise and skills available on thenatural environment

Led to a larger scale and more coherent approach to managing thenatural environment.

Delivered initiatives related to the natural environment

Encouraged action in areas where local environmentalopportunities and needs are greatest

Led to better use of funds / resources for managing the naturalenvironment

No. of LNPs

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Do not know No option selected


44

5.4.2 Awareness: raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment among partners and stakeholders

A total of 23 LNPs that responded to the online survey strongly agreed or agreed (7 of 35

and 16 of 35 respectively) that LNPs have increased awareness about the natural

environment. LNPs are involved in two types of awareness-raising, internal to the

partnership and external to the partnership (outreach).

Internal awareness-raising occurs when LNP participants meet with each other to discuss

the work they are involved in, and identify opportunities to protect and enhance the local

natural environment. LNPs typically include organisations from a broad range of sectors and

provide the opportunity for organisations that do not usually work together to meet and

discuss issues of mutual interest. Several interviewees suggested that organisations

meeting and communicating with each other helps to raise general awareness about the

value and benefit of the natural environment, and also helps organisations to identify how

they could cooperate to enhance the natural environment.

External awareness-raising involves LNPs undertaking specific initiatives to disseminate

information about the benefit and value of the natural environment. It can include, for

example, an LNP working with a LEP to inform it of the environmental assets that exist in a

local area and the potential economic benefits of enhancing and protecting them. Active

awareness-raising requires that an LNP has access to the necessary information, the

resources available to prepare and disseminate the information, and has sufficient credibility

to access other organisations.

Table 5.1 includes examples of awareness-raising by LNPs identified during the stakeholder

consultation.

Table 5.1 Examples of how LNPs have raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment among partners and stakeholders

Type of awareness raising

Example provided by LNP participants

Passive awareness

raising

The LNP identified what needs to be done to improve the environment, and

how LNP members could potentially capitalise on an improved environment.

The LNP raises awareness by conveying a broader perspective about the

natural environment to a wide range of sectors.

Establishing the LNP and including a wide membership base has raised the

profile of the natural environment across a range of organisations and

sectors. Even without active engagement, local organisations are more

receptive to ideas about how to improve the natural environment.

The main added value of the LNP is that there is now a wider partnership of

organisations working on issues related to the natural environment. This

increases awareness about potential actions and initiatives that will benefit

the natural environment.

Raising awareness of the value of the natural environment with the local

health and wellbeing board and farming interests.

Increasing the awareness of the local council about the potential for improving

the natural environment by having a range of stakeholders included in LNP

meetings.

Raising awareness among local authority officers about the value of the


Inclusion of a LEP representative on the LNP board has helped the LEP to

understand why the natural environment matters. The LEP did not

understand but are starting to appreciate the potential economic benefits of a

healthy natural environment.

Active awareness

raising

An LNP board member gave a talk that inspired the health team of the local

council to set up a workshop on health and the environment.


45

Type of awareness raising


Business members of the LNP have produced case studies about actions

businesses can undertake to enhance and protect the natural environment.

The purpose of the case studies is to raise awareness about steps

businesses can take. A conference to showcase the case studies to local

businesses is planned for 2014.

Engaging with the LEP to raise awareness about the links between the

natural environment and the economy.

LNP workshops have raised awareness of LNP goals, and raised awareness

of NIAs and conservation.

The LNP has produced documents for distribution, including a vision for NIAs,

the potential role of natural capital in development, and a state of the

environment report to raise awareness of conservation issues in the county.

The LNP held a meeting with the LEP about the potential for development

that would enhance the local environment and economy, and the LEP

committed to work with the LNP on the local environment and economic

development (LEED) process.

The LNP has raised awareness among the LEP about the need to include

objectives related to a healthy natural environment in the LEP economic plan,

and promoted the importance of the environment for the development of local

employment.

The LNP has raised awareness among LEP members that the natural

environment should be considered in the LEP growth plan, for example green

infrastructure opportunities that could be co-delivered by the LEP and other

economic partners.

One of the LNP working groups highlighted significant deficiencies in national

and local environment evidence systems in relation to statutory

developments.

5.4.3 Knowledge: enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment among partners, stakeholders, and the public

The majority of responding LNPs (21 of 35) agreed that they have increased knowledge

sharing, and a further four strongly agreed.

LNPs have increased knowledge sharing by providing a platform for participants to meet and

discuss issues of mutual interest, and to identify and suggest how information they are

aware of could be used by other LNP participants. This facilitates the exchange of

information about the skills and expertise of LNP participants. Several LNPs cited this as an

important element of LNP added value as this information would not have been exchanged

without the LNP, and the organisations exchanging information would be unlikely to meet

each other in the absence of the LNP.

In addition to sharing existing information LNPs have also commissioned or undertaken

projects to collect new information. The new information is intended to provide LNP

members with the evidence they need to make the case for investment in the natural

environment, and also to identify what investments are necessary and where they should be

made. Several LNPs have produced maps of environmental assets in a local area, such as

natural capital or ecosystem services maps, for use by LNP members as part of their

planning and decision-making processes. Other LNPs have responded to member requests

and produced evidence demonstrating the economic benefits of a healthy natural

environment. This information is also intended to help LNP members make the case for

investments that protect and enhance the natural environment.

Table 5.2 includes examples of knowledge sharing by LNPs identified during the stakeholder

consultation.


46

Table 5.2 Examples of how LNPs have enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment

Type of knowledge sharing


Sharing of existing

information

The LNP functions as a 'one stop shop' for nature which enables LNP

members to better work with other sectors.

The LNP partners shared their knowledge of the natural environment with the

local authority, and there is now a section in their state of the environment

report on natural capital.

LNP partners have mapped their respective assets and skills to facilitate

knowledge sharing among the partnership.

The LNP provides a forum for Nature Improvement Areas to share

information about the work they are undertaking.

The LNP has provided a platform for partners to debate and share

experiences of the potential benefits of investing in the natural environment.

The LNP has expanded to new areas of biodiversity offsetting and been

involved in a new biodiversity offsetting record centre in the county. This has

enabled data sharing between the groups within the LNP.

Sharing of newly

commissioned

information

The LNP has produced a really good document on invasive species which will

be used by members in the future.

The LNP completed an ecosystem mapping, supported by funding from

Natural England. The mapping information is shared with LNP members to

support their planning and decision-making.

The LNP produced natural capital maps based on LNP partners’ data. The

maps highlight areas of available green space.

The LNP provided information on the natural environment to the local health

and wellbeing board. The data was used in the preparation of a joint strategic

needs assessment.

The LNP has provided data related to the impact of development on

biodiversity / natural areas to local authorities to contribute to the local

planning process.

The LNP worked with businesses to help them understand the potential

higher level stewardship funding available to them. The LNP also helped to

put the businesses in contact with organisations experienced in the

preparation of grant / funding applications.

The LNP helps to coordinate access to partner’s data.

The LNP has started to map the value of the green economy, quantitatively

and qualitatively. This information will be will be shared with partners to help

them make the case for investment in the natural environment.

5.4.4 Influence: effective influence on the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities (NEWP) are supported by the activities of local stakeholders

5 of 35 LNPs strongly agreed, and 14 of 35 agreed, that the LNP has increased the

integration of the natural environment into decision making (Figure 5.11). 2 of 35 LNPs

strongly agreed, and 12 of 35 agreed, that the LNP has encouraged action in areas where

local environmental opportunities and needs are greatest.

LNPs have made good progress establishing partnerships, putting the necessary

governance structures in place and identifying priorities. LNPs considered that they are

beginning to have an influence on partners’ and stakeholders’ decisions but that, in general,

tangible results are limited to date. It has taken a significant amount of time for LNPs to

establish the necessary governance structures and agree priorities, reducing the amount of

time LNPs have been actively working on issues. Most LNPs rely on voluntary contributions


47

of time and resources. The absence of dedicated funding or support has meant that LNPs

have not been ‘active’ on issues likely to produce tangible results for very long.

Although LNPs have found it difficult to engage with LEPs, most examples of LNP influence

identified during the evaluation related to influencing of LEP plans and strategies. This

apparent disparity can be explained in terms of the effort LNPs expended compared to what

they consider to be the results of the engagement. LNPs often put significant resources into

encouraging LEPs to meet with them, consider LNPs’ suggestions and work together to

prepare LEP plans and strategies. LNPs sometimes felt that the effort expended outweighed

the outcomes realised. However the timing of LNP engagement helped to increase their

influence, as LEPs were preparing their plans and strategies when LNPs were engaging with

them.

In cases where LNPs influenced LEP plans and strategies, LNP engagement led to the

inclusion of objectives or plans related to the natural environment. An LNP participant

provided an example of the LNP influencing the LEP to allocate £1.7 million of EU funding

for the implementation of green infrastructure projects over the next 7 years.

Despite some success at influencing LEP strategies, a consistent theme to emerge during

the evaluation was frustration about the limited influence LNPs have had on LEP economic

strategies. LNPs would have liked to have had a much more significant effect. LNP

participants expressed concerns that a failure to engage with LEPs could result in plans for

development and growth that fail to adequately reflect the importance of the natural

environment.

LNPs also provided examples of other organisations that they have influenced, for example

engaging with a group of local authorities in the preparation of a green infrastructure strategy

and influencing how the strategy will be delivered, influencing a Local Health and Wellbeing

Board’s agenda, and helping to improve the management of a National Park by improving

coordination between various organisations involved in delivery.

LNPs provided several examples of efforts to influence other organisations, but which had

not (yet) resulted in any apparent change. The LNPs were keen to emphasise that they had

not yet had an influence but expected that over time their influence would increase. For

example, one LNP stated that it will start to have an influence when the local authority begins

to consult the LNP about strategic planning documents and other policy documents.

Table 5.3 includes examples of how LNPs have influenced LEPs and other organisations.

The table also provides examples of activities undertaken by LNPs to influence organisations

but which have yet to yield results.

Table 5.3 Examples of LNPs influencing the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities are supported by the activities of local stakeholders

Types of LNP influence


Influencing LEPs LNP engagement with the LEP has resulted in the allocation of £1.7 million

of EU funding for the implementation of green infrastructure projects over

the next 7 years.

The LNP’s status and credibility has enabled it to influence LEP and LA

plans. Without the LNP this influence would not have been possible.

However there is still a way to go until the LNP has more significant impacts

on local organisations.

The LNP has influenced the LEP’s economic strategy, and along with

another LNP, offered the LEP advice regarding their sustainable water and

conservation plans.

The LNP has a good relationship with the LEP and has influenced its

agenda with respect to the natural environment.

The LNP has influenced the LEP investment strategy, resulting in the

preparation of a separate European Structural Investment Fund (ESIF)

programme related to the environment.


48

Types of LNP influence


The LNP’s main achievement has been its engagement with the LEP. The

LNP provided inputs for the LEP’s EU funding strategy and economic plans.

As a result, the LEP incorporated environmental sections in its economic

plans.

The main achievement has been the engagement with the LEP. The LNP

provided its inputs into the LEP’s EU funding strategy and economic plans.

As a result, the LEP incorporated environmental sections in its economic

plans.

The LNP has made an active contribution to the LEPs efforts with respect to

the next round of EU funding (for the 2014 – 2020 period).

Influencing other

organisations

The LNP has helped a group of local authorities to prepare a green

infrastructure strategy. The LNP’s input has influenced how the strategy will

be delivered.

The diverse and committed board has helped to increase the effectiveness

of management of the national park.

The LNP has worked with the local health and wellbeing board and

influenced its agenda.

Potential influence Decision-making influence is difficult to gauge but could be happening. One

example is the CAP reform, where there has been a robust debate between

the WT and the NFU. It is hoped that they would have been influenced.

Influencing decision-making: this has not happened yet. When the LEP

ESIF strategy is published in January 2015 there is likely to be a major

impact here (assuming the LNP sections and proposals have been

included).

The LNP will be consulted about strategic planning documents and policy

documents under development by the local authority.

The LNP was requested to submit an ‘offer’ of what the LNP could do. The

LEP will consider the offer and may include something specific in the

economic plan under preparation.

They have been able to influence some decision making in a minimal way

by talking to the LEP about their economic plan, influenced the internal

policy of the National Park and perhaps impacted on the actions of the local

Wildlife Trust.

The LNP is currently contributing to a policy document being produced by

the local council called ‘Quality of Life Support’. The council wants to ensure

that the section of the document related to wildlife and habitat is focused on

the LNP and LNP priorities.

5.4.5 Delivery: better implementation of actions that promote improvement of natural areas

LNPs are intended to be strategic and influencing bodies rather than involved in project

delivery. The few projects that have been delivered by LNPs are typically related to

biodiversity and are often legacy projects that were previously the responsibility of pre-

existing partnerships.

LNPs’ strategic partnership approach has helped to facilitate collaboration and cooperation

between member organisations, and between members and non-members. LNPs have

contributed towards improving how projects were delivered by other organisations, for

example, by improving the join-up between projects and providing improved access to data

and expertise.

Table 5.4 includes examples identified during the evaluation of projects delivered by LNPs

and projects for which the LNP has helped to improve delivery.


49

Table 5.4 Examples of LNPs contributing to the better implementation of actions that improve natural areas


A number of projects have been delivered by the LNP or are still underway, including a biodiversity

and species project, a green infrastructure project, and work on an upland peatland partnership, a

hay meadows project, and a pollinator project.

The LNP has supervised a project to restore natural connections along and between watercourses,

a project by coastal communities, NIA projects and a butterfly conservation project.

The LNP is working with developers to identify and deliver local green infrastructure.

The LNP has supported NIA designation, and contributed to efforts by the county council to

enhance landscape scale delivery of natural environment projects.

The LNP provides support service to local authorities to facilitate the assessment of key

development sites.

By mapping the potential for woodland creation the LNP helped to secure funding from the Forestry

Commission.

The LNP has been working on legacy carried over from the previous partnership. Projects relate to

peat land, biodiversity offsetting, green infrastructure, data mapping and coordination with the

national park to influence LEP policy.

The LNP operates a small grant fund to fund projects that help promote health and wellbeing

through the use of green space. Grants have been provided and projects are currently being

implemented by LNP members.

The LNP helped to improve the delivery of the following actions: development of four farming pilots

in protected areas (High Nature Value farming); preparation of a joint bid in support of wood

landscape project; and, wood/ecological mapping.

5.4.6 Collaboration: improved collaboration and coordination among local organisations, and between local and national organisations

The majority of LNPs (27 of 35 LNPs responding to online survey) considered that LNPs

have increased collaboration and coordination between partners of the LNP and between the

LNP and other organisations.

LNPs provide a forum for organisations to discuss their plans and priorities, helping them to

understand what other organisations are working on now and planning to work on in the

future. This was identified as one of the key benefits of LNPs as it enables organisations

working locally to avoid duplication of effort and ensure that potential gaps are identified and

addressed.

In addition to providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, LNPs also

facilitate the delivery of collaborative projects / initiatives between LNP members and

between the LNP and other (non-member) organisations. For example, an LNP is involved

in a collaborative project with farmers to retain existing farmers on the land, and attract new

farmers.

The findings of the thematic evaluation suggest that ecological networks have provided a

useful framework for LNPs to facilitate collaboration among LNP members. A summary is

presented in Box 10 (the full discussion paper is included in Annex 6).

Box 10 Ecological networks have provided the basis for collaboration among LNP participants

The strengthening of ecological networks and reversal of habitat fragmentation are identified as key

priorities within the ‘Making Space for Nature’ Review of England’s Wildlife Areas. The National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in 2012, provides a strategic framework to enable

sustainable development in the UK. The NPPF states that the planning system should establish

coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Planning


50

policies should identify and map ecological networks and areas identified by local partnerships for

habitat restoration and creation.

Through their strategic and influencing roles, LNPs consider that they are well-placed to identify and

facilitate ecological networks locally, by bringing together evidence and co-ordinating the actions of

local partners. During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested that there is scope for LNPs to work

to enhance delivery of current ecological networks, and also to help in the identification and

elaboration of future ecological networks; LNPs have been specifically encouraged to do so.

The majority of LNPs are either working to support ecological networks, or intend to do so but have

not yet started. This includes working with existing Nature Improvement Areas (NIA) and working to

identify new locally-determined NIAs. Some LNPs have also been engaged in the delivery of

strategic landscape conservation actions as part of the Defra biodiversity offset pilots, and other trials

of conservation offsetting at the local scale.

The evaluation found that LNPs most frequently worked with the concept of ecological networks as a

means to pull together different data and activities, and to add value to these activities. LNPs have

been well-placed to contribute to ecological networks in this respect due to their diverse membership

and expertise, and links to a range of sectors.

During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested that they could play a crucial role in communication

around ecological networks, if they build credibility over time and make sure the right people are

talking to the right audiences. LNPs could have a role to play in integrating existing initiatives (e.g.

the RSPB’s Living Landscapes, the Environment Agency’s Catchment Based Approach) under the

concept of a local ecological network. Doing so would help all parties realise efficiencies of scale in

monitoring and management, and also provide the necessary scale and experience to bid for

national or EU funding- as the example of Cheshire Ecological Network demonstrates.

In the thematic workshop LNPs considered that their contribution to ecological networks could be

developed further through:

■ The use of thematic ‘best practice’ events (similar to the event on grasslands management

hosted by North Devon NIA, see discussion paper in Annex 6).

■ The development of supplementary planning and decision-support guidance tools that could be

applied more broadly.

■ Collaborative communication and research exercises with local universities, schools and

agricultural colleges, potentially leading towards bids for research grants.

The ecological networks discussion paper (Annex 6) provides additional information about the

potential roles LNPs could play in the development and enhancement of ecological networks. It also

describes several examples of how LNPs have used ecological networks as the basis of

collaboration among LNP participants, and between LNP participants and other organisations.

5.4.7 Contribution to Biodiversity 2020

The Biodiversity 2020 outcomes have superseded Biodiversity Action Planning as the

framework for securing biodiversity within the England Biodiversity Strategy. The outcomes

emphasise the importance of a strategic, landscape scale view of conservation actions as

outlined in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper. LNPs could potentially have a

significant role to play in local delivery of Biodiversity 2020 and contributing to Biodiversity

2020 outcomes is a part of many partnerships’ goals / priorities.

Although contributing to specific Biodiversity 2020 targets under Outcome 1 of the strategy is

a priority area for many LNPs the majority are not currently doing so, but expect that they

could potentially have an influencing role in the future. LNP strategies and priorities

complement the aims of Biodiversity 2020, and LNPs consider that they are likely to make

some strategic influencing contributions to meeting the aims but are unlikely to be involved in

related delivery work. Several LNPs cited biodiversity offsetting as an area where they

would like to provide a strategic role to contribute to Biodiversity 2020 but they are not sure

what that role might entail. Other LNP participants highlighted how their LNP would

contribute to Biodiversity 2020 by restoring habitats, influencing the development of new

environmental land management schemes, and contributing to NIAs and other ecological

networks. A significant proportion of LNPs stated that there are insufficient resources


51

available to undertake a delivery role, but that their partnership will have an effect by

improving collaboration and coordination between its members.

LNPs that are currently working towards Biodiversity 2020 outcomes are involved in a range

of projects, many of which relate to habitat restoration or improvement. Such LNPs typically

have a biodiversity action group that include individuals and organisations involved in local

biodiversity work prior to their involvement with LNPs, for example as part of LBAPs (Local

Biodiversity Action Plans). Several LNP participants involved in work contributing to

Biodiversity 2020 considered that it is too early to consider the impact of LNPs as it would

take at least two years for any effects to become apparent.

Several LNPs plan on delivering on Biodiversity 2020 outcomes in the future but have not yet

determined how this will occur, what exactly they will do, or how it will be funded. While LNP

participants agreed that Biodiversity 2020 outcomes are important and that LNPs have a role

to play, they have been focused on establishing the LNP and have not had the opportunity to

consider the specific initiatives the LNP will work on.

In addition to their work with LNPs, some LNP participants are also working towards

Biodiversity 2020 outcomes independently of the LNP. This work often includes delivery, for

example, working as part of NIAs.

5.4.8 The added value of LNPs

LNP participants are typically involved in initiatives related to the natural environment,

involvement that is separate to their involvement with LNPs. One of the key elements of

LNP added value, as set out in a 2012 Defra paper19

, is to improve strategic coordination

between LNP members, for example, to increase the profile of environmental issues and

improve collaboration between organisations working on those issues.

The majority of LNP members, chairpersons and coordinators consider that LNPs’ added

value has been limited to date but that it is too early to consider added value. LNPs have not

been ‘active’ for very long as it has taken a significant amount of time and resources to

establish their governance structures, identify priorities and prepare strategies. LNPs are

confident that they will add value in the future, if they obtain sufficient support. LNPs’

potential added value is contingent on them obtaining the funding necessary to sustain core

services, such as dedicated coordinator. LNPs’ significance and relevance is likely to

decrease without a dedicated coordinator.

Involvement with LNPs has had a significant effect on their members by increasing the

visibility of what other organisations are working on and enabling organisations to

communicate to others about the work they undertake. This has helped LNP members to

keep up to date with what is happening in the local natural environment sector, and provided

participants with access to a wide network of organisations. Some negative effects were

also identified, mainly related to the resources required to establish and maintain LNPs.

5.4.9 The extent to which LNPs have prepared evaluation plans

Most LNPs (29 of 35) have not completed an evaluation plan and almost a third do not

intend to prepare one. It will be difficult to determine the added value of LNPs unless there is

a process for recording and reviewing LNP progress and results.

Evaluating LNPs’ added value requires separating out activities and outcomes which would

have happened anyway from those which can be reasonably ascribed to LNPs. While LNP

participants acknowledged the benefits of having an evaluation plan in place, and agreed it

would be useful to have a common set of evaluation criteria for all LNPs, there are

insufficient resources available to LNPs to evaluate their impacts and achievements.

Several LNP participants pointed to the difficulty of attempting to evaluate the strategic

19

Defra (2012) An overview of the Local Nature Partnership role. Accessed online 21/10/2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192580/local-nature-partnerships-overview120402.pdf.




52

influencing role of the LNP, suggesting that it was likely to be almost impossible to determine

the added value of LNPs with respect to awareness-raising, for example.

Several ‘success’ criteria were suggested by LNPs:

■ Whether the LNP is in existence or not in several years’ time. If LNPs are still going in

several years’ time it will indicate that partnerships are successful.

■ Whether an LNP has secured funding for either core services or specific projects.

■ Whether an LNP exhibits the characteristics of an effective LNP defined in the Defra

(2012) paper on the role of LNPs:

– A shared strategic vision and set of priorities.

– A broad membership that includes economic, health and environmental interests.

– Effective and accountable governance and leadership.

– Influence and knowledge about the natural environment and its services.

– A good overview of the range of activities and partnerships concerned with the

sustainable management of the natural environment in its area.

5.5 Impacts

The overall LNP intervention logic in Section 4.2 identifies three main impacts that LNPs are

working towards:

■ An improved natural environment.

■ A stronger green economy.


These impacts correspond to the overall themes of the Natural Environment White Paper.

Over time, LNPs are working to achieve improvements in the natural environment, a stronger

green economy and stronger connections between people and nature. However, the

activities of LNPs focus on influencing the range of different actors and processes that effect

change over time; as a result the impacts of LNP activities are indirect, sometimes

unpredictable and difficult to attribute to the work of the LNPs themselves.

It is therefore unlikely, at this early stage in the LNPs’ development, that the benefits of their

activities will be observable through their ultimate impacts. Instead, many LNP

achievements will be expressed in terms of outcomes, for example improvements in joint

working, influencing and strategic coordination, rather than impacts. However it is important

to consider impacts, as the overarching purpose of LNPs is contribute towards

environmental improvements, enhance the green economy and strengthen the connection

between people and nature.

It is therefore not surprising that limited evidence of LNPs contributing to these impacts is

available at this stage. LNPs are generally at a relatively early stage in their development,

and even those that are more advanced have typically not been involved with outcome-

related activities for very long. LNPs are more likely to have impacts over a 5 to 10 year

period. Although it is difficult to assign causality between LNPs and impacts, it is reasonable

to assume that impacts are more likely to be achieved as additional LNPs achieve the

outcomes discussed in the previous section.


53

6 What next for LNPs?

This section discusses how LNPs could increase their impact by working more closely with

LEPs, and play a more significant role with local health organisations, biodiversity offsetting

and ecological networks. The role of funding, and LNPs’ mandate, is also considered.

This section is based on the views and opinions of LNP chairpersons, coordinators and

members expressed during the stakeholder consultation (online survey and interviews) and

the thematic evaluation.

6.1 LNPs could play a more significant role locally, developing and enhancing links with LEPs and getting more involved in different policy areas

LNPs are well established and are starting to move beyond priority setting to contribute to

local decision making affecting the natural environment. The results of the thematic

evaluation suggest that there is scope for LNPs to work more closely with LEPs, and play a

more significant role with local health organisations, biodiversity offsetting and ecological

networks. However funding remains a significant challenge for LNPs, and may limit the

extent to which LNPs can add value to local decision making affecting the natural

environment.

6.1.1 There is scope for LNPs to work more closely with LEPs

A point consistently raised by LNPs during the thematic evaluation is the need for individual

LNPs to define what it is that they offer to LEPs. There needs to be a clear rationale for an

LEP to engage with an LNP, and funding is only likely to follow if an LNP can help the LEP

meet its own objectives. This ‘offer’ may be helping to facilitate collaboration with LNP

partners, for example, or by providing information and evidence the LEP needs to inform

decision making.

LNPs suggested that they could influence economic plans and strategies by creating ‘hooks’

for environment and nature conservation and then suggesting ways forward as appropriate.

For example, by defining high-level criteria for LEPs relating to environment-economy

linkages, LNPs can add value within EU funding applications. During the thematic

evaluation it was suggested that there may be scope for LNPs to collaborate with funding

support organisations such as the European Funding Network and widen the use of various

EU funds and community grants at a local level20

.

The thematic evaluation suggests that there may be scope for LNPs to work with LEPs to

identify and define an area’s environmental assets and keep the information up to date.

Such information may be useful to local businesses in planning and decision-making by

highlighting environmental opportunities that could contribute to local economies. If

combined with social data, it may also provide the evidence LEPs need to demonstrate how

they are dealing with issues related to employment, deprivation and health.

LNPs suggested that evidence about the links between nature, the economy and enterprise

will have the most influence on LEPs (and other economy-focused organisations) and that

there is scope for LNPs to provide an advisory and educational role to LEPs. LNPs are in a

good position to provide insights and data relating to emerging environment-economy links

and establishing possible areas where a LEP could collaborate with other local interests.

While full cases studies would be useful to show the detail, even small snippets of

information that make environment-economy links more tangible are likely to be worthwhile.

LNPs could draw on their membership to:

■ Act as a conduit to data related to local environment concerns and the mitigation of

environmental risks relevant to local businesses, such as access to water resources or

20

The European Funding Network. Accessed online 28.10.2014: http://europeanfundingnetwork.eu


54

flood risk. Doing so would make environmental dialogue clear and efficient, providing a

means for LEPs to engage with the wide range of environmental bodies that exist locally.

■ Play an advisory role on biodiversity offsetting, explaining how it works and how to make

it effective.

■ Advise on the links between policy areas such as tourism and social inclusion, and

describe their relationship to environment-economy related issues.

■ Highlight possibilities for innovative nature-based solutions to pressing local problems,

such as flood management.

■ Provide a link to national strategies, particularly on issues of key relevance to the local

economy such as the New Environmental Management Scheme (NELMS).

Most LNPs are struggling with resource limitations that prevent or significantly constrain

engagement with LEPs. Influencing LEPs will take time and will require that LNPs have the

necessary credibility and status (or mandate). It will also require LNPs to define what they

can offer LEPs, as a network and individually, and demonstrate how they can help LEPs

meet their objectives. Without the mandate and a defined offer, LNPs are at risk of

becoming another voice lobbying on natural environmental issues without the ability to

influence decisions affecting the natural environment.

Section 6.3 discusses how strengthening LNPs’ mandate could help to more clearly

articulate what LNPs offer individually and as a network. Defra, Natural England and other

bodies could also help LNPs to define what they are for and what they can offer other

organisations, for example, by supporting LNPs to collaborate and function more effectively

as a network (discussed in section6.3.5).

6.1.2 LNPs could also play a more significant role in specific policy areas

6.1.2.1 Health

Most LNPs have identified working with the local health sector as a priority as public health

practitioners are considered to be open to exploring the mutually positive links between

health and the natural environment. However only a limited number of LNPs have made a

significant start to this work, citing reasons that include not knowing who to contact, or what

opportunities for joint health-natural environment projects might be available. The thematic

evaluation identified several ways LNPs could become more involved with the local health

sector.

The National Physical Activity Framework, currently under development by Public Health

England, will focus on ‘what works’ in communities to increase levels of exercise. Similarly,

the Government’s ‘Moving More, Living More’ commitment includes an action area for cross-

sector commitment to provide people with a physical environment that encourages physical

activity. LNPs are a unique initiative, offering holistic, multi-disciplinary partnerships

potentially capable of embracing the diverse connections between health, wellbeing and

engagement with nature. They are well-placed to enable local health organisations develop

coherent and coordinated multi-stakeholder service offers that increase the utilisation of the


Through their membership LNPs have access to information about an area’s natural

environment assets and could provide the intelligence and platform for partners to build

service offers. LNPs suggested that they are well placed to offer a ‘brokering’ role for local

health organisations that want information about and access to the natural environment.

However, LNPs are conscious of ensuring that their ‘service offer’ matches the resources

available to them. To help match their capacity with the needs of the local health sector,

LNPs could help to conduct a needs assessment for the local heath sector and identify how

engagement with nature could help to meet identified needs. The next step would be to

determine what role the LNP could play to facilitate engagement with the natural

environment.

During the thematic evaluation it was suggested by an LNP involved with the local health

sector that resources from public health and NHS budgets are available for projects and


55

services related to the natural environment. However, there is some uncertainty at present

because the local authority public health budget is ring-fenced only until 2016. LNPs that

have successfully engaged with the local health sector suggested that having an LNP board

member from the local health sector would help the LNP keep abreast of developments in

the sector, and would help to identify opportunities for collaboration.

The results of the thematic evaluation highlight that there are existing initiatives underway

between the health sector and LNP members and that LNPs should not attempt to ‘reinvent

the wheel’ with initiatives. LNPs should instead focus on their strategic coordination role to

make use of existing initiatives and improve their alignment and coherence at the local level.

6.1.2.2 Biodiversity offsetting

There is currently no mandatory requirement for biodiversity offsetting but under existing

voluntary arrangements offsets can be implemented in a number of ways. For example,

project developers can develop their own offset sites, purchase biodiversity offsets, or

contribute to a biodiversity offset bank or fund (each of the options is described in the

biodiversity offsetting discussion paper in Annex 6), while local authorities can require

biodiversity offsets to be delivered through existing planning arrangements.

During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested that they potentially have a role to play in

each of the implementation options, either in a delivery or advisory role (the appropriate role

will depend on the stakeholders participating in the LNP and the capacity of the LNP to get

involved). The findings of the thematic evaluation suggest that LNPs are better placed to

provide a strategic coordination role rather than getting directly involved in biodiversity

offsetting schemes.

The following potential LNP roles were identified by LNPs during the thematic evaluation:

■ LNPs often have access to detailed ecological datasets due to diversity of their

membership, and their focus on overarching strategies such as Biodiversity 2020. LNPs

could play a technical advisory role to maximise the conservation benefits of offset

schemes by setting them within a coherent landscape strategy and linking to local

strategic objectives, such as linking to ecological networks. LNPs could draw on their

members experience to input to offset schemes from a landscape-scale perspective

rather than on the basis of individual sites.

■ LNPs could play an important communication role to ensure that local stakeholders are

clear about the offsetting process, what it entails and what it can deliver. Existing

compensation measures are often criticized for a perceived lack of transparency and low

confidence in the link between compensation outcomes and ecological benefits. LNPs

could act as advocates or intermediaries, helping to promote public understanding and

improve the transparency of offset schemes.

■ LNPs could, through their membership, help to engage landowners to facilitate access to

(increasingly scarce) land for offsetting. Through their advocacy and communication

role, LNPs could help represent the collective interests of local landowners and build the

case for their participation within offsetting land management agreements.

■ The opportunities for LNPs to get involved in offsetting to access new revenue streams

depends on how the offsetting legislative framework develops. LNPs could act as official

advisors to local planning authorities considering offsetting schemes, charging a fee for

the expertise provided. Similarly, LNPs could act as a repository of local data and

information necessary for preparing offset metrics, charging local planning authorities

and / or project developers for access to the datasets and advice about how data and

information could be combined for use in monitoring and evaluation. Fees could be

recovered from developers in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

While the majority of LNPs have specified a priority related to biodiversity offsetting, the most

significant obstacle preventing progress is the threat of a changing legal framework. LNPs

do not want to invest their limited time and resources in the development of a scheme which

may not progress, or may need to be modified, on the basis of new legislation. Similarly,


56

LNPs do not want to spend the time and resources even considering biodiversity offsetting in

any great detail without greater levels of certainty about the existing framework.

The diversity of an LNP’s board composition could potentially pose conflicts of interest that

prevent, or at least complicate, LNPs involvement in biodiversity offsetting schemes. All

LNPs include members from either a local authority or local nature organisations, and most

include a member from both types of organisation. Some LNPs also include developers.

The independence of LNP advice about an offsetting project may be called into question if

the LNP includes LAs, local nature organisations or even local developers.

6.1.2.3 Ecological networks

The strengthening of ecological networks and reversal of habitat fragmentation are identified

as key priorities in the ‘Making Space for Nature’ Review of England’s Wildlife Areas. The

majority of LNPs are either working to support ecological networks, or intend to do so but

have not yet started.

Through their strategic and influencing roles, LNPs are well-placed to identify and facilitate

ecological networks locally, by bringing together evidence and co-ordinating the actions of

local partners. LNPs consider that there is scope for LNPs to work to enhance delivery of

current ecological networks, and also to help in the identification and elaboration of future

ecological networks; LNPs have been specifically encouraged to do so. As an advocate for

the natural environment within business and local economic decision-making, as well as a

conduit for a range of local conservation interests, LNPs also considered that they are well

placed to contribute to the identification of new, ecological networks. In particular, LNPs

suggested that they could take the role of a broker to facilitate discussions and exchanges

between interested parties and development of consortia.

LNPs identified a role for the partnerships in helping to facilitate communication around

ecological networks, for example, by integrating existing initiatives (e.g. the RSPB’s Living

Landscapes, the Environment Agency’s Catchment Based Approach) under the concept of a

local ecological network. Doing so would help all parties to realise efficiencies of scale in

monitoring and management, and also provide the necessary scale and experience to bid for

national or EU funding. They can also provide a link with local conservation interests to

disseminate information and best practice. In particular, LNPs can play a key role in raising

awareness by highlighting successes of their partners in areas relevant to ecological

networks, such as green infrastructure.

Often, the challenge for those involved in the development of ecological networks is how to

make effective use of existing data and monitoring activities, and how to decide what types

of data to use. LNPs are a natural link between national and local networks for exchange of

best practice, and have a key role in assessing the applicability, in terms of relevance and

quality, of nationally and regionally produced information. They also have a role to play in

ensuring the appropriate tools are correctly applied.

The concept of ecological connectivity requires a clear and transparent understanding of the

links between landscape-scale actions and national-scale priorities under Biodiversity 2020.

During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested that they could provide a link between local

and national priorities in this respect, by working towards harmonisation of standards for

monitoring and reporting (for example, through promotion and capacity-building in the use of

national or international standards) as well as coordinating the development of ‘decision-

support tools capable of integrating different forms and geographies of data (for example,

considering local socio-economic pressures alongside ecological drivers).

There may be scope for LNPs to develop links between ecological networks and

contemporary concepts in planning and development (e.g. place-shaping and resilience

agendas), helping to mainstream the concept of ecological networks.

Although there are numerous opportunities for LNPs to further their involvement with

ecological networks, progress may be limited by funding / resource constraints and

(perceptions of) a weak mandate. There may also be conflicts between the interest of an

LNP’s members and the interest of an LNP as a whole. For example, if an LNP was

involved in biodiversity offsetting and a board member was from the local authority planning


57

department, there could be a conflict in the LNPs role in offsetting and the role of the local

authority.

6.2 LNP funding is and will remain a key issue

In addition to the needs related to strengthening LNPs’ mandate, the need most frequently

cited by LNPs is funding for a dedicated coordinator to help manage and progress the work

of the LNP. LNPs estimated that the amount of funding necessary to ensure the viability of

the partnerships is on average £50,000 per year21

.

LNPs are running on donations of time and resources and the majority do not have an

independent or sustainable source of funding. The lack of funding is compromising the

ability of LNPs to meet their objectives as described in the NEWP and subsequent Defra

publications. While there is local support for LNPs, this may decrease if LNPs are not seen

to make a more active contribution to local decision-making affecting the natural

environment.

LNPs expect that contributions of staff time / expertise, funding and other support will be

provided by a broad range of organisations. The most frequently cited sources of funding

include EU sources (such as LIFE+) and the Heritage Lottery Fund. Some LNPs, around a

fifth, expect to receive funding from organisations in the health sector and farmers / land

owners / land managers. The local government sector, Defra delivery bodies and health /

public health organisations are expected to be a source of staff time and expertise by around

half of LNPs.

LNPs consider that, despite the variety of potential funding sources identified, it is unlikely

that the partnerships will have sufficient resources to meet their objectives and influence

local decision-making related to the natural environment. This is an issue currently limiting

the LNPs’ added value, and also an issue that may become more pronounced through 2014

/ 2015 as existing funding is consumed. The extent of the current funding deficit means that

LNPs do not have the resources available to seek and secure funding from the potential

sources identified. They do not have the resources necessary to demonstrate the services

they can provide to other local organisations. Without the capacity to demonstrate their

added value, it is more difficult for LNPs to attract and obtain funding. There is no ‘proof of

concept’.

Without some funding, whether from central government or obtained locally, LNPs will not

have the capacity to fulfil their objectives and some may not continue as partnerships

beyond 2015.

6.3 LNPs’ future role depends on their credibility

The nature and scale of LNPs’ future role will depend on two interrelated factors – funding

and a well-defined mandate. LNPs consider that the strength and clarity of their mandate is

at least as important as the issue of funding. Having a clear mandate that is understood by

their partners and by other organisations, provides LNPs with the credibility and status

necessary to influence other organisations and obtain funding. A frequently identified issue

constraining the ability of LNPs to influence other organisations is the lack of a mandate for

LNPs, perceived or otherwise.

6.3.1 LNPs understanding of their mandate varies

There are now 48 LNPs, covering most of England. They interpret their mandate differently,

including whether they have a mandate or not and what the mandate means in practice.

LNPs consider there to be different types of mandate, initiative / topic specific, local and

national (Box 11).

21

The minimum estimate was £10,000 the maximum estimate was £300,000. The median estimate was £39,000.


58

Some consider that there is a mandate for LNPs to exist, provided by the Natural

Environment White Paper and related Defra publications, but that there is no operational

mandate for LNPs to be involved in local decision making and delivery. The absence of any

requirement for other organisations to pay heed to LNPs undermines, in the opinion of some

LNP participants, the ability of LNPs to effect change. Other LNP participants consider that

there is sufficient mandate for LNPs, but it is the responsibility of LNPs to define what it is

they are for and what they can offer to other organisations. The lack of resources available

to LNPs slows their ability to define what they can offer and constrains the extent of their

potential offer.

LNPs consider that they have a local role, working with local organisations to influence how

national programmes will work at the local level. Many LNP participants argued that LNPs

will have a stronger local mandate if there is a national endorsement of what they are doing.

That is, if they have a national mandate to deliver locally. There is also a link between the

local-level and national-level as LNPs can be local partners in delivering national objectives

(for example, NEWP priorities, Biodiversity 2020 outcomes), and can also be a conduit to

feedback local expertise and experience to national policy makers.

Identifying and articulating LNPs’ mandate will require that the diversity of their capacities,

capabilities, interests and the local context within which they operate are acknowledged and

respected. LNPs’ mandate also depends on the resources available to get involved with

national and local issues and influence decision-making.

Box 11 LNPs interpretation of their mandate varies in terms of scope and type

Three different levels of LNP mandate were identified:

1. Initiative / topic specific mandate.

2. Local mandate to engage with local partners.

3. National mandate to engage with national policy makers / policy making.

LNPs considered that having a clearly defined mandate can:

■ Provide clarity of scope and help to define an LNP’s role. It is important to be clear about what

the LNP is doing and not doing. Defining individual roles also helps to create synergies with

partners, and to provide a more unified approach whereby LNPs are working together to achieve

similar aims and outcomes.

■ Enable LNPs to more effectively influence partners, for example, LEPs and Health and Well-

being Boards.

■ Help LNPs to develop a specific offer, for example, a point of contact to direct queries related to

the environment or a body that collects available data and ensures that it is quality controlled.

Doing so would also contribute towards translating national policy into local action.

■ Contribute to specific tasks such as data provision and collection and development of local

toolkits. A well-defined role for LNPs provides clarity of purpose, facilitating better cooperation

between LNP participants and more strategic coordination of LNP participants’ initiatives.

■ Help to mitigate the potential tension between LNP delivery and delivery by LNP participants /

members. An LNP is best placed for strategic coordination rather than actual delivery, and there

is a need to avoid duplication.

■ Shift from the negative framing of what LNPs cannot do, to a more positive approach that sets

out what LNPs (together and separately) can do. This could help to have LNPs included in

planning and strategizing, and get LNPs more involved in local coordination.

6.3.2 Understanding how LNPs can strengthen their mandate will help to increase their influence and impact

Defining a mandate, national or local, depends on three interconnected factors: influence,

funding and delivery. With a well-defined and clearly articulated mandate LNPs have


59

influence, with influence comes funding, and with funding LNPs can deliver (delivery includes

providing a strategic coordination function). The capacity to deliver provides an LNP with the

mandate to get involved on local and national issues. The reverse is also true, that is, with

no mandate there is no influence, no funding no capacity to deliver and thus no mandate

(Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1 Cycle supporting LNPs influence and enhancing their mandate

ICF, 2014

6.3.3 Strengthening LNPs’ mandate

Focusing efforts on one element of this circle may help LNPs to unlock their potential. The

findings of the thematic evaluation suggest that concentrating efforts on the ‘influencing’

element could potentially be the most effective approach.

LNPs have an important role as key partners of Defra network organisations and other local

organisations. At the national-level, LNPs could provide a valuable local perspective to

influence national policy design. Although there are examples of local and regional

cooperation, the findings of the evaluation suggest that LNPs’ collective effectiveness is

limited by a lack of cohesion and cooperation across the network. A more concrete role for

LNPs, and responding to issues with a unified voice, may help to increase the credibility and

effectiveness of the network.

Defining a more concrete role for LNPs depends on balancing Defra’s expectations with

LNPs’ capabilities and interests. Defra’s objectives for LNPs are described in the Natural

Environment White Paper (NEWP)22

. The NEWP states that LNPs are expected to play a

key role in delivering or contributing to many of the initiatives and ideas it sets out, such as

biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, catchment based approaches, local

public health initiatives and landscape-scale conservation projects. However defining what

specifically LNPs can / should do across the NEWP’s initiatives and ideas depends on LNPs

identifying what collectively the partnerships can offer. That is, for Defra and LNPs to work

together to define a more concrete role for LNPs, it will be necessary for LNPs to first define

what it is LNPs can reasonably be expected to provide in the context of their interests,

capacities and capabilities.

The absence of funding from central government, and the localism agenda, suggests that

LNPs need to work collectively to define what they are willing and able to commit to.

22

HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. http://www.official-


Delivery (incl. coordination)

Funding

Mandate

Influence




60

However, at the same time there is a need for government to more clearly specify LNPs’

mandate.

The results of the thematic evaluation suggest that it would be helpful if Defra confirmed

LNPs’ mandate as set out in the NEWP. Doing so could draw on the progress LNPs have

made, and re-confirm the role of LNPs at the local and national level. A refreshed message

that includes specific examples would enhance LNPs’ credibility and provide examples to

other LNPs and related organisations. Defining the refreshed message may require

collaboration between Defra and LNPs.

Leadership and mandate The findings of the thematic evaluation suggest LNPs’ potential is weakened by a lack of

national representation of the network. LNPs argue that the network needs a strong voice

that can interact with national policy discussion to embed LNPs in policy making and help

strengthen LNPs’ local mandate and interactions with local delivery agencies. A national

LNP spokesperson could provide a means of involving LNPs in national-level strategy and

policy making.

The findings of the thematic evaluation also suggest that LNPs’ potential would be

strengthened by improving national coordination across the network. LNPs suggested that

by working together and presenting a more unified front LNPs would function more

effectively as a network. Doing so would, in their opinion, strengthen LNPs mandate to work

with national and local partners.

A strong national mandate would help to provide a more unified vision for the natural

environment, and could help to open doors with key policy makers at national level.

Interacting with national policy makers is key to protecting and enhancing the natural

environment, and for providing LNPs with the mandate to work with other (non-environment)

organisations.

Topic-based mandate Some LNPs felt that a greater national steer on a topic by topic basis would be useful and

would help LNPs to deliver on expectations.

There was a view that the Defra mandate is currently very vague but it was acknowledged

that there were pros and cons as a result. However greater recognition and status at a

national level is thought to be useful and this may help to open more doors, particularly with

the LEPs. It is also important that LNPs are consulted on new policy and initiatives right at

the very beginning of the process and not just towards the end.

While some LNPs supported more guidance on LNPs’ mandate on specific topics others

were concerned that it could provide a national expectation that LNPs would work on

particular topics. They felt it would be unrealistic to expect LNPs to become involved in a

range of policy areas and would not sit well with their overarching purpose. For example, if

LNPs were to become a statutory consultee on planning applications it would quickly

overwhelm the resources and capacity of most partnerships.

Rather than prescribe them specific roles, LNPs’ topic-based mandate could be

strengthened by showcasing the work particular LNPs are doing on particular topics,

demonstrating LNPs relevance and the potential for them to get involved with specific local

initiatives.

Local mandate LNPs’ mandate to influence local decision making is perceived by some LNP participants to

be constrained by their lack of national-level influence. However other LNP participants

consider that there is sufficient mandate to have local influence, but it is up to LNPs to create

the opportunities to do so. At present, having a local influence depends on the individual

interests and commitment of local stakeholders, arguably too haphazard an approach to

deliver national environmental priorities. Having a local mandate is important as it defines

how LNPs could contribute to the delivery of national environment priorities at the local level

and it could also help LNPs to describe their purpose to local partners.


61

LNPs vary in terms of, for example, their membership, the expertise and experience

available to them, the funding and resources secured, and the priorities they intend to

address. An issue that is consistent across LNPs is the need to define an ‘offer’ or ‘service’

that they can provide. LNPs that can articulate what they are for, and what they can offer,

are more likely to successfully engage with other organisations and partnerships.

Some LNPs are struggling to define exactly what it is they offer to other organisations. LNPs

may be struggling to do so due to the difficulties associated with obtaining funding and the

(perceived) reliance on funding to provide a focus and well defined remit. It may also be due

to the divergent nature of LNPs’ membership complicating the identification of the most

appropriate offer.

6.3.4 A number actions may help LNPs enhance their mandate

LNPs identified a number of steps they could take to enhance their mandate. These are

summarised below:

■ Define service offers that describe what individual LNPs can provide to local

organisations.

Individual LNPs could set out what they can offer local organisations across different

topics or policy areas. LNPs are best placed to describe what they can offer local

organisations in the context of the time and resources they have at their disposal.

Proactively suggesting the benefits LNPs could offer other organisations may help to

strengthen LNPs’ local mandate, providing local organisations with the information

necessary to provide LNPs with a role in initiatives or decisions affecting the natural

environment.

Preparing individual LNP service offers would facilitate the development of a national

prospectus, which in turn would help a national spokesperson to engage with national-

level strategy and policy making.

■ Prepare a national LNP promotional document, potentially structured by topic, setting out

the capabilities, activities and achievements of LNPs and what they can offer other local

organisations.

LNPs could work together to prepare a document summarising their existing activities,

capabilities and achievements, and also setting out what they are willing and able to

commit to in the future. The document could include examples from across the network

to describe how, in the right situation and with the right support, the role LNPs can play

in a variety of policy areas. A promotional document would facilitate the integration of

LNPs into national-level conversations, helping to embed LNPs in the downstream local

delivery of initiatives affecting the natural environment. It may be the case, for example,

that LNPs could add value by helping to improve coordination between local

organisations across different sectors. A promotional document would also help to

demonstrate to local organisations, such as LEPs and the local health sector, what role

an LNP could potentially have if included in the planning and arrangements for new

initiatives.

■ Identify a national LNP spokesperson, to engage with national-level strategy and policy

making.

Identifying a representative to engage with national-level policy making could help to

integrate LNPs into new initiatives during the earliest stages possible. Doing so would

contribute to the establishment of a more clearly defined role for LNPs in the roll-out of

new plans and programmes, and strengthen LNPs’ local mandate. The representative

would have to be well-versed in the heterogeneous range of LNP capabilities and have

the capacity to articulate what the network can offer in different policy areas.

A national spokesperson could help to develop the promotional document referred to

above, promote LNPs and their work, and co-ordinate collective action on particular

themes and options, for example, by facilitating communication between topic-based

working groups (see below).


62

■ Establish topic-based LNP working groups

Despite the wide variety of topics LNPs are working on there are certain topics that are

being addressed by multiple LNPs. Establishing topic-based working groups, for

example on biodiversity offsetting and / or engaging with the local health sector, would

provide an opportunity for LNPs to share learning and work together to address common

issues. Topic-based working groups may also help LNPs to more clearly articulate their

‘service offers’ on particular issues, and also to understand their specific needs to more

effectively engage with their partners. During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested

that the working groups could be led by topic-leads, who could then provide input and

advice to the LNP spokesperson.

6.3.5 Next steps LNPs identified for government

LNPs would like a well-defined vision or strategy that articulates the partnerships’ role. This

would help them to work together as a coherent network, and help to demonstrate to other

organisations what LNPs are for and why they matter. This, in turn, could help to strengthen

LNPs’ mandate. Collaborative working between LNPs, in conjunction with Defra, would

provide the opportunity for LNPs to define what they see as their role and explore links

between their role and national policy.

Some centrally provided resource for LNPs, including an LNP spokesperson and a budget

for a publication, combined with a commitment from Defra to work together with LNPs to

define their role, could make a significant contribution to strengthening LNPs’ mandate. To

maintain LNP ownership Defra could facilitate, rather than direct, the process.

Similarly, centrally provided resources for a national LNP spokesperson would help to cover

the administration and support necessary to enable an individual to attend meetings,

coordinate across the LNP network and work with Defra (and others) to strengthen LNPs’

mandate.

During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested that it would help if Defra reconfirmed LNPs’

mandate as set out in the NEWP. Since the NEWP was published LNPs have been

established and are operational. The refreshed message could draw on practical examples

from across the LNP network and could potentially complement / be incorporated into the

LNP promotional document described above.

LNPs would like to see more cross-government support for LNPs, for example from the

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and

Local Government. LNPs identify one constraint as being their overall clout and credibility,

which in turn is related to their mandate and remit from government, including those driving

the agenda of those they are trying to influence at local level. LNPs suggested that broader

central governmental support would help to strengthen their remit and may influence LEPs

and others to take them more seriously.


63

7 Conclusions

This section presents the overall conclusions from the evaluation.

7.1 Progress in Development of LNPs

LNPs have made good progress in setting up governance structures, obtaining coordinator

support and setting out their overall vision and objectives. Significant time and effort has

been invested in the establishment of these partnerships, since LNPs have recognised the

importance for their future effectiveness of building strong governance structures, engaging

with the right partners and defining a shared and coherent strategy.

7.2 LNP Inputs

Apart from some initial funding from Defra for capacity building, LNPs have been expected to

find their own resources for their activities. All LNPs have found this a significant challenge,

and nearly all report that limited funding has constrained their activities and progress, with

many stating that funding has influenced their choice of activity. The main sources of LNP

funding have been local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs. LNPs

have also benefited from significant contributions of staff time and in-kind contributions from

a wide range of organisations. Many LNPs are concerned that uncertainties about future

resourcing threaten their longer term sustainability.

7.3 LNP Activities

LNPs have engaged in a wide range of activities and have begun to make progress on a

variety of different agendas and to work with various sectors and organisations. Much early

effort has been devoted to influencing Local Enterprise Partnerships and their strategies, in

line with the recent effort by LEPs in defining their economic strategies and funding priorities.

The majority of LNPs report progress in influencing LEPs, but there is also frustration that to

date only a few have identified tangible outcomes from this engagement. These outcomes

include influencing LEP strategies and funding decisions, and working together on

collaborative projects. Other areas of significant progress include improving the local

evidence base and use of evidence, and supporting ecological networks. There has been

less progress in influencing the public health agenda, identified as a priority by most LNPs,

although there are a few good examples of successful engagement. LNPs report that

greater credibility, a stronger presence, improved awareness of the relevance of their

agenda, as well as more resources would enhance their effectiveness and influence.

7.4 LNP Outcomes

LNPs are making good progress against their intended outcomes, particularly in increasing

collaboration and coordination, enhancing knowledge sharing, engaging a wider range of

stakeholders in natural environment actions, and increasing awareness about the natural

environment. The evaluation identified numerous specific examples of progress in these

areas by individual LNPs. These include examples which can be expected to have direct

benefits, for example by securing funding for natural environment investments, delivering

natural environment projects, enabling target audiences to identify opportunities for natural

environment action, providing information that has directly influenced decisions relating to

the natural environment, and improving the co-ordination and delivery of existing natural

environment actions. However, because LNPs’ activities build on and seek to enhance

existing activities by their members, it is not always easy to assess their added value,

particularly at this early stage in their development. Furthermore, few LNPs have formal

plans for evaluation. It is noted, however, that, in the absence of central funding, LNPs’

ability to survive and to secure resources for continued activity will be a good indicator of

their effectiveness and relevance to local stakeholders.


64

7.5 LNP Impacts

Over time, LNPs are expected to contribute to the three overall themes of the Natural

Environment White Paper:

■ An improved natural environment;

■ A stronger green economy; and


These impacts are also influenced by a wide range of external influences and activities. It is

therefore unsurprising that, at this early stage, the overall effects of LNPs’ activities on these

longer term impacts have yet to be observed. However, by continuing to progress their

chosen activities and to deliver against their intended outcomes, LNPs can be expected to

deliver positive impacts for the natural environment, green economy and local communities

in the long term.

7.6 The Future of LNPs

LNPs are now well established and are starting to move beyond priority setting to contribute

to local decision making affecting the natural environment. By building on the progress they

have made, LNPs should be able to increase their influence on target audiences such as

LEPs and local health organisations, and to extend their role in priority agendas such as

biodiversity offsetting and ecological networks.

However, funding remains a significant challenge for LNPs, and may limit the extent to which

they can add value to local decision making affecting the natural environment. LNPs also

believe that they would be more credible and influential if, collectively, they had a stronger

presence and clearer mandate, building on that already set out in the Natural Environment

White Paper. In particular, they believe that a stronger voice and recognition at national

level would help to reinforce efforts to raise awareness and influence stakeholders locally.

While LNPs will continue to set their own priorities locally, and rely on local resources, there

is scope for targeted action across the network to strengthen their presence and to reaffirm

their purpose and relevance. This could include preparation of a joint service offer,

summarising their purpose, activities and collective achievements; a national spokesperson,

to engage with national level policy and strategy; and/or joint working groups on particular

topics of interest. Defra may wish to consider whether some centrally provided resources for

LNPs could make a significant contribution in helping them to strengthen their mandate.

Defra could facilitate, rather than direct, this process, working with LNPs to help them define

their role, reassert the mandate for LNPs set out in the NEWP and update it to reflect

progress to date, and help to raise the profile of LNPs across government.

Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase...

Documents

Transcript of Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase...