Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP): Initial Process...

Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP): Initial Process

EvaluationFinal report to the Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) October 2013

Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP): Initial Process Evaluation Final report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

www.sqw.co.uk

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7

2. Overview of NEWP’s activities ................... ...................................................................... 10

3. Theme 1 – Recognising the value of nature ....... ............................................................. 15

4. Theme 2 – Achieving integrated landscape-scale de livery to create a more resilientecological network ................................................................................................................. 21

5. Theme 3 – Enhanced partnership working, locally and nationally, consistent with thepurposes of NEWP ................................................................................................................. 27

6. Theme 4 – Influencing wider decision-making ............................................................... 32

7. NEWP’s added value and outcomes ................. ............................................................... 35

8. Conclusions and recommendations ................. ............................................................... 38

Annex A: Using the Evaluation Framework to structure the initial process evaluation of NEWP..................................................................................................................................... A-1

Annex B: Bilateral consultations and the stakeholder workshop .................................. B-1

Annex C: Literature review summary ................................................................................ C-1

Annex D: e-survey of NEWP stakeholders ........................................................................ D-1

Annex E: List of abbreviations used frequently in NEWP ............................................... E-1

Contact: Rebecca Pates Tel: 0161 475 2112 email: [email protected]

Approved by: Christine Doel Date: October 2013

Director


1

Executive Summary

1. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned a

consortium led by SQW Limited to develop an Evaluation Framework for the Natural

Environment White Paper (NEWP), and to carry out an initial process evaluation. This

report presents the results of the initial process evaluation of NEWP.

2. The initial process evaluation – completed some 18 months after the White Paper’s

publication – relied on evidence from various sources. These included: a review of NEWP

monitoring information and key literature; early feedback from a workshop with the NEWP

“Keep in Touch” stakeholder group; bilateral consultations with individuals from within

Defra, the Defra family and from among external partners and stakeholders; and an e-survey

of wider stakeholders1.

3. At this early stage of NEWP’s implementation, this initial process evaluation must be regarded

as a work in progress: the White Paper is broad in scope and the evidence base is still

developing. As proposed in the Evaluation Framework report – and as a recommendation

here – it is suggested that there should be a further stock-take and a synthesis of the evaluation

and other evidence at the end of 2013/2014 (noting particularly that evidence on a number

of commitments is due to be published over the next few months).

4. Nevertheless, based on the evidence generated and stakeholder views obtained, the

evaluation team sought to reflect on three groups of questions:

Is NEWP being implemented as intended?

5. In general, the monitoring data (from early spring, 2013) suggest that good progress is being

made in implementing the 92 commitments contained within NEWP. Across each of the four

Ambitions, at least a third of all commitments are now considered to have been “completed”

in a literal sense. These include, inter alia:

• publishing a new Biodiversity Strategy for England; a Roadmap for the Green

Economy; and a revised sustainable lifestyles framework

• encouraging and establishing Local Nature Partnerships; establishing an Ecosystems

Knowledge Network; forming the Natural Capital Committee; and setting up a

business-led Ecosystem Markets Task Force

• consulting on plans for meeting limits on nitrogen dioxide.

6. Some of these completed commitments are relatively small scale “quick wins”. However, they

are, nonetheless, designed to act as catalysts to longer term activity. Ensuring these deliver

the desired outcomes in the medium term will be critical.

1 The response rate to the e-survey was around 20%. The findings from it were triangulated against evidence derived

from other sources, particularly the more in-depth bilateral consultations. This meant both that a wide range of

perspectives could feed into the initial process evaluation but also that undue weight was not attached to the results of

the e-survey in isolation


2

7. The majority of other commitments are “on-going” (i.e. progress has been made and some

deliverables have been produced, with more to come in the future) or “underway” (progress

is underway but no deliverables have been produced as yet). Examples include:

• establishing catchment level partnerships, and creating a network of Natural Value

Ambassadors

• supporting the development of a new international coalition of businesses and

business organisations to follow up on the “TEEB2 for Business” report; and applying

TEEB principles to the development of National Strategic Biodiversity Plans

• forming strong relationships between Public Health England and the National

Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to enhance and promote resources;

and investigating a national framework for Low Emissions Zones.

8. It is difficult to assess whether this progress is “as intended” given the limited milestones in

NEWP. Whilst activities have been progressing, the feedback from stakeholders suggested

that there was not always a high level of awareness of what is taking place. Some stakeholders

indicated that they had been expecting more progress than has actually been achieved.

Broadly, these findings were consistent with those from separate, earlier, investigations3.

Conversely, other stakeholders surveyed as part of this initial process evaluation were

positively enthusiastic about what had been accomplished in a short space of time – although

the point was often made (in different ways) that the next 12-18 months of NEWP’s

implementation are going to be critical.

2 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 3 For example Nature Check 2012 (published by Wildlife and Countryside Link) commented that overall progress towards

NEWP’s Ambitions had been “patchy, at best”, particularly “where implementation is dependent on action from other

government departments”. The House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on NEWP

acknowledged “a genuine will within Defra to pursue the key elements of the NEWP”, but it was not assured that the

“effective mechanisms have been established to maintain consistent progress, particularly in other government

departments”.


3

What is working well and less well

Theme-level findings

9. The four Themes developed through the NEWP Evaluation Framework were used to structure

the process evaluation4. The principal evaluation findings on what is working well (and less

well) are summarised below.

Table 1: Summary of what is working well (and less well)

Theme Summary of key findings

1. Recognising the value of nature

What is working well?

• the development and dissemination of “valuing nature” principles to equipbusinesses/communities/government better in terms of recognising the value of nature

• stakeholder engagement – which has led to the development of a shared understandingof the value of nature more quickly and on a more widespread basis than might otherwisehave been the case

• mechanisms to raise the profile, understanding and embeddedness of the value of nature– which have secured credible and appropriate memberships

• innovative pilot schemes to test Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES) concepts

What is working less well?

• securing the consistent engagement and buy-in of Other Government Departments(OGDs) to recognise fully the value of nature

• resourcing associated activity on an on-going and long term basis

• communication of what is happening (and associated leadership)

• meeting demand for valuation evidence

• consistent engagement with the business community (particularly around the tensions andtrade-offs of “valuing nature”)

2. Achievingintegrated landscape-scale delivery to create a more resilient ecological network


• progress towards integrated landscape scale delivery, especially with the launch of NatureImprovement Areas (NIAs), Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) and Biodiversity OffsettingPilots, but also more generally

• through NEWP, further legitimacy for and visibility of, an already well-established directionof travel


• the relationship between NIAs and LNPs is not wholly clear: ideally, the LNPs ought tohave preceded the NIAs and provided the vehicle for agreeing NIA bids

• uncertainty surrounding the long term funding of landscape scale ventures

• clarity as to what LNPs actually “do”, particularly with regard to broad aspirations fordelivery at the landscape scale

• concern that LNPs lack both powers and resources to drive what happens locally

3. Enhancedpartnership working, locally and nationally, consistent with the purposes of NEWP


• new cross-sector partnerships (which have formed) and existing partnerships (which havebeen strengthened)

• partners are working together in new and improved ways (even where formal partnershipshave not been set up)

• some evidence of cross-departmental working within government, but a tendency for jointworking to focus on specific “projects” and narrowly defined issues

• partners are levering in resources to contribute towards NEWP’s goals


• alliances across the environmental-economic domain are often fragile, challenged by astrong policy emphasis on “growth”

• insufficient consistent engagement with businesses directly, including those in the landbased sector

• difficulties in securing consistent engagement and buy-in from Other GovernmentDepartments (OGDs)

4 These Themes are different from the Ambitions which structure NEWP. All four Themes resonate with each of the

Ambitions, and within the Evaluation Framework, a bespoke set of evaluation questions is identified for each Theme


4


• profound concerns around the future lack of, and uncertainties around, resources toenable partnership

• lack of a clear and consistent “infrastructure” with which to engage

4. Influencingwider decision-making


• NEWP’s “valuing nature” principles have become more accepted as appropriate forinclusion and consideration in decision-making processes

• the influence of NEWP on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), whichencourages a genuine valuation of nature and consideration of the restoration, recoveryand enhancement of natural assets in positive terms (rather than as avoidance of loss)


• still considerable work to do to ensure that NEWP is taken on board fully in more generaldecision-making processes

Source: SQW

Cross-cutting issues

10. This initial process evaluation also identified wider issues that cut across the four Themes

identified in the table above. The evaluation feedback suggested that the structure and design

of NEWP (with very high level Ambitions and a large number of somewhat disparate

commitments) has led to a lack of clarity on priority actions, ownership, roles and

responsibilities, and the intended outcomes (echoing the concerns of the Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs Committee in 2012). However consultees acknowledged the considerable

efforts made to date to set up processes and infrastructures – although they expressed

concern that less has been done to enable the processes.

11. Overall there is a real need to maintain momentum now that this infrastructure has been

established. This will require: a strong commitment from those in leadership positions

(across all of government) to get behind NEWP and drive it forward; cross-government buy-

in and support; stronger strategic co-ordination and a clear strategic way forward; and better

communication centrally to ensure that (possibly fewer) more consistent messages are

communicated to partners and to reinforce government support of NEWP’s Ambitions. In

addition though, it is essential to recognise that the implementation of NEWP relies on the

inputs of partners, businesses, communities and other stakeholders as well as government.

In this context, the initial process evaluation found that partners are looking for further

guidance on how to take the implementation of NEWP forward. The availability of sufficient

resources and capacity for the longer term delivery and sustainability of NEWP is also a

concern, and could be a major barrier to success.

Is NEWP delivering expected outputs and outcomes?

12. Progress is being made in the delivery of outputs. There is some evidence to suggest outcomes

are emerging, especially in relation to: stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of the

value of natural capital; the attitudes of policy-makers and partners towards the imperatives

set out in NEWP; and a greater willingness to work in partnership, especially at an integrated

landscape scale.

13. More generally, there is evidence that NEWP has added value by providing strong policy

signals, creating a shared sense of direction and a common goal, and acting as a catalyst.

Feedback gathered through this evaluation also suggests that NEWP has encouraged more

coherence and shared understanding amongst stakeholders, who are now working


5

towards a common goal, and improved the embeddedness of key concepts (such as “Green

Infrastructure” and “ecosystems services”). It has raised the profile and has pushed the

natural environment agenda to a higher level in a way that is more strategic and coordinated,

leading to better strategic co-ordination of partners’ activities. It is generating greater

visibility and credibility for NEWP-related activities (including beyond the “environmental

sector”) and encouraging the dissemination of lessons learned from these activities.

14. However, it is still too early to assess whether NEWP is having a real influence on – and leading

to changes in – the mainstream policies, decisions and practices of partners; this will need to

be the focus of subsequent process and impact evaluations. Equally, it is too early to comment

on the key impact-related priorities at the heart of NEWP linked to the quality of the natural

environment and the level of ecological resilience.

Recommendations for future implementation

15. Overall, the initial process evaluation observed that the next 12-18 months are likely to be

critical in maintaining momentum and ensuring that good progress is sustained in moving

towards NEWP’s intended outcomes and impacts. Within this context, drawing on the

stakeholder views obtained, three high level recommendations are made. All of these

recommendations will require contributions from partners, businesses, communities,

individuals and other stakeholders, as well as government. Moreover – even if they are

accepted – the recommendations may be difficult to implement given current resourcing

issues (across Defra, its agencies, and many of its partners and stakeholders), and their

feasibility will need to be tested.

Recommendation 1: Reinforce the Ambitions, refresh the commitments

16. In very general terms, a finding of this initial process evaluation is that NEWP is “doing the

right things”, but the imperative now is for sustained and concerted implementation

(including after the initial funding runs out). To this end, the report recommends that steps

should be taken to reinforce the Ambitions of NEWP and to refresh the commitments within

it. More specifically:

• There is a need to refresh and strengthen political will and support for – and

leadership of – NEWP and its Ambitions across government

• Given resource constraints and a need to sustain momentum, steps should be taken

to prioritise and to agree where efforts should be focused over the next 2-3 years; this

might include making NEWP’s pilot initiatives a priority to ensure learning is built

upon and continuity going forward

• There is a case for developing a high level “routemap for implementation”5. This

would need to be a dynamic process, structured around techniques such as

backcasting (not a static action plan). It ought to be informed by robust evaluation

evidence generated through an annual synthesis of evidence on NEWP progress and

achievements.

5 Note that this echoes the findings of the Food and Rural Affairs Committee report in 2012. Government rejected this

proposal in its response to the EFRA Committee. However it remains a concern amongst some partners


6

Recommendation 2: Strengthen strategic as well as local partnerships

17. A finding of this initial process evaluation is that partnerships – across sectors and areas, and

both locally and nationally – are crucial in relation to NEWP’s delivery. A second overarching

recommendation is therefore that these ought to be strengthened. More specifically:

• If the recommendation with regard to a “route-map for implementation” is accepted,

then an important component ought to be a stronger strategic partnership between

government departments to embed “valuing nature” principles more fully in decision-

making, building on the progress that has been made6

• Steps ought to be taken to ensure that the potential synergies between different

NEWP activities are maximised in delivery: for example, Nature Improvement Areas,

Local Nature Partnerships, Water Catchment Pilots and other NEWP initiatives could

work more closely together (especially where boundaries intersect or overlap) to

learn lessons from each other and to take direction, where appropriate, from the

findings of the Ecosystems Market Task Force and the Natural Capital Committee

• There is a need actively to help share and disseminate examples of good practice

emerging from NEWP activities to date (such as the Ecosystems Knowledge Network).

Recommendation 3: Enable and strengthen local delivery

18. Finally – and consistent with the overall ethos of devolved activity and “small government” –

it recommends that steps are taken to enable and strengthen routes to local delivery.

Specifically:

• There is a need to review the infrastructures, capacity and resources available to

cascade messages from NEWP to the local level. This requires co-operation and

integration between local partnerships and it should recognise the important role

being played by larger NGOs

• There may be a need to provide more advice and guidance on how to implement

NEWP at the local level

• There is a need to improve communication with – and the thorough engagement of –

the commercial sector in taking forward “valuing nature” principles and embedding

them within the mainstream

• The relationship between Local Nature Partnerships and Local Enterprise

Partnerships (LEPs) needs to evolve, particularly in the light of the growing

significance attached to LEPs in spearheading local economic growth.

6 This includes, for example, the development of Green Book Guidance with HM Treasury and work relating to health with

the Department of Health


7

1. Introduction

1.1 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned a

consortium led by SQW Limited to develop an Evaluation Framework for the Natural

Environment White Paper (NEWP), and to carry out an initial process evaluation of NEWP.

This report presents the results of the latter. Proposals for the Evaluation Framework are

provided in a separate report.

1.2 Published in June 2011, NEWP was the first White Paper on the natural environment in the

UK for over twenty years. NEWP aims to improve the state of the natural environment by

mainstreaming the value of nature, adopting a cross-sector systems approach, and

ensuring that nature is valued in decision-making. NEWP is structured around four

Ambitions which align with these aims: protecting and improving our natural environment;

growing a green economy; reconnecting people and nature; and international and EU

leadership. Linked to each of these is a series of Key Reforms and commitments. The latter

are wide ranging in terms of their scope, focus and timescales. For example, some are short

term, small scale and often catalytic actions (such as publishing evidence, toolkits and

guidance) and others are larger scale, longer term and/or ongoing activities (such as

maximising the contribution of Environmental Stewardship schemes to NEWP Ambitions,

implementing Biodiversity 2020 and reforming the abstraction regime).

1.3 The purpose of the initial process evaluation was to assess whether NEWP is being

implemented as intended and what, in practice, is working more or less well, and why. The

lessons from the evaluation are intended to contribute to improving future NEWP policy

design and delivery. Hence, there are three key groups of questions that the initial process

evaluation has sought to address:

• Is NEWP being implemented as intended? What has been delivered to date, and is

this as expected?

• What is working well or less well? Are there lessons on “what works” and evidence

of good practice? What are the barriers to delivery and how can they be unlocked?

• Is it delivering expected added value and outcomes? What has NEWP contributed

that would not otherwise have happened?

1.4 The Evaluation Framework proposed by SQW identifies four Evaluation Themes. These

Themes are not mutually exclusive; and each Theme resonates with all four of NEWP’s

Ambitions. Each Theme has a set of associated evaluation questions. These are designed to

tease out key impact- and process-related aspects of NEWP implementation which can be

assessed through evaluation methods. These Themes are used in this report to organise the

findings of the initial process evaluation:

• Theme 1: Recognising the value of nature

• Theme 2: Achieving integrated landscape-scale delivery to create a more

resilient ecological network


8

• Theme 3: Enhancing partnership working, both locally and nationally,

consistent with the purposes of NEWP

• Theme 4: Influencing wider decision-making.

1.5 To assess progress within each of these Themes and to address the process evaluation

questions, this report draws on a range of evidence sources, including:

• NEWP monitoring information and key literature

• early feedback from a workshop with the NEWP “Keep in Touch” group (nine

workshop participants)

• bilateral consultations with individuals from within Defra and the Defra family

(Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission) (17 officers

consulted)

• bilateral consultations with Defra partners and stakeholders (20 in-depth

consultations completed)

• an e-survey of wider stakeholders (17 responses).

1.6 In total, well over 60 officers, partners and stakeholders contributed to this assessment.

Whilst the response rate to the e-survey was modest, the findings from it were triangulated

against those derived through the bilateral consultations and workshops. Taken in the round,

this meant we were able to draw on a range of perspectives on the implementation of NEWP

– from central government to academia to those working on the ground in different parts of

the country.

1.7 The initial process evaluation therefore provides a stock-take of NEWP delivery; insights into

what is working more or less well; and suggestions of areas for improvement. But, at this

stage of NEWP development and with a relatively limited evidence base, this initial process

evaluation must be regarded as a work in progress. SQW is aware of other evaluations

currently underway or planned for a number of NEWP commitments (such as Local Nature

Partnerships, the Nature Improvement Areas, Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots and

environmental appraisal evaluations) but findings from these were not available at the time

of reporting. As suggested in the Evaluation Framework report, it is recommended that there

should be a further stock-take and a synthesis of the evaluation and other evidence at the end

of 2013/2014.

1.8 This report is divided into seven further chapters:

• Chapter 2: Overview of NEWP’s progress – provides an overview of NEWP

implementation based on Defra monitoring data, stakeholder views as elicited from

the e-survey, and commentaries in the literature

• Chapters 3 – 6: What’s working well – explores what is working well (or less well)

under the four Themes proposed in the Evaluation Framework (valuing nature,

integrating landscape scale delivery, improving partnership working, and influencing

wider decisions); these chapters rely primarily on the primary evidence gathered

thorough stakeholder consultations, surveys and workshops


9

• Chapter 7: NEWP’s added value and outcomes – provides an assessment of the

extent to which NEWP is making things happen that otherwise would not have

occurred at all, or in a less coordinated way, or at smaller scale or narrower scope, or

with less stakeholder engagement

• Chapter 8: Conclusions and recommendations – draws the different strands

together to provide conclusions and recommendations for improved NEWP

implementation (noting that the latter may be difficult to implement in full given

resourcing issues).

1.9 In addition, there are five annexes which, in the main, explain different elements of the

approach and methodology:

• Annex A provides a summary of the Evaluation Framework used to structure the

initial process evaluation and high level logic chains for each of the four main Themes

• Annex B sets out a list of consultees (prefaced by an explanation of how this list was

developed) and workshop attendees

• Annex C explains the approach to the e-survey and presents a headline analysis of the

findings

• Annex D summarises the literature which was reviewed to inform the initial process

evaluation

• Annex E provides a list of abbreviations that are frequently used in the NEWP context

(and within this report).


10

2. Overview of NEWP’s activities

2.1 The starting point for this initial process evaluation is a consideration of NEWP activities –

most immediately the commitments set out in the White Paper. Specifically, an assessment is

made of whether the commitments have progressed in the manner that was anticipated and,

more broadly, whether implementation is meeting expectations. From the research carried

out for the initial process evaluation, three strands of evidence – deriving from a review of

monitoring data, the e-survey of stakeholders and a review of wider publications linked to

NEWP’s implementation – provide relevant insights. These are considered in this short

chapter.

Insights from the monitoring data

2.2 Following a review of both quarterly progress update notes and Defra’s own internal

monitoring information (undertaken in early spring 2013), Figure 2-1 provides a summary

(in both graphic and tabular form) of SQW’s analysis of progress linked to the implementation

of each of the commitments.

Figure 2-1: Progress of commitments within each Ambition within NEWP (early spring 2013)

Ambition Total No. of commitments

“In Initial Stages”

“Underway” “On-going” “Completed”

Protecting and Improving our Natural Environment

34 0 6 17 11

Growing a Green Economy

19 0 3 7 9

Reconnecting People and Nature

28 0 3 10 15

International and EU Leadership

5 0 0 3 2

Monitoring and Reporting 6 1 1 2 2

Total 92 1 13 39 39

Source: HM Government Natural Environment White Paper Implementation Updates and Defra’s own comments on progress


11

2.3 The chart shows that across each of the four Ambitions (plus “monitoring and

reporting”), at least a third of all commitments are now considered to have been

completed. The graphic shows further that:

• the Ambition which is most advanced – at least on the metric of completed

commitments – is “reconnecting people and nature”: over half of the commitments

identified in NEWP have been completed

• across all four Ambitions, a good number of commitments are on-going (progress has

been made, deliverables have been achieved but more deliverables are expected) or

underway (progress has been made but to date no deliverables have taken place or

been produced)

• in relation to Protecting and Improving our Natural Environment (and also monitoring

and reporting), a few commitments are considered still to be in the initial stages of

implementation.

2.4 The same data can be mined further to consider progress with respect to each Ambition. An

Ambition-level commentary is provided in the table which follows.

Table 2-1: Progress implementing commitments linked to specific NEWP Ambitions (early spring 2013)

Ambition Completed commitments Commitments that are planned or underway

Protecting and improving our natural environment

17 of the 34 commitments are already completed. This includes Commitment 2, “to publish a new Biodiversity Strategy for England” (which was published in August 2011), and Commitment 4, “to encourage and support Local Nature Partnerships” (noting that 48 partnerships have now gained recognition)

Some 16 commitments are currently underway or on-going. This includes Commitment 18 (“to review the Campaign for the Farmed Environment and the Greenhouse Gas Action Plan and other evidence”) which is underway with plans for a streamlined framework of advice due in spring 2013. Also underway is Commitment 28 (“to establish ten catchment level partnerships”): the pilot phase has been completed and findings are being evaluated to inform a roll out of the approach from spring 2013. The data suggest that Commitment 7 (“to inaugurate a network of 50 natural Value Ambassadors”) is still in the initial stages of implementation

Growing a green economy

Nine of the 19 commitments are now considered to be complete. This includes Commitment 38 (“to publish a ‘Roadmap to a Green Economy’”) and Commitment 47 (“to update the Business Link website with information on natural capital”), both of which were completed in August 2011

Ten commitments are still underway or on-going. This includes Commitment 40 (“for government to support a new international coalition of businesses and business organisations to follow up on the “TEEB for Business” report”) which is still on-going: a prospectus for the coalition and a first report from Defra have both been published, and research has been contracted. Commitment 41 (“to work with businesses to consider how voluntary approaches could work on key products or natural assets and to form a voluntary agreement”) is underway

Reconnecting people and nature

Fifteen out of the 28 commitments defined in relation to the third of NEWP’s Ambitions have been completed. This includes Commitment 58 (“to consult on plans for meeting limits on nitrogen dioxide”) which was completed in June 2011 and Commitment 79 (“to publish a revised sustainable lifestyles framework”) which was completed in July 2011

Some 13 commitments are currently on-going or underway. These include Commitment 56 (“to form a strong relationship between Public Health England and NICE to enhance and promote resources”); here, the detailed relationship between the two organisations is being designed as part of the Public Health England transition process. Commitment 59 (“to investigate a national framework for Low Emission Zones”) is on-going, although a number of workshops and meetings have taken place


12

Ambition Completed commitments Commitments that are planned or underway

International and EU Leadership

Two out of the five commitments under the fourth Ambition are now complete. This includes Commitment 82 (“to press for implementation of the Nagoya agreement at the international level”) and Commitment 86 (“to support a moratorium on commercial whaling and promote the welfare and conservation of whales”).

Three commitments are on-going, including Commitment 84 (“to help apply TEEB principles to the development of National Strategic Biodiversity Plans through funding”). The research and development contract was let in February 2012 and, following consultation, events and workshops, case study countries have been selected. The final report is expected in 2013

Monitoring and reporting

In relation to monitoring and reporting, two out of the six commitments are already completed. This includes Commitment 87 (“to establish an Ecosystems Knowledge Network”).

Three commitments are underway or on-going, including Commitment 92 (“to periodically publish a single, concise and integrated report about the state of the environment on land”): a report is expected later in 2013. Commitment 91 (“to review how indicators and other environmental statistics are reported by spring 2012”) is described as being still in the initial stages, with little information available on progress.

Source: SQW – based on HM Government Natural Environment White Paper Implementation Updates and Defra’s own

comments on progress

2.5 It is evident that some of the completed commitments are relatively small scale “quick wins”

(such as consultations, publications and updated web-sites). Nevertheless, they are designed

to act as catalysts to much broader and longer term activity and in that way to contribute to

the achievement of the NEWP’s Ambitions, alongside the larger-scale commitments in NEWP

(many of which are also underway).

Insights from the e-survey of stakeholders

2.6 The e-survey of stakeholders elicited 17 responses from the 85 stakeholders who were

canvassed (a 20% response rate) – see Annex D for more detail. This is a reasonable response

rate for surveys of this kind and respondents were a mixture of public, private and voluntary

sector stakeholders and non-governmental and lobby/representative groups. Nevertheless,

the survey should not be treated as representative or statistically robust. It provides insights

from a limited range of different perspectives on the progress of NEWP implementation. Some

of its findings are relevant here (and some are reported later).

2.7 The e-survey sought to investigate, first of all, whether respondents understood what

NEWP was seeking to achieve. All 17 respondents claimed some level of understanding

while 14 considered that they had “good” or “excellent” understanding. This finding was, in

part, a corollary of the extent to which stakeholders had themselves been engaged in the

White Paper’s development and/or implementation. Among the 17 respondents:

• 11 had had some involvement in the development of the NEWP document

• 13 were engaged directly in delivering one or more of NEWP’s Ambitions and/or

commitments

• 10 reported some other form of engagement, whether in an advisory capacity; in

policy groups; through partnership working or other forms of engagement; or by

tracking the progress of individual recommendations.

2.8 The implication, then, is that among the 17 respondents, there was a reasonably good

knowledge of NEWP from different stakeholder vantage points. This observation is important


13

in considering how much weight to attach to the findings from other parts of the survey.

Stakeholders were asked whether – and to what extent – the implementation of NEWP

was meeting their expectations. Amongst 17 generally well informed stakeholders, seven

commented that their expectations were being met “to a reasonable extent” while nine

provided a response that was more cautious, commenting that expectations were being met

“to a small extent”; none noted that the implementation of NEWP was meeting their

expectations “not at all” (and the survey provided the option for this response) but equally,

none commented that their expectations were being met either “in full” or “to a significant

extent”.

Insights from the wider reviews

2.9 The progress of NEWP has generated some independent comment from stakeholders and

observers, most notably as follows:

• Wildlife and Countryside Link published its own assessment of NEWP’s progress in

implementation on the first anniversary of the White Paper’s publication7. Its

assessment was quite mixed. It pointed to “insufficient urgency in identifying funding

mechanisms” and the need for more cross-government commitment to delivery, but it

also acknowledged that “significant milestones” had been achieved in terms, for

example, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Nature Improvement

Areas (NIAs), and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs)

• In Nature Check 20128, the claim was made that overall progress towards NEWP’s

Ambitions has been “patchy, at best”, particularly “where implementation is dependent

on action from other government departments”. However the assessment was made

on the basis of a review of the Government’s “20 major commitments relevant to the

natural environment” and the relationship between these and NEWP is not altogether

straightforward – some feature in NEWP but many (e.g. in relation to badger control;

ivory sales; travelling circuses using animals) do not

• The House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee held an

inquiry to examine policies within NEWP9. It received 70 submissions and held six

oral evidence sessions. With regard to NEWP’s implementation, the Committee raised

concerns that “Defra has not published an overarching action plan for delivery of the

White Paper’s aims, nor has it produced a timetable for delivering each of the White

Paper’s 92 commitments”. The report concluded that although “there appears to be a

genuine will within Defra to pursue the key elements of the NEWP”, the Committee was

not assured that “effective mechanisms have been established to maintain consistent

progress, particularly in other government departments”.

7 Wildlife and Countryside Link, July 2012, The first year of the Natural Environment White Paper: is the ambition being

delivered? 8 Wildlife and Countryside Link, November 2012, Nature Check 2012: An analysis of the Government’s natural environment

commitments 9 House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, July 2012, Natural Environment White Paper Fourth

Report of Session 2012–13


14

2.10 This process evaluation has sought to build on this existing evidence to provide an

independent and updated review of NEWP as a whole that is aligned with the NEWP

Evaluation Framework. Compared to Nature Check 2012, this report

• considers NEWP and its commitments as a whole, noting that many of these are the

responsibility of partners, businesses, communities and individuals (rather than just

government)

• addresses broad aspects of NEWP – such as ‘recognising the value of nature’ – rather

than focusing on specific policy issues

• pays particular attention to the process of partnership working (which is critical to

mainstreaming the value of nature).

Conclusions

2.11 NEWP is a White Paper with a 50-year vision and, less than two years since its launch, it is still

in the early days of implementation. However in relation to the commitments – some (but not

all) of which are short term – it is apparent that significant progress is being made: for some

Ambitions, more than half of the commitments identified within NEWP have been completed.

On the basis of the e-survey, stakeholders’ assessments of progress were generally a little

more guarded than the commitment-level monitoring information would – on its own – imply.

Wider observers have – in general – also been quite cautious in their assessments of overall

progress – although in all cases, some significant achievements have been noted.

2.12 It is in the context of this really quite mixed assessment of NEWP’s early implementation that

we need to consider in more detail what is working well – and what is not. The next four

chapters examine these issues from the perspective of the four Themes that are proposed

within the NEWP Evaluation Framework.


15

3. Theme 1 – Recognising the value of nature

3.1 On the basis of evidence gathered and reviewed in the course of this initial process evaluation,

it is apparent that there has been progress in respect of Theme 1 from the Evaluation

Framework: “recognising the value of nature”. Key evaluation questions identified in this

context included the following:

• are businesses/communities/government being equipped to recognise better the

value of nature?

• are businesses recognising new green market opportunities, and incorporating an

ecosystem approach (valuing nature) into their delivery?

• is natural capital being captured in value and prices?

3.2 In the paragraphs which follow, we outline the evidence with regard to Theme 1 which has

been generated through the initial process evaluation of NEWP, particularly consultations,

surveys and workshops with stakeholders. We then conclude by reflecting on evidence of

progress in respect of these three key questions.

Evidence from the initial process evaluation

3.3 Overall, in respect of Theme 1 – and drawing particularly on the bilateral stakeholder

consultations – the evidence suggests that there has been progress to date. However, this has

largely been in the development and dissemination of “valuing nature” principles, rather

than in their implementation on a widespread basis. This was recognised to be inevitable –

but consultees were well aware that the next twelve months are likely to form a critical

crunch-point in the further development and application of the principles in more

operational ways. The evidence for this overall observation is considered in detail in the

paragraphs that follow.

Advancing the “valuing nature” agenda

3.4 Through the initial process evaluation, consultees observed a great deal of momentum and

goodwill in advancing the “valuing nature” agenda. They commented that stakeholder

engagement has been encouraging, facilitated by the extent to which NEWP has been

delivered, both ‘on the ground’ (notably through the PES pilots, and activities to raise

awareness of ecosystems services more widely) and by engaging with thought-leaders

(through mechanisms such as the NCC and EMTF). Through this engagement, a shared

understanding of “valuing nature” principles was considered to be developing amongst

stakeholders, especially those involved in policy making. Consultees generally agreed that

this had not been the case before NEWP. The White Paper was therefore considered to have:

• encouraged increased coordination amongst a wider group of stakeholders, which

had led to a much faster and wider consideration and embodiment of “valuing

nature” principles than otherwise would have been the case


16

• expanded the activity of existing partnerships working in this area, such as the

Valuing Nature Network.

Figure 3-1: Natural Capital Committee

Natural Capital Committee

The NCC was established following the publication of NEWP to provide independent expert advice on the state of English natural capital to Government’s Economic Affairs Committee, with the view to ensuring that Government prioritises actions to support and improve the UK’s natural assets. It consists of members from academia and business, and will produce an annual State of Natural Capital Report, alongside working with partners (such as ONS to develop experimental natural capital measures in national accounts), businesses (to explore the development of corporate natural capital accounting) and Research Councils (to improve advice on managing natural assets in future). Its first report was published in April 2013.

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/naturalcapitalcommittee/

3.5 Consultees considered that two factors had underpinned this progress:

• first – although this view was not universally shared – some considered that NEWP

built on a thorough and scientific evidence base (through the National Ecosystem

Assessment (NEA)) which had given NEWP and its activities credibility when trying

to encourage others to value nature

• second, the strong process element of implementing NEWP and working with

partners to do so has made a significant difference in embedding “valuing nature”

principles.

Engaging Other Government Departments

3.6 However, in the context of wider stakeholder engagement, there have been some

challenges. Specifically, securing the engagement and buy-in of Other Government

Departments (OGDs) to recognise fully the value of nature has sometimes been

challenging. This comment was made repeatedly during the consultations and it was also a

recurring theme in the literature reviewed in the course of the initial process evaluation10.

Overall, there is some evidence of OGD engagement starting to take place in some areas. For

example, the practice of applying “valuing nature” principles has had an airing with regard to

HS2 where work is being done with Department for Transport on its WebTAG appraisal

methods. While full integration of the principles/practices with existing appraisal methods is

some distance away, progress is being made and it is possible to envisage this happening over

the next few years. There are two constraining factors. Resources are limited but as important

are the difficulties involved in designing ‘“valuing nature”’ tools and getting them integrated

within existing appraisal systems that are already complicated (and which some of their

‘owners’ claim already address the issue).

3.7 Across wider forms of stakeholder engagement, two more general factors were also

mentioned:

• first, the observation was made that the economic agenda is still considered to

dominate, and environmental values are still largely peripheral to key economic (e.g.

taxation) and resource management decisions

10 See Annex C


17

• second, consultees observed “confusing and conflicting messages” coming from

central government about the value of nature.

3.8 In response, the suggestion was made that a joined up, consistent message on the value of

nature should be communicated across government. For example, the message that “valuing

nature is positive for business” ought to be promoted by HM Treasury and the Department for

Business Innovation and Skills if the business community is to be engaged fully (and it was

noted that Defra is seen by many as “too environmental” to get the message across to all

audiences effectively).

Engaging wider stakeholders

3.9 Consultation feedback derived through the initial process evaluation suggested that the

mechanisms set up to raise the profile, understanding and embeddedness of the value

of nature, such as the Ecosystems Market Task Force (EMTF) and Natural Capital Committee

(NCC), appear to be working well and have secured credible and appropriate

memberships. It was noted that the EMTF has been business led, and has engaged the right

kind of stakeholders. As a result, one consultee commented that its report is business focused,

with clear messages communicated in business language, and should therefore be well placed

to influence the attitudes and behaviour of businesses. The NCC has also secured an

appropriate and knowledgeable membership, and has “good traction”. It is ensuring that

issues are being addressed to operationalize “valuing nature”, for example by providing

specific advice relating to threshold effects, supporting the ONS roadmap on accounting for

natural capital and producing the first natural capital report in 2013. Both the EMTF and NCC

have benefited from clear political and ministerial drive. They have generated what were

described as “powerful “valuing nature” networks” in which new stakeholders have been

engaged, with the level of engagement being stronger and more coordinated than before. It is

too early to tell whether these bodies will have the intended impacts on environmental issues,

but feedback to date suggests they are “going in the right direction”.

Figure 3-2: Ecosystems Market Task Force

Ecosystems Market Task Force

The EMTF has been set up to identify opportunities for UK business from expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets which value and protect ecosystem services, and it its report in March 2013 has identified and prioritised actions to enable and secure these market opportunities. More specifically, the EMTF has highlighted the following priority areas for action:

• Biodiversity Offsetting: securing net gain for nature from planning and development

• Closing the loop: anaerobic digestion and bioenergy on farms

• Local woodfuel supply chains: active sustainable management supporting local economies

• Nature-based certification and labelling: connecting consumers with nature

• Water cycle catchment management: integrating nature into water, waste water and flood management

The Task Force reports through the Green Economy Council to Defra, BIS and DECC, and Government is due to issue its official response to the EMTF’s report later in 2013. Until this time, Task Force members will continue to work with business leaders and organisations (such as CBI and BITC) to ensure that the value of nature is recognised on business agendas.

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/work/publications-reports/


18

Pilot initiatives

3.10 Innovative pilot schemes to test PES concepts appear to be progressing well. Defra has

launched Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) pilots11, which consultees believe are

making headway: two PES rounds have taken place and the pilots have been established, and

the three first round projects are due to report in Spring 2013. Some of these have developed

innovative approaches, such as the Peatland Carbon Code project and the auction based

system in the South West (see below).

Figure 3-3: PES Pilots

Peatland Carbon Code project (PES Pilot project)

Peatland plays a crucial role as a carbon store, a provider of drinking water and habitats for internationally wildlife, and recreation purposes. However, evidence suggests that 80% of the UK’s peatlands have been damaged. The Peatland Carbon Code project was set up in 2012 to provide the scientific and regulatory basis for restoring peatlands, and to provide guidance on the quantification of carbon and other benefits of this restoration. In turn, this will provide stakeholders and businesses with a way to measure the difference they are making to peatlands, and formally record their peatland projects in their carbon reporting. The code will also provide business with the option to trade on carbon markets in future. In addition to providing a market potential in the UK, the development of the code could create the opportunity for the UK to export its expertise in this area to other ecosystem service markets globally.

PES Pilot auction-based system in the South West

The University of East Anglia, the Westcountry Rivers Trust and South West Water are developing an auction-based PES scheme for the River Fowey area of Cornwall. The area suffers from pollution, generated by the activities of farmers, which creates additional water treatment costs for South West Water. Under this auction based scheme, South West Water directly pays farmers through a bidding process to improve their land management practices to improve river water quality. Each bid is scored according to how much the proposed project would contribute to improvements in water quality. It is hoped that these payments will be more than offset by reductions in treatment costs. The first auction was run in August and September 2012, and initial evidence suggests that it was an effective process: a high number of farmers in the area submitted a bid, the competitive pressures in the auction have delivered bids offering good value for money, and comparing the grant values awarded to the material costs of implementing those projects it appears that on average farmers are taking on over 40% of the costs themselves.

Source: http://ekn.defra.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DefraPESPilotflyer.pdf,

http://ekn.defra.gov.uk/resources/programmes/pes-pilots/fowey/ and http://www.cserge.ac.uk/research/current-

projects/fowey-river-improvement-auction

Barriers to implementation

3.11 There are, however, a number of challenges and barriers to implementing those aspects of

NEWP concerned with “valuing nature”, in addition to the issue of OGD engagement

mentioned above. The key issues raised by consultees were:

• Resource constraints, both within Defra and for groups set up through NEWP (such

as the NCC) which have big agendas and limited resources. There is a risk that

resources may not be sufficient to drive the agenda forward

• Insufficient communication and associated leadership. Despite good progress,

there seems to be a lack of awareness of what is happening with commitments

relating to “valuing nature” (e.g. the work of the NCC12 and EMTF) amongst those who

are not directly involved with their delivery, especially amongst OGDs and those

working on the ground. There is also a lack of communication from Defra to

stakeholders working on the ground about what work is being undertaken on costs

and benefits valuation and, crucially, how this may be applied at the local level. There

11 These are schemes through which “the beneficiaries, or users, of ecosystem services provide payment to the stewards,

or providers of those services. See http://ekn.defra.gov.uk/resources/tools-guidelines/pes/ 12 Although note that NCC’s first major report - “State of natural capital” – is not due to be published until April 2013


19

is a risk of confusion or unhelpful attempts to place monetary value on aspects of the

natural environment where this may not be appropriate

• A continuing lack of valuation evidence. Although progress has been made, there

is still a concern – expressed by some consultees – that the primary valuation evidence

base has not expanded in line with demand (for example, the review of marine data

under UKNEA follow-on project has found no new studies on ecosystem service

values since 2000)

• Insufficient engagement with the business community. The work of the EMTF is

acknowledged as a clear marker of Defra's desire to engage with business, but this

needs to be built upon and awareness of the EMTF (and NCC) in the market needs to

be improved. Furthermore, a number of consultees commented that Defra and

partners had not engaged sufficiently with the private and economic development

sectors in this context. The comment was made that “valuing nature” methods are

difficult for businesses and farmers to understand, even if they agree with the

principles; consultees were also unclear how these concepts fitted within wider policy

frameworks. In developing the “valuing nature” agenda further, the implication is that

NEWP needs to consider the constraints and trade offs for the commercial sector, and

place greater emphasis on the positives of “valuing nature” for business (for example,

by demonstrating that positive natural environments are beneficial for housing

developments by making them more attractive to the market). That said, there is

evidence to show that some stakeholders on the ground are working hard to translate

NEWP’s imperatives around “valuing nature” into a business-friendly language to

embed the messages and encourage changes in the mindsets and behaviour of

businesses.

What happens next

3.12 Looking forward, the next 12 months are likely to be critical to ensure that “valuing

nature” principles are embedded in mainstream policy and adopted in an operational

sense. Over this period, it will be important to take forward the findings of the reports coming

out from the NCC, the PES Pilots and the EMTF. However, there is a risk that progress stalls

because many of the commitments relating to “valuing nature” are short term and “complete”

(see Chapter 2); instead, the completion of these early commitments really needs to be a

catalyst to further action. It will be essential that efforts now focus on embedding the

principles of valuing natural capital and the green economy (i.e. market values), and providing

guidance on how to implement this at the local level (for example, by developing metrics for

including the “value of nature” in company and national accounts, and ensuring that this

information is operationalized effectively (e.g. in company decision-making, and in the tax

system)).

3.13 There is scope for better recognition of the potential synergies between different aspects

of NEWP. Consultees suggested that action needs to be taken to enable this. For example,

NEWP initiatives on the ground (such as LNPs and NIAs) could play a role in operationalizing

the higher level strategic work of the NCC (and EMTF)13.

13 Note that whereas EMTF was effectively a single commission to produce a report, NCC is a 3 year venture and its work

programme and remit is very much broader (in seeking to advise government)


20

3.14 There is also a concern amongst consultees that the likely deficiency in Defra and other

agency resources could see the momentum established by NEWP slow over the

forthcoming months and years unless there is a further strengthening of political will,

particularly from the EU14 and HM Treasury. It will be important for renewed commitment

to be made to NEWP, moderated by what has been learned, when the opportunities arise – for

example, the Government response to the EMTF report in the summer.

3.15 Finally consultees commented on the need for something akin to a clearer strategic

development “route-map” for the future of NEWP; this argument resonates with the views

expressed by external commentators on NEWP implementation (see Annex C).

Overall summary of NEWP’s progress in relation to Theme 1

3.16 Taken in the round, the evidence assembled in the course of the initial process evaluation

points – inevitably perhaps – to a mixed picture in relation to the three key evaluation

questions which were identified earlier with regard to Theme 1. The table that follows

provides some concluding comments.

Table 3-1: Overall assessment of progress – based on evidence from the initial process evaluation of NEWP

Key evaluation questions Overall assessment of progress based on evidence from the initial process evaluation of NEWP

Are businesses/communities/government being equipped to recognise better the value of nature?

• There is evidence that many of the relevant commitments areserving to equip businesses/communities/government better interms of recognising the value of nature. In practice, however,there is a gap between “equipping”businesses/communities/government and prompting/enablingthem to act: future progress needs to reflect as far as possibleon the latter. Providing further guidance and tools in thisrespect would be useful

Are businesses recognising new green market opportunities, and incorporating an ecosystem approach (“valuing nature”) into their delivery?

• From the different strands of enquiry, there is some evidenceof progress, particularly in sectors which have a strong intrinsiclink to the environment. It is not clear how wide and farrecognition is embedded within the business community moregenerally. The recession – together with the renewedemphasis from government with regard to straightforwardeconomic growth – may have slowed progress somewhat

Is natural capital being captured in value and prices?

• The evidence captured during the initial process evaluationsuggests that progress is being made – but to a limited extent

Source: SQW

14 This is not just a matter of CAP reform (although this is critically important). It also concerns the Commission’s

approach to other issues such as biosecurity.


21

4. Theme 2 – Achieving integrated landscape-scale delivery to create a more resilient ecological network

4.1 The second major Theme defined in the Evaluation Framework is concerned with “achieving

integrated landscape scale delivery to achieve ecological resilience”. In this context, key

evaluation questions include the following:

• are partners working together and across boundaries to achieve integrated

landscape-scale delivery?

• is nature being reconnected at a significant scale?

• is ecological resilience improving?

4.2 The findings presented in this chapter are based on the primary research undertaken for this

study, and the consultations, surveys and workshops with stakeholders in particular.


4.3 From the initial process evaluation there was consistent recognition that some progress

has been made in moving towards integrated landscape scale delivery. Of particular

significance in this context have been commitments linked to the launch of Nature

Improvement Areas and Local Nature Partnerships. Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots also

need to be seen as a key potential tool, alongside existing and on-going landscape scale

initiatives that are already being delivered (such as NGO led initiatives, including the Wildlife

Trusts’ Living Landscapes Programme).

Influence of the Lawton Report

4.4 In the view of consultees for the initial process evaluation, the real underpinning for more

concerted landscape scale delivery was the report of Sir John Lawton (which formed part of

the evidence base for NEWP). In essence, this argued against fragmentation and it advocated

instead approaches to landscape management which were much more akin to those adopted

across (for example) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and promoted by many

environmental NGOs, not least the National Trust, RSPB and Wildlife Trusts. In the view of

many consultees, the value of NEWP was not that it “invented something new”; rather, it

harnessed – and gave heightened legitimacy and visibility to – an already well-

established direction of travel, and – as a White Paper – it brought it to the attention of

a far wider constituency than hitherto.

Specific commitments

4.5 Among the NEWP commitments, the ones most closely aligned to Theme 2 are those relating

to Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs); the figure which follows provides a short synopsis.

Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) are also important in this respect (covered below),


22

alongside the work of the Catchment Pilots and Biodiversity 2020, a core tenet of which is to

deliver a more integrated large-scale approach to conversation on land and at sea.

Figure 4-1: Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs)

In April 2012, Defra and Natural England awarded 12 NIAs a share of £7.5 million following a national competition. The NIAs are located in the following areas (see adjacent map):

• Birmingham and Black Country

• Dearne Valley

• Humberhead Levels

• Marlborough Downs

• Meres and Mosses of the Marches

• Morecambe Bay Limestone and Wetlands

• Nene Valley

• Northern Devon

• South Downs Way Ahead

• The Dark Peak

• The Greater Thames Marshes

• Wild Purbeck

The NIAs’ aim is “to restore habitat which will benefit wildlife and people, and encourage more local people to engage with nature” by creating a coherent and resilient ecological network. They have been set up based on a local assessment of opportunities, and consist of locally-led projects which have been match-funded by additional resources, from cash contributions, gifts in kind, and voluntary support. For example, to date:

• Marlborough Downs NIA has created one dewpond ahead of target.

• At Wild Purbeck, Dorset County Council is working to help environmental groups to engage more effectivelywith young people and encourage young people to volunteer in environmental projects.

• First Best Practise Network event held with Northern Devon NIA and Grasslands Forum

Source: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/funding/nia/default.aspx

4.6 Consultees expressed different views with regard to progress in the implementation of NIAs.

These can be summarised as follows:

• The initial bidding process was considered to be have been very compressed,

allowing insufficient time for local areas to really think through their priorities – but

at the same time, it was acknowledged that those timescales did provide a catalyst for

action, and considerable progress was made quickly

• Among consultees, the observation was made that the relationship between NIAs

and LNPs was both complex and out-of-sync: ideally, the LNPs ought to have

preceded the NIAs and provided the vehicle for agreeing NIA bids

• Approaching 80 local areas bid for NIAs but initially, only 12 were successful. With

regard to the unsuccessful bids, the comment was made that despite real

disappointment, the NIA process had sometimes had a positive legacy: specifically, it

had re-energised interest in the possibilities of delivery at the landscape scale and –

at least in some cases – this had prompted a renewed sense of commitment,

enthusiasm and energy. In the East of England, for example, where all of the NIA bids

were unsuccessful, there were (and are) some major landscape scale projects; these

long pre-date NEWP (e.g. Wicken Fen, Great Fen), but despite failing to achieve NIA


23

status, they are reported to have received renewed impetus in the wider context of

NEWP

• In relation to the 12 successful NIAs, insofar as they could comment, consultees

indicated that the different schemes appeared to be moving forward. NIAs are

believed to be a good concept, and it was noted that much is being learned through

delivery to date. However, two overarching observations were invariably made: first,

it is unclear what happens to NIAs when the initial Defra funding runs out (in 2015)15;

and second, it is simply far too early to provide any real comment on the impact of

NIAs. It is worth noting that a monitoring and evaluation framework has been

developed for NIAs and will be implemented over the next two to three years.

4.7 The findings from the initial process evaluation of NEWP were more mixed with regard to

LNPs, although the concept – which is summarised in outline in the graphic which follows –

was generally considered to be a useful one.

Figure 4-2: Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs)

In July 2012, Defra announced that 41 partnerships across England had been awarded LNP status, followed by another seven LNPs announced in October 2012.

The goal of LNPs is to “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”. They are intended to be cross-sector and cross-boundary partnerships which will be able to take strategic decisions and champion local decision making to take account of the natural environment and its value to social and economic outcomes. Ultimately this should lead to positive change in the local natural environment.

Each LNP has the flexibility to identify its own priorities and agree ways of working to best suit its needs, and establish the most appropriate boundary for its area (whether it is ecological, administrative or a mixture of both, as illustrated by the adjacent map of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight’s LNP area). A one-off, short-term LNP capacity building fund was made available to set up LNPs, but it is envisaged that they will become self-sustaining.

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/local-nature-partnerships/

4.8 Among consultees, the observation was made that in practice, many LNPs had morphed out

of pre-existing Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) groups and hence they were typically working

on county boundaries. It was acknowledged that “everyone has been very “busy” over the last

18 months” but in terms of what is being achieved with regard specifically to delivery at the

landscape scale, the jury is still out – although consultees provided some useful observations:

• First – and particularly among wider stakeholders – there was some uncertainty as

to what LNPs actually “do”, particularly with regard to broad aspirations for

delivery at the landscape scale: one comment was made that LNPs appear to be

“one more partner among many”, rather than playing a strong and distinctive

leadership/oversight role in local areas, and another consultee noted that LNPs lack

both powers and resources to drive what happens locally. Of course, this may all

15 It is worth noting that the predominant current (and future lever) for funding and delivering the NIAs’ requirements is

through RDPE and its future iteration post CAP reform. Without a strong agri-environment package it could be

particularly difficult to restore or recreate habitats


24

be explicable in terms of the infancy of LNPs and/or the lack of knowledge of

particular consultees – but these observations should not be ignored

• Second, as mentioned already, there was the suggestion that LNPs ought to have been

set up with a clearer relationship to NIAs (and other ventures promoting

landscape scale delivery) – not least in defining their role in relation to the wider

local area and ensuring that some of the learning from NIAs could be shared more

broadly. The comment is made in NEWP that LNPs should “work at a strategic scale

to … improve the multiple benefits we receive from good management of land” and that

government’s one-off fund to develop LNPs was in support of “new and existing

partnerships wishing to adopt this integrated, landscape scale approach”. From the

initial process evaluation, the extent to which LNPs are achieving this specific

outcome is unclear

• Third, the comment was made often that the relationship between LNPs and Local

Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) was ultimately important, but highly variable.

Amongst consultees, there were widely varying assessments of the nature of that

relationship currently. There were some examples of a clear and constructive

dialogue with a strong convergence and alignment of interests: Suffolk/Norfolk

(through New Anglia LEP and Wild Anglia LNP) was considered to be exemplary.

Elsewhere, there was significant concern (a) that LEPs are better resourced than LNPs

and (b) that LEPs are increasingly being driven to focus on narrowly defined

economic growth – a direction of travel that has been given renewed impetus with the

publication of government’s response to Lord Heseltine’s report on growth16

• Fourth – and related – the observation was made that those with an interest in

landscape scale delivery tend to be working across a range of territories that are

frequently overlapping but rarely coincident. LNPs have a particular set of

boundaries that may or may not match those of the relevant LEP and some of the NIAs

cross LNP (and LEP) boundaries. The level of spatial disconnect brings some clear

risks and from the perspective of some consultees, it is an issue that needs to be

addressed, particularly in seeking to further integrate landscape scale delivery.

4.9 One of the challenges implicit across Theme 2 concerns the delivery mechanisms that will

sustain landscape scale delivery over the medium-long term and across England as a whole.

NIAs are a clear vehicle for “achieving integrated landscape-scale delivery”, but initially only

12 were approved across England and they are time-limited ventures (in terms of Defra

funding). Unless LNPs can exercise real traction (and as yet the evidence is limited),

there is certainly a risk – noted by some consultees – that the outcome is “islands” of

improved ecological resilience within a “sea” of deteriorating (or at least not

improving) conditions.

4.10 One of the more specific mechanisms which could, in principle, help to mainstream delivery

at the landscape scale is biodiversity offsetting. NEWP includes a commitment to advance

biodiversity offsetting pilots and to this end, six local authorities are trialling the approach

(see Figure 4-3) in the context of landscape scale delivery. Through the initial process

16 Government’s response to the Heseltine review, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and HM Treasury, March

2013


25

evaluation, some consideration was given to the extent to which biodiversity offsetting might

be helping to deliver landscape scale benefits, but at present the links appear to be limited. It

was explained that this outcome was unlikely unless it was defined as a specific objective

behind the offset; and this in turn was considered unlikely unless the venture was led by the

local planning authority (and/or partners), rather than by a developer. Of the six pilots, it

was considered that Warwickshire is the one that has been both spatially explicit about where

it would like to see offsets taking place (based around areas identified in previous research on

Green Infrastructure needs). It may be that other pilots have not done the necessary work to

identify landscape scale priorities; or have not considered this to be a primary objective of

their pilot (favouring instead locationally neutral social and/or economic benefits). A

separate evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots is currently underway to learn more

about the effectiveness and outcomes of the initiative.

Figure 4-3: Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots

Defra, Natural England and local authorities in six pilot areas are working together to test the biodiversity offsetting approach, and provide evidence on whether the use of biodiversity offsetting can be rolled out more widely and, if so, what works most effectively. The six pilots are summarised briefly below:

• Devon : various methodologies are being developed collectively by the participating authorities to trialbiodiversity offsetting

• Doncaster : the Council is offering developers the choice of whether they would like to provide compensationthrough an offsetting scheme or via the traditional negotiations that take place during the planning process

• Essex : developers submitting planning applications can use a nationally approved offsetting metric tocalculate their impacts upon the natural environment, and then offset unavoidable impacts through thepurchase of conservation credits at one or more ‘receptor’ sites

• Greater Norwich : priority is being given to schemes that contribute to enhancing “Core Biodiversity Areas”and ecological networks that are identified in the local Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan

• Nottinghamshire : Local Offsetting Strategy has been developed which provides guidance on howdevelopers can assess and provide compensation for biodiversity loss (either by providing offsets themselvesor paying a third party offset provider)

• Coventry, Warwickshire and Solihull : developers and landowners are working with the Council to explorethe potential benefits of biodiversity offsetting.

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/biodiversity/uk/offsetting/pilots/

4.11 It was recognised further that, used appropriately, the planning system does provide the

wherewithal for local authorities to advance landscape scale delivery – although this outcome

is not inevitable: Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could

be used to this end – but equally, other priorities might take precedence locally. Within NEWP,

there was a specific commitment to engage with the emerging National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF). The extent to which NPPF advanced integrated landscape scale delivery

itself generated some comment. There was agreement amongst consultees that – partly as a

result of NEWP – the finalised version of NPPF was far superior to the consultation draft.

However it was also noted that NPPF increases the distinction between “protected” and

“other” landscapes – and so there is at least a risk that as the former get better, the latter could

deteriorate.


4.12 Taken in the round, the evidence that has been assembled in the course of the process

evaluation points – inevitably perhaps – to a mixed picture in relation to the three key

evaluation questions which were identified earlier with regard to Theme 2. The table that

follows provides some concluding comments.


26



Are partners working together and across boundaries to achieve integrated landscape-scale delivery?

• There is considerable evidence from the initial processevaluation to suggest that progress is being made in thisdomain – particularly through NIAs. LNPs are also makingheadway but the extent to which these are genuinelyadvancing “integrated landscape scale delivery” is as yetunclear (and it may well vary from one situation to the next)

• More generally – and as a result of NEWP – the evidencesuggests that there is far greater awareness of the significanceof landscape scale delivery

Is nature being reconnected at a significant scale?

• The initial process evaluation has pointed to some evidence ofprogress. This has been greatest in areas which have beenexplicitly recognised in these terms (i.e. NIAs). Importantlythough, there is some evidence to suggest that the imperativeto reconnect nature is being taken forward in some areas andat a landscape scale even where formal designations, etc., aremissing

Is ecological resilience improving? • It is impossible to comment as yet. Consultees are generallycontent that “the right things are happening”, but there is noevidence relating to their impacts in terms of improvedecological resilience

Source: SQW


27

5. Theme 3 – Enhanced partnership working,locally and nationally, consistent with the purposes of NEWP

5.1 Enhanced partnership working – both spatially and sectorally, and at local and national levels

– is absolutely intrinsic to NEWP and indeed, in considering Themes 1 and 2, some

consideration has already been given to it. Specifically in relation to Theme 3, key evaluation

questions include the following:

• are meaningful and effective cross-sectoral partnerships emerging?

• are available resources being used more effectively; and is the knowledge/

competence of partners improving?

• at the highest level, are good connections being forged between people and nature as

a result of improved partnership working?

5.2 Consultations, surveys and workshops with stakeholders have informed the findings set out

in this chapter.


Building and strengthening partnerships

5.3 In general, consultees suggested that as a result of NEWP, new partnerships have formed

and existing partnerships have been strengthened, with (in some cases renewed) focus,

vigour and purpose aligned with NEWP’s Ambitions and commitments. For example, 48 LNPs

have now been established across England: a separate process evaluation is currently

underway for LNPs, but evidence gathered in the course of this study suggests that – in the

main – these appear to be generating enthusiasm and levering in expertise.

5.4 Three parallel – and broadly supportive – developments were identified in the course of the

consultations:

• First, as a result of strong partnership working, there is evidence of levering in

resources from elsewhere. For example, the Heritage Lottery Fund (particularly

through the Future Landscape and Living Landscape funds) was considered to be

playing a major role as – in some areas – was European funding. In this context,

however, it is very difficult to unpick “cause” and “effect”. Both the funding sources

and the partnerships pre-date NEWP, although it was reported that NEWP has

provided both profile and legitimacy

• Second, it was noted that partners are working together in new and improved

ways, even where formal partnerships have not been set up and/or where bids

to receive funding linked to NEWP commitments have been unsuccessful. This

was illustrated in one local area, where the act of bidding helped to pull groups


28

together and made them think through – and ultimately change – their own ambitions

and priorities

• Third, in resourcing and sustaining local groups of this nature, a number of consultees

commented on the renaissance of pre-existing partnerships at a larger spatial

scale – often on the footprint of the old Government Office regions. For example:

� The East of England Biodiversity Forum is reported to have seen a major

resurgence over the last year. It now regularly attracts 30 or more attendees

and meetings include a site visit (e.g. to Hatfield Forest) which allows

participants to see what others are actually doing on the ground, and to learn

from it. The resurgence is explained in terms of the rise of LNPs; those

involved in the LNPs use it as a key resource and a source of information

sharing, learning and dialogue. The LNPs are effectively re-using an old

arrangement, but this is reported to have been re-energised and refocused

through NEWP.

� In the West Midlands, an existing forum has been strengthened and

formalised after achieving LNP status. This has given the partnership more

credibility and profile, and bolstered its position in negotiations with the LEP.

Cross-sector working

5.5 Much of the partnership activity associated with NEWP has involved attempts to increase and

improve cross-sector working and here, the findings of the initial process evaluation are

quite mixed.

5.6 Locally, the initial process evaluation found examples of environmental and economic

sectors working synergistically through NEWP-initiated commitments. For example, the

review of the provision of advice and incentives for farmers has engaged and galvanised

partners, and was considered to be a very positive development in terms of cross-sector

working. Moreover, this process has revealed the potential to partners for win-win outcomes

and economies of scale by better integration of advice. However, there were also some

challenges:

• First, it was noted that alliances across the environmental-economic domain are

often fragile, challenged by a strong policy emphasis on “growth” which, as noted

already, is creating some tensions with the Ambitions of NEWP. More generally, there

is a very mixed picture on the extent to which NEWP’s initiatives, such as LNPs and

NIAs, are engaging with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) at the local level.

Evidence suggests that in some local settings, there has been a very strong read-across

between LNP and LEP agendas, and they seem to be working well together. There are

also some local examples of LEPs advocating projects that are contributing towards

NEWP Ambitions locally (e.g. the Marches LEP has a project focused on woodland

enterprise and timber). However, in some areas, especially where there are

differences in priorities, less effective partnership working is taking place. The

pressure on LEPs to demonstrate economic growth is also considered to be a barrier.

Where LEPs are less engaged, consultees report that the implementation of NEWP

initiatives has been challenging, particularly in terms of engaging business interests


29

(such as property developers) in delivering shared business and environmental

benefits

• Second, concerns were expressed by consultees that NEWP activities are not

engaging sufficiently and consistently with businesses directly, including those

in the land based sector. Whilst locally, there is some evidence of farmers engaging

constructively (for example, in Environmental Stewardship schemes), the view was

expressed that NEWP may be (perceived as) “too narrowly environmental” to be of

more general interest. The concern was expressed that the private sector has been

insufficiently engaged while those responsible for driving forward the different

components of NEWP have a limited understanding of commercial drivers facing the

wider business community. The consequence – it was suggested – was poor levels of

“buy in” from industry (notably the land-based sector and developers) with NEWP

often lacking visibility and profile “on the ground”.

5.7 Another important domain in terms of cross sector working is health. Within NEWP,

Ambition 3 (“Reconnecting people and nature”) refers extensively to the importance of the

natural environment for health outcomes and the concept of “nature’s health service” is

described in some detail. For the initial process evaluation, the question that follows is the

extent to which NEWP is effecting better partnership working between those with an

interest in health and those whose primary concern is the environment. The

consultations conducted in the course of this initial process evaluation pointed to a really

quite complicated picture. They found evidence of professionals with an interest in public

health actively pursuing projects and initiatives concerned with deriving health-related

outcomes from the natural environment. Often, these projects appeared to involve close

working with major environmental NGOs – the National Trust, the RSPB, and so on. However,

at least for the public health partners, these ventures were sometimes being pursued with no

knowledge or awareness of NEWP. Hence whilst the outcomes were precisely those that

NEWP was seeking to foster, it is hard to conclude that NEWP itself was the catalyst. Arguably

this corroborates the finding reported earlier: NEWP codified – and added legitimacy and

profile to – a broad “direction of travel” that it did not itself create.

Cross-government working

5.8 The links between health and the environment have also been developed at a central

government level. Here there was some suggestion of improved joint working. As evidence,

consultees referred to the steps taken by Defra and the Department for Health to adopt

“Monitoring Engagement with Natural Environment” as an indicator within the Public Health

Outcome Framework which was launched in January 2012. This recognised explicitly the

importance of being outdoors for individual health and wellbeing. On the back of it, consultees

noted a greater appetite to work together.

5.9 Outside of the health domain, other examples of cross-governmental working include:

• Defra working HMT on supplementary Green Book guidance

• the introduction of the Pupil Premium by the Department for Education which schools

can choose to use for purposes relating to nature


30

• Defra working with DCLG on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

5.10 More generally however – and consistent with the wider literature – consultees noted some

difficulties in securing engagement and buy-in from OGDs; they considered, quite simply,

that NEWP is often not high enough on the agenda. With hindsight, the view was expressed

that OGDs ought to have been engaged more fully in the development of NEWP, with clear and

transparent roles and responsibilities for implementing the various commitments. In practice

the degree of ownership of NEWP across OGDs (that have a clear link to some of the

commitments) appears to be very variable. Further, the comment was made that where

partnership working is taking place, there is a sense that this tends to be focused on specific

“projects” and narrowly defined issues where there is obvious alignment of departmental

objectives, not a change to the “mainstream” behaviours of departments. In a context of

continued resource constraint across Government, engaging in activities that are not

considered to be “core” to departmental objectives will inevitably be a challenge.

Looking ahead

5.11 Looking forward, maintaining momentum and making (what are often short-term)

catalytic commitments relating to partnership working “stick” will be critical. Overall,

the evidence suggests that good progress has been made in setting up partnerships: this has

involved a great deal of time and effort. However, making sustainable changes to mindsets

and cultures, and the way in which partners work together, and embedding this into

mainstream activities, is a long-term process and there is still considerable work to do. There

appear to be three significant risks to maintaining momentum of NEWP-related partnerships:

• First, there are profound concerns around the future lack of, and uncertainties

around, resources. Many of the partnership working commitments are long term

projects with very short term funding – and finances available to implement many of

the NEWP activities are now in a worse position than when NEWP was first published.

There has been a great deal of goodwill and enthusiasm that has enabled partnership

working to date, but partner organisations are seeing their own resources pared back

and they are therefore struggling to sustain on-going involvement. In addition, some

of the partnerships established are keen to have more functions and credibility, but

the lack of devolved funding is making this difficult

• Second, and compounding the issue above, sustaining partner engagement is

increasingly difficult when there is no clear “infrastructure” with which to engage.

It was noted above that some regional structures – essentially a legacy of the last

government – have been resurrected but in many cases, these are seriously under-

resourced. Moreover it appears that larger NGOs – like the National Trust and RSPB

– are attempting to fill the void alongside Defra agencies such as Natural England

(which is advising and helping to develop a number of commitments at sub-regional

levels). These different organisations are trying to cascade NEWP messages to

partners in multiple local settings but are resource constrained. Based on the

feedback from consultees, some kind of “post-regional”/”mezzanine” delivery model

could be useful in engaging, resourcing and empowering groups of (say) four or five

LNPs; but this would need to be thought through and its feasibility tested


31

• Third, a common message from consultees was that some partnerships were lacking

in direction and looking to government to provide more guidance and tools (for

example on what might happen after the pilots in terms of a forward strategy, how to

connect people and nature, and/or in relation to neighbourhood planning). Capacity

and infrastructure for “guidance” appears to be patchy and stretched. But addressing

this issue could resolve some of the blockages to local delivery.



evaluation points to a variable assessment in relation to the three key evaluation questions

which were identified earlier with regard to Theme 3. The table that follows provides some

concluding comments.



Are meaningful and effective cross-sectoral partnerships emerging?

• Overall, the evidence seems very mixed. There are certainlysome examples of good practice – and there is evidence ofcross-sectoral partnerships (e.g. LNPs) and cross-governmental working (e.g. working with the DoH on health,with HMT on the Green Book guidance, with DfE on H&Sbarriers in schools, and with DCLG on the NPPF)

• The key issue looking forward concerns the extent to whichearly progress is actively sustained. Cross-sectoralpartnerships at central government level are somewhat ad hocand in the context of a pan-government White Paper, thisfinding ought to be of some concern. More locally, there areexamples of cross-sectoral partnership working but the read-across back to NEWP is not always obvious. In general,looking ahead, it will be important to think through theinfrastructure for sustaining and resourcing ventures of thisnature

Are available resources being used more effectively; and is the knowledge/ competence of partners improving?

• Again, the evidence is inconclusive. There are some goodpractice case examples – the number of partners drawing onthe East of England Biodiversity Forum could well be a case inpoint (although again, links to NEWP are indirect)

At the highest level, are good connections being forged between people and nature?

• Stronger connections do appear to be being forged although itis unclear the extent to which these have, genuinely, been“mainstreamed”

Source: SQW


32

6. Theme 4 – Influencing wider decision-making

6.1 NEWP as a whole – the focus for this initial process evaluation – is concerned implicitly with

mainstreaming the value of nature. Core to this is the extent to which NEWP is influencing

wider decision-making and it is this which provides the focus for the fourth Theme within the

overall NEWP Evaluation Framework. The key evaluation questions identified in response

include the following:

• are individuals/communities making well-informed choices?

• is the planning system taking account of nature appropriately as part of decision-

making and delivering good results for nature? (This was identified as a key

evaluation research question by stakeholders during the development of the

Evaluation Framework for NEWP)

• in making decisions, is government considering the state and value of natural capital

in England?

6.2 The findings presented in this chapter are based on consultations, surveys and workshops

with a range of stakeholders.


The process of decision-making

6.3 From the in-depth, bilateral consultations, the view was expressed that since the publication

of NEWP, its “valuing nature” principles have become more accepted as appropriate for

inclusion and consideration in decision-making processes. Specifically, the observation

was made that NEWP is starting to influence the general public discourse and appears to be

“in the general consciousness”. Moreover, it has helped articulate a shared message during

complicated system changes (e.g. NPPF). Consultees cited examples of NEWP being quoted as

a reason why some approaches to policy development or investments are better than others.

It is reinforcing the importance of long-term thinking in making decisions, and provides a

coherent rationale to look at nature more closely. Whilst the imperative to value nature is not

new, consultees generally did consider that NEWP had reinforced existing messages in this

arena. Specifically, they noted that NEWP had added value by pulling together these long-

term commitments into one paper and marshalling the arguments succinctly and powerfully.

6.4 Consultees were particularly clear on the influence of NEWP on NPPF through NEWP

commitment 14 (which relates to consulting on a draft of the NPPF from NEWP’s perspective).

As a result of NEWP, they suggested that NPPF now encourages a genuine valuation of nature:

specifically, the restoration, recovery and enhancement of natural assets now feature in

positive terms (rather than as avoidance of loss). Stakeholders therefore considered that

NEWP had helped to realise “a better final policy” (and this outcome is also recognised in the

wider literature – see Annex C). As they also noted, however, the key question now is the

extent to which this follows through into better planning decisions: specifically, will it


33

influence Local Plan preparation over the next couple of years, and will NEWP influence wider

major policy thinking and decision taking (e.g. with respect to HS2)? There is also some

evidence to suggest that the “Making Environmental Stewardship More Effective” (MESME)

project has worked reasonably well: it is reported to have led to some new Environmental

Stewardship options being approved by the European Commission and has informed

discussions between Defra and the Commission about the next phase of the Rural

Development Programme for England.

6.5 Consultees noted that there is still considerable work to do to ensure that NEWP is taken

on board fully in more general decision-making processes17. Specifically, consultees

raised a number of underlying concerns: the overall lack of resources; the lack of “join up”

across central government and, in particular, the disconnect of HM Treasury from the

aspirations of NEWP; and the low profile of NEWP at a local level to influence local decisions.

Moreover, even when major decisions are – at one level – closely related to NEWP’s core

concerns, the ability of NEWP to influence outcomes remains uncertain: influencing the

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is, for example, one of NEWP’s Key Reforms, but NEWP is

“one influence amongst many”.

Wider influences – and the need for evidence

6.6 Through the consultations, there was evidence of NEWP influencing – and improving –

outcomes, even in situations where it really didn’t impact on the underlying decision.

One very local situation in which local stakeholders believe NEWP is starting to influence

outcomes (if not actual decisions) relates to plans for nuclear power in the East of England. In

this context, work is taking place to turn the site of a nuclear power station into an

environmental exemplar to ensure that social and environmental impacts are maximised,

whatever decision is made with regard to the facility’s future.

6.7 One other finding from the consultations is noteworthy – although again not dramatic. Among

consultees, there did appear to be growing demand for information and evidence on lessons

and good practice from many of NEWP’s pilot initiatives, such as the Biodiversity Offsetting

Pilots. Ensuring this evidence on lessons and good practice is gathered and

communicated effectively will be essential if NEWP is to influence the decisions of others on

an ongoing basis.



evaluation points to a variable assessment in relation to the three key evaluation questions

which were identified earlier with regard to Theme 4. The table that follows provides some

concluding comments.

17 Note that a “baseline evaluation” of the uptake of environmental appraisal and sustainable development guidance

across government is currently underway and this might provide important insights in due course


34


Key evaluation questions Overall assessment of progress based on e vidence from the initial process evaluation of NEWP

Are individuals/communities making well-informed choices?

• This question is very difficult to answer in a general way.Among consultees, there was some suggestion that choicesare better informed – but as the consultees themselvesadmitted, the real explanation could be that (because of theirparticular roles) they were simply aware of those choicesbeing made

Is the planning system taking account of nature appropriately as part of decision-making and delivering good results for nature?

• Again, it is very early days. NPPF is certainly more attuned toNEWP than it might have been but the real test is whetherNEWP principles are seen as a priority locally. Currently LocalPlanning Authorities are under considerable pressure to planfor economic growth – a message that was writ large in theChancellor’s Budget 2013

In making decisions, is government considering the state and value of natural capital in England?

• Consultees considered that government’s position is mixed.Some parts of it do seem to be taking the state and value ofnatural capital seriously (and in this context the work of theNCC is important), but there are still some major challenges

Source: SQW


35

7. NEWP’s added value and outcomes

7.1 Preceding chapters have provided a response to the first two research questions for this initial

process evaluation: “is NEWP being implemented as intended?” and “what is working well or

less well?”. This chapter turns to the third key research question: “is it delivering added

value and outcomes?”.

7.2 An assessment of progress against “expected” outcomes is challenging as NEWP does not

contain full details on anticipated targets for deliverables and milestones, and it is still too

early to comment on the outcomes and impacts of NEWP. However, as part of the process

evaluation, evidence has been gathered to help specify what appropriate intermediate outputs

and outcomes might be expected under each Theme, which has in turn informed the

specification of the NEWP Evaluation Framework (published as a separate document).

7.3 First though this chapter considers the “added value” benefits of NEWP at a strategic level.

Specifically, it examines the roles of NEWP in influencing and shaping outcomes, compared to

what might have happened without the White Paper. It draws on the views expressed by

stakeholders during consultations, surveys and workshops.

Added value of NEWP

7.4 An important consideration in the evaluation of NEWP is the extent to which it has added

value, above and beyond what might have happened anyway, and has made a real difference.

7.5 Evidence from initial process evaluation suggests that NEWP’s added value has varied across

the commitments and activities: whilst some initiatives (such as LNPs, NIAs, the EMTF and

NCC) were borne out of, and initiated by, NEWP18, some were already underway (e.g. the

implementation of the Nagoya agreement), and others may well have taken place in the

absence of NEWP (e.g. the publication of supplementary green book guidance). In many

respects – and as noted already – NEWP has “worked with the grain” of environmental policy

and thinking. That said, the evidence gathered for this evaluation suggests that NEWP has

added value:

• NEWP has provided a strong policy signal and sense of direction to partners.

Because it is a White Paper, its messages are given some weight. As a result, there

appears to be a greater willingness of partners to be on board (including OGDs in

some activities) and NEWP itself receives on-going scrutiny (e.g. through the

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee)

• NEWP has raised the profile and visibility of environmental (and related) issues to

a constituency that extends beyond the “environmental sector”. It has added a

renewed focus and visibility to activity that was underway, and encouraged a greater

level of dissemination of lessons learned from these activities. In the case of “valuing

nature”, consultees believe that NEWP made a significant difference to the progress

made: without it, the “valuing nature” agenda would have rumbled on at a relatively

18 Note though that the groundwork for a number of NEWP’s “new commitments” lay in earlier reviews and research:

Making Space for Nature (the Lawton review) was especially important


36

low level and largely within Defra and its agencies. Similarly, NEWP pushed the

natural environment agenda to a higher level and did so in a way that was more

strategic and coordinated, leading to better strategic co-ordination of partners’

activities. It has also encouraged engagement from a wider group of stakeholders

than is usually involved in such issues, including all those involved in land-use issues

in urban as well as rural communities

• Some of the work undertaken to date under the auspices of NEWP has been catalytic

and instigated momentum. It has helped launch and bring forward initiatives that

otherwise would not have happened as fast or at all, and helped to lever more

resources to the issue (e.g. leveraging additional resources into Valuing Nature

Network). At the local level, one consultee noted that better local targeting of agri-

environment initiatives was being explored in their area, and that NEWP helped bring

this activity forward and give it more “purpose”. Also, the process of bidding for

various NEWP-related initiatives seems – in some local areas – to have generated

renewed momentum

• NEWP has encouraged more coherence and shared understanding amongst

stakeholders, who are now working towards a common goal, and improved the

embeddedness of key concepts (such as “Green Infrastructure” and “ecosystems

services”)

• NEWP has given greater legitimacy and credibility to partnerships and their

activities. In some instances partnerships were already set up, but NEWP’s initiatives

(such as LNPs) have formalised and given greater credibility to this partnership

working.

Outcomes

7.6 Stakeholders did note some evidence of emerging outcomes, and that activities implemented

to date were moving in the right direction to deliver the desired outcomes (assuming that

momentum is maintained). For example:

• there is some evidence that more partners are aware of the importance of “valuing

nature”, and that it is becoming a more accepted consideration in policy/decision-

making (particularly important for Theme 1)

• “valuing nature” principles have become accepted as appropriate for inclusion in

more policy thinking and decision-making processes. For example, the practice of

applying “valuing nature” principles has been tested in relation to HS2 where work is

being done with DoT on its WebTAG appraisal methods (Theme 1)

• there is evidence that key NEWP arguments around ecosystems services are being

adopted by big water companies (Theme 1)

• there is evidence to suggest that partners are now working more collaboratively, and

collaborating on a larger, integrated landscape scale and across sectors (e.g. LNPs,

where participation is leading to changes in partner behaviour (including cross-sector


37

engagement) and spending (to use scarce funding better for environmental benefits))

(Theme 3)

• there is some evidence to suggest that the attitudes, behaviour and policies of

partners at the local level are beginning to change in some respects (e.g. Revisions to

local strategies to raise the profile of Green Infrastructure priorities following

engagement with the Green Infrastructure Partnership; changes to partner

behaviours as a result of being part of LNPs) (Theme 3)

• there are some instances where consultees thought decision-making processes by

Government had been influenced by NEWP, such as the NPPF at a national level

(although it remains to be seen if local policies are influenced) (Theme 4).

7.7 However, on the whole, it is still too early to assess whether NEWP is having a real influence

on – and leading to changes in – the mainstream policies, decisions and practices of partners,

and whether it is delivering against the key impact-related priorities at the heart of NEWP

linked to the quality of the natural environment and the level of ecological resilience. This will

need to be the focus of subsequent process and impact evaluations.


38

8. Conclusions and recommendations

8.1 At this early stage of NEWP’s implementation, this initial process evaluation must be regarded

as a work in progress. As proposed in the parallel Evaluation Framework report – and as a

recommendation here – it is suggested that there should be a further stock-take and a

synthesis of the evaluation and other evidence at the end of 2013/2014 (noting particularly

that evidence on a number of commitments is due to be published over the next few months).

In this final chapter, the overarching conclusions of this initial process evaluation are however

summarised, and a set of recommendations is provided. These recommendations relate both

to the future implementation of NEWP, and the implications for future evaluation activity.

Overarching conclusions

Is NEWP being implemented as intended?

8.2 In general, the monitoring data (from early spring 2013) suggest that good progress is being

made in relation to implementing the 92 commitments contained within NEWP. Across each

of the four Ambitions, based on SQW’s analysis of Defra monitoring data, at least a third of all

commitments are now considered to have been “completed” in a literal sense, although it is

important to caveat this statement by noting that many of these actions are small scale, “quick

wins” and catalysts. Ensuring these deliver the desired outcomes in the medium term and

continue on to implementation phase (e.g. Biodiversity 2020, the Green Economy Roadmap,

and NPPF) will be critical. The majority of other commitments are “on-going” (i.e. progress

has been made and some deliverables have been produced, with more to come in the future)

or “underway” (progress is underway but no deliverables have been produced as yet). It is

difficult to assess whether this progress is “as intended” given the limited information on

milestones in NEWP, but feedback from the stakeholder survey found that the majority of

respondents thought NEWP was delivering against their expectations “to some extent”. So,

whilst activities have been progressing, the feedback suggests that some stakeholders are not

necessarily aware of what is taking place and/or had hoped to see more progress.

What is working well and less well

Theme-level findings

8.3 The evaluation findings on what is working well (and less well) are summarised in the table

below.

Table 8-1: Summary of what is working well (and less well across the Themes)


1. Recognising thevalue of nature


• the development and dissemination of “valuing nature” principles to equipbusinesses/communities/government better in terms of recognising the value of nature

• stakeholder engagement – which has led to the development of a sharedunderstanding of the value of nature more quickly and on a more widespread basis than might otherwise have been the case


39


• mechanisms to raise the profile, understanding and embeddedness of the value ofnature – which have secured credible and appropriate memberships

• innovative pilot schemes to test PES concepts


• securing the consistent engagement and buy-in of Other Government Departments(OGDs) to recognise fully the value of nature

• resourcing associated activity on an on-going and long term basis

• communication of what is happening (and associated leadership)

• meeting demand for valuation evidence

• consistent engagement with the business community (particularly around the tensionsand trade-offs of “valuing nature”)

2. Achievingintegrated landscape-scale delivery to create a more resilient ecological network


• progress towards integrated landscape scale delivery, especially with the launch ofNature Improvement Areas, Local Nature Partnerships, Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots,and Biodiversity 2020, but also more generally

• through NEWP, further legitimacy for and visibility of, an already well-establisheddirection of travel


• the relationship between NIAs and LNPs is not wholly clear: ideally, the LNPs oughtto have preceded the NIAs and provided the vehicle for agreeing NIA bids

• uncertainty surrounding the long term funding of landscape scale ventures

• clarity as to what LNPs actually “do”, particularly with regard to broad aspirations fordelivery at the landscape scale

• concern that LNPs lack both powers and resources to drive what happens locally

3. Enhancedpartnership working, locally and nationally, consistent with the purposes of NEWP


• new cross-sector partnerships (which have formed) and existing partnerships (whichhave been strengthened)

• partners are working together in new and improved ways (even where formalpartnerships have not been set up)

• some evidence of cross-departmental working within Government, but a tendency forjoint working to focus on specific “projects” and narrowly defined issues

• partners are levering in resources to contribute towards NEWP’s goals


• alliances across the environmental-economic domain are often fragile, challenged bya strong policy emphasis on “growth”

• insufficient consistent engagement with businesses directly, including those in theland based sector

• difficulties in securing engagement and buy-in from OGDs

• profound concerns around the future lack of, and uncertainties around, resources toenable partnership

• lack of a clear and consistent “infrastructure” with which to engage

4. Influencingwider decision-making


• NEWP’s “valuing nature” principles have become more accepted as appropriate forinclusion and consideration in decision-making processes

• the influence of NEWP on NPPF, which encourages a genuine valuation of natureand consideration of the restoration, recovery and enhancement of natural assets inpositive terms (rather than as avoidance of loss)


• still considerable work to do to ensure that NEWP is taken on board fully in moregeneral decision-making processes

Source: SQW

Cross-cutting issues

8.4 Research undertaken as part of this initial process evaluation has also generated wider

insights into what works well (or not). These issues cut across the four Themes:


40

• First, the structure and design of NEWP – with very high level Ambitions, a few Key

Reforms and a large number of somewhat disparate commitments – has led to a lack

of clarity on priority actions, ownership, roles and responsibilities, and the

intended outcomes. This confusion is still an issue. Some of the commitments are

overly focused on activities and outputs, and do not set out in comprehensive detail

what they will achieve in terms of outcomes and impacts that will contribute towards

the overarching Ambitions. This echoes the concern of the Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs Committee – that “Defra has not published an overarching action plan for

delivery of the White Paper’s aims, nor has it produced a timetable for delivering each

of the White Paper’s 92 commitments” in 201219,20

• Second, through NEWP, processes have been set up and encouraged by creating

appropriate infrastructures. There is a real need to maintain momentum now that

this infrastructure has been established. Evidence gathered in the course of this initial

process evaluation suggests that this will require:

� a strong commitment from those in leadership positions (across all of

government) to get behind NEWP and drive it forward, and cross-

government buy-in and support (especially where implementation is

dependent upon inputs and activities from OGDs)

� better communication centrally, to ensure that (possibly fewer) more

consistent messages are communicated to partners and to reinforce

government support of NEWP’s Ambitions

� stronger strategic co-ordination to prevent a piecemeal approach to future

implementation and to enable the sharing of good practice within and

between on-going NEWP commitments (for example, sharing lessons

between the LNP, NIA and Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots). To date, it appears

that lessons have only been shared within some of the NEWP initiatives (e.g.

the Catchment Pilots) and yet the lessons have wider relevance

� a clear and strategic forward strategy for the next phase of

implementation, which ought to set out priority actions for the short and

medium term, roles and responsibilities and intended outcomes to show what

“success” will look like21.

• Third, and linked to the point above, there is a tension within NEWP between top

down direction and delivery on the ground: in some cases Defra appears willing to be

directive, while in other cases it stands back. In order for momentum to be

maintained, feedback from consultees suggests that partners are looking for further

guidance on how to take the implementation of NEWP forward. Whilst

acknowledging the emphasis is on local action, more guidance from Defra would be

helpful on “how to do” implementation, which consultees argue should involve going

19 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (July 2012) Natural Environment White Paper: Fourth Report of

Session 2012–13 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence 20 Note that Defra rejected the EFRA Committee’s recommendation that such an action plan should be developed 21 As noted above, EFRA’s recommendations for an action plan have been considered but rejected by Government –

although they remain a concern for some consultees


41

out and talking to people more frequently, as well as providing guidance online (for

example, in the case of Green Area Designations, NIAs and LNPs).

• Fourth, the availability of sufficient resources and capacity for the longer term

delivery and sustainability of NEWP is a concern. Local resources are very limited,

and this could be a major barrier to success. Inevitably circumstances vary and there

is a risk of over-simplification, but some consultees noted that capacity issues were

particularly prevalent in areas that did not have the foundations of previous

partnerships/infrastructures on which to build, or where there is a weaker culture of

civic/business engagement and voluntary action. Looking forward, it would be

helpful to have a better understanding of whether the local structures are capable,

and have the capacity/time and competencies, to enable these initiatives to move

forward. As noted above, there also needs to be a clear and re-stated signal from

government that it supports the activities that are taking place, which might

encourage partners to dedicate more of (what are scarce) resources to delivering

NEWP’s commitments.

Is NEWP delivering expected outputs and outcomes?

8.5 Progress is being made in the delivery of outputs and there is some evidence to suggest

outcomes are emerging, especially in relation to stakeholders’ awareness and understanding

of the value of natural capital; the attitudes of policy-makers and partners towards the

imperatives set out in NEWP; and a greater willingness to work in partnership, especially at

an integrated landscape scale.

8.6 Whilst progress appears to be being made, it is difficult to make an assessment against

“expected” outputs and outcomes given the limited targets set out in NEWP. There is also

evidence that NEWP has added value by providing strong policy signals; creating a shared

sense of direction and a common goal; acting as a catalyst; and generating greater credibility

for NEWP-related activities. However, it is still too early to assess whether NEWP is having a

real influence on – and leading to changes in – the mainstream policies, decisions and practices

of partners; this will need to be the focus of subsequent process and impact evaluation

exercises.

Recommendations for future implementation

8.7 In looking forward, the findings from this initial process evaluation point to three groups of

recommendations that Defra and partners might wish to consider in seeking to improve the

implementation and impacts of NEWP in the future. All of these recommendations will

require contributions from partners, businesses, communities, individuals and other

stakeholders, as well as government. Moreover – even if they are accepted – the

recommendations may be difficult to implement given current resourcing issues (across

Defra, its agencies, and many of its partners and stakeholders), and their feasibility will need

to be tested.

8.8 Overall – and as noted earlier – the next 12-18 months are likely to be critical in

maintaining momentum and ensuring that good progress is sustained in moving

towards achieving NEWP’s intended outcomes and impacts.


42

Recommendation 1: Reinforce the Ambitions, refresh the commitments

8.9 In very general terms, a finding of this initial process evaluation is that NEWP is “doing the

right things”, but the imperative now is for sustained and concerted implementation

(including after the initial funding runs out). To this end, we recommend that steps are taken

to reinforce the Ambitions of NEWP and to refresh the commitments within it.

Recommendation 1a: There is a need to refresh and strengthen political will and support for – and leadership of – NEWP and its Ambitions across government

8.10 In this context, many stakeholders are calling for stronger – and more consistent – leadership

from government, and a renewed commitment to NEWP at a senior level in OGDs. This will

require greater levels of cross-departmental working and buy-in (especially with HM

Treasury; Department for Business Innovation and Skills; Department of Health; Department

for Education; Department for Communities and Local Government; and Department for

Transport). It will also necessitate the presentation and communication of joined-up

messages to stakeholders.

Recommendation 1b: The implementation of NEWP has – in general – made a good start and there have been some notable achievements, but there are acute resource constraints. In this context – and in order to sustain momentum – we recommend that steps should be taken to prioritise and to agree where efforts should be focused over the next 2-3 years

8.11 Given that a good number of short term commitments are now complete, a key question for

many consultees is “what next for NEWP”? There is a sense that NEWP-related activity made

a quick start in many areas, but given the number of activities contained within the White

Paper and within the context of severe resource constraints, it will be really important to

identify which commitments matter most in the medium term. The priorities for action may

evolve over time, but the immediate priority should be to focus on – and invest persistent

effort in – the commitments and activities that need to be progressed most over the next 2-3

years, either to achieve immediate results or to lay the foundations for longer term change.

This might include making NEWP’s pilot initiatives a priority (and gathering evidence on their

impacts) so that the learning is built upon. This is particularly important where pilots – and

wider NEWP activities – are designed to really influence mainstream behaviours, attitudes

and funding (e.g. NIAs and the next phase of CAP funding).

Recommendation 1c : Following the identification of medium term implementation priorities, NEWP may benefit from a wider “route-map for implementation” (although recognising that this would need to be a dynamic process rather than a conventional, linear, plan and it would need to embrace and respond to both uncertainties and risks). This will need to be informed by – and largely premised on – a robust annual synthesis of evidence on NEWP progress and achievements

8.12 A frustration amongst some consultees – and a consistent message from much of the relevant

literature – is the lack of an “action plan” for implementing NEWP. A similar recommendation

was made by the EFRA Committee, which was rejected by Government, but this remains a

concern for some consultees. It is acknowledged that NEWP is a White Paper (rather than a

programme with associated spend) and that its emphasis is strongly on devolved and non-

prescriptive delivery in line with the government’s localism agenda, but some consultees are

seeking a clear(er) plan for action over the medium-long term.


43

8.13 We recognise the need for something that spans the chasm between short term commitments

and the 50-year NEWP vision. However we recommend a slightly different approach. The

natural environment is intrinsically dynamic and the route towards NEWP’s Ambitions is very

unlikely to be linear. A higher level “route-map” is recommended here, rather than a full

implementation plan, that sets out how the commitments, wider government influences

(policies/levers) and other partners will work together to move towards the aims of NEWP.

Beyond that, rather than a standard action plan, we recommend a dynamic process, built upon

techniques such as backcasting22 but informed, fundamentally, by evaluation evidence.

Specifically, the recommendation is that a robust synthesis review of evidence on NEWP’s

progress and achievements should be completed on at least an annual basis23, and that this in

turn should be used to inform a reflective (re-)consideration of medium-long term

implementation priorities. This would help “bridge the gap” between short term

commitments and a 50-year vision, but it would do so in a dynamic, rather than static, manner;

hence it ought to provide some of the clarity that partners are seeking but also the

flexibility/responsiveness that will, in practice, be imperative.

8.14 More generally, we recommend that the evaluation evidence generated through this process

should be disseminated. This will enable informed stakeholders to recognise where progress

is being made (or not) and where interventions are working (or not), and to adjust their own

actions accordingly.

Recommendation 2: Strengthen strategic as well as local partnerships

8.15 A finding of this initial process evaluation is that partnerships – across sectors and areas, and

both locally and nationally – are crucial in relation to NEWP’s delivery. A second overarching

recommendation is therefore that these ought to be strengthened. This process could be

facilitated by a number of specific actions, as summarised below.

Recommendation 2a: If the recommendation with regard to a high level “route-map for implementation” is accepted, then an important component ought to be a stronger strategic partnership between government departments to embed “valuing nature” principles in decision-making

8.16 It is recommended that a strong strategic partnership between government departments to

embed “valuing nature” principles in decision-making is seen as core to the development of

any wider “route-map for implementation”. The initial process evaluation has found evidence

that OGDs’ engagement to date has been mixed and yet is crucial for effective implementation

given the cross-cutting nature of NEWP’s Ambitions.

Recommendation 2b : Steps ought to be taken to ensure that the potential synergies between different NEWP activities are maximised in delivery

22 Backcasting is a planning methodology where a desired future is defined using either basic principles (i.e. conditions

that must be met within the system) or scenarios (i.e. simplified images of the future). An assessment is then made of the

current system and strategic actions are identified, prioritised according to their ability to achieve the desired outcome,

implemented, and reviewed. According to the Dictionary of Sustainable Management, “backcasting is especially useful in

uncertain circumstances, when there is a need for a major systemic change, when problems are complex, when the problem is

primarily a matter of externalities, when the scope is wide enough and the time frame long enough to enable thoughtful

choice, and when dominant systems are part of the problem” 23 This recommendation is wholly in line with those set out in the separate report on the proposed NEWP Evaluation

Framework


44

8.17 There is scope for better alignment between the various initiatives taking place under NEWP.

Potentially this is especially important in relation to the role that local NEWP-inspired actions

(such as LNPs and NIAs) could play in operationalising the outcomes from higher level

strategic work (e.g. NCC and EMTF). In addition, NIAs, LNPs, Water Catchment Pilots and

other NEWP initiatives could work more closely together (especially where boundaries

intersect or overlap) to learn lessons from each other and to take direction from, where

appropriate, the findings of the EMTC and NCC. However, action needs to be taken to enable

and facilitate links of this nature: at present, there are no real mechanisms in place for these

synergies to be garnered.

Recommendation 2c : There is a need actively to help share and disseminate examples of good practice emerging from NEWP activities to date

8.18 The initial process evaluation found evidence that stakeholders would benefit from knowing

more about current NEWP initiatives and good practice – communication and dissemination

of lessons learned to date could be improved, both within and between NEWP initiatives, and

further afield. This is a missed opportunity – both to improve the performance of existing

initiatives, and to influence the behaviour of areas not currently involved in particular NEWP

pilots. Defra might also consider using some of the current work within the Department (such

as that relating to spatial planning and mapping, designed to improve the targeting of

interventions) to communicate the direction of travel in how NEWP is being implemented.

Recommendation 3: Enable and strengthen local delivery

8.19 Finally – and consistent with the overall ethos of devolved activity and “small government” –

we recommend that steps are taken to enable and strengthen routes to local delivery.

Recommendation 3 a: There is a need to review of the infrastructures, capacity and resources available to cascade messages from NEWP to the local level. This requires co-operation and integration between local partnerships and it should recognise the important role being played by larger NGOs

8.20 NEWP is being implemented against a backdrop of severely constrained resources. Over the

last two years, much has been achieved on the back of the goodwill and enthusiasm of

partners, and the role of the larger NGOs appears to have been critical. However on-going

effort is needed to embed “valuing nature” principles thoroughly within “mainstream”

activities and resources. Getting to that point will depend on the capacity and resources of

partners.

8.21 Within this context, the mechanisms for engaging with local stakeholders are under-

developed and under-resourced. This is made more difficult in the absence of a consistent

“sub-national resource”. Larger NGOs and Defra’s agencies (such as Natural England and the

Environment Agency) are playing an important role in attempting to fill the void and cascade

NEWP messages to partners in multiple local settings, but again they are severely resource

constrained. More generally, we recommend that steps are taken to encourage efforts to

secure economies of scale and scope by cooperation and integration between local

partnerships.

Recommendation 3b : There may be a need to provide more advice and guidance on how to implement NEWP at the local level


45

8.22 In addition, a finding of this initial process evaluation is that local partners would value more

guidance on how to implement NEWP at the local level; and they would welcome tools, etc., to

facilitate this. Given that the successful implementation of NEWP depends, to a large extent,

on local action, this could be catalytic in enabling future delivery.

Recommen dation 3c: There is a need to improve communication with – and the thorough engagement of – the commercial sector in taking forward “valuing nature” principles and embedding them within the mainstream

8.23 A much more specific dimension relates to the role of businesses in working towards NEWP’s

Ambitions. A number of consultees commented on the lack of general engagement with

businesses – but also on “the environment sector’s” limited understanding of the tensions and

trade-offs that the commercial sector faces, particularly in terms of “valuing nature”. This

issue may be improved through particular NEWP initiatives (such as Biodiversity Offsetting

Pilots, NIAs and LNPs) at a local, place-specific, level, but engagement and communication of

positive messages needs to be widened out to the commercial sector more broadly. HM

Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills could play an important role

in this respect.

Recommendation 3d: The relationship between LNPs and LEPs needs to evolve, particularly in the light of the growing significance attached to the latter in spearheading local economic growth

8.24 It is recommended that some attention should be given to the relationship between LNPs and

LEPs. This initial process evaluation has found examples of these emerging partnerships

working very well together in some places, but elsewhere there are some challenges. In the

light of Budget 2013, government’s response to Lord Heseltine’s report on local growth, and

Spending Round 2013, LEPs will be able to influence more resources than hitherto. They will

also have a clearer – and more narrowly defined – brief to drive forward economic growth at

a local level. LEPs are being asked to develop strategic multi-year plans and to negotiate a

“growth deal” which will include an allocation from the Single Local Growth Fund. The

government is also aligning EU structural and investment funds with the Single Local Growth

Fund; nominal LEP allocations relating to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

and European Social Fund (ESF) have been announced for the 2014-20 programming period.

For the aims of NEWP to be realised, there therefore needs to be a strong and constructive

working relationship between LNPs and LEPs at a local level.

Implications for the Evaluation Framework and Plan

8.25 Finally – and as a post-script to this initial process evaluation report – it is important to reflect

back on the implications for the Evaluation Framework and the Defra NEWP Evaluation Plan.

The issues raised by this initial process evaluation, and the anticipated outcomes that partners

expect to see as a result of NEWP, have informed the design and definition of the NEWP

Evaluation Framework and its associated high level evaluation questions and evaluation

plans. In future evaluation activity, it will be important to test further some of the emerging

findings from this process evaluation – especially in terms whether momentum is maintained

following the (often catalytic) activities undertaken to date, and the extent to which progress

is being made against the anticipated outcomes.


A-1

Annex A: Using the Evaluation Framework to structure the initial process evaluation of NEWP

A.1 The brief for the initial process evaluation related to NEWP as a whole and, hence, the

progress of the White Paper as a whole – not simply the progress of individual commitments

in isolation (other than on an illustrative basis)24.

A.2 For NEWP, the “whole is (much) greater than the sum of the parts” and the delivery of the White

Paper cannot be reduced to 92 commitments, important though they are. NEWP “requires us

all to put the value of nature at the heart of our decision-making” and its intent is that “we will

mainstream the value of nature”. Moreover, the emphasis is strongly on devolved and non-

prescriptive delivery. For all these reasons, the initial process evaluation needed to take a

broader perspective and it needed to engage with a constituency that was wider than (what

might be defined as) the “environment sector” within and beyond government.

Using the Evaluation Framework

A.3 In terms of the process evaluation, the need for this breadth of perspective presented some

methodological and conceptual challenges, as the graphic below attempts to summarise.

Figure A-1: Approaching the process evaluation of NEWP

A.4 In response, the decision was made to use the four key Themes that had been designed and

tested through a parallel exercise to define an Evaluation Framework for NEWP25: after much

reflection, the four Themes were all judged to be central to all four of NEWP’s Ambitions

(albeit from slightly different vantage points) and to be particularly important dimensions

with regard to evaluation. They were not (and are not) a “new” structure for NEWP and they

24 There was also a wider and more prosaic factor that needed to be taken into account. In practice, some of NEWP’s

commitments are being evaluated separately and individually, and a number of process evaluation studies are underway.

Defra was concerned that the initial process evaluation of NEWP should not impinge on these separate exercises 25 This is reported separately. Note that SQW’s report on the Evaluation Framework explains the rationale and logic

underpinning these Themes in more detail


A-2

have no wider status, but they do provide a basis for asking specific – and important –

evaluation questions; and indeed, the Evaluation Framework sought to define – in headline

terms – what the principal questions needed to be.

Figure A-2: Themes identified within the Evaluation Framework for NEWP as the basis for process evaluation

Source: SQW

A.5 The initial process evaluation used the structure developed through the Evaluation

Framework as its key organising device. Specifically, it sought to generate and review

evidence that shed light on the four Themes. Inevitably – and appropriately – this entailed

frequent reference to one or more of the commitments; but the Theme-based structure

developed through the Evaluation Framework:

• necessitated some consideration of the progress of commitments in a far wider

context, consistent with the scope of pan-government White Paper with a 50-year

vision

• allowed for individual commitments to be considered through a range of different

lenses, recognising that many were multi-dimensional in their design (and often,

“process” was being tested as much as “impact”).

A.6 In the paragraphs that follow, we explain briefly each of the key Themes. We also summarise

their relevance to each of the Ambitions; set out the potential evaluation questions which

were specified in the Evaluation Framework; and provide a high level logic chain26.

26 This analysis is a summarised version of that presented in full in the parallel Evaluation Framework report


A-3

Theme 1: Recognising the value of nature

A.7 The first Theme focuses on whether and how nature is being valued in both monetary and

non-monetary terms, and whether and how this is recognised by communities, businesses and

government. It reflects and responds to observations made in the National Ecosystems

Assessment (NEA) that “the natural world, its biodiversity and its ecosystems are critically

important to our well-being and economic prosperity, but are consistently under-valued”. Its

relevance to each of the Ambitions is summarised in the table below.

Table A-1: Theme 1 (Recognising the value of nature) and its fit with the Ambitions in NEWP

Ambition Read-across from Theme 1: Recognising the value of nature


In general terms, the Ambition seeks to secure a net gain in the value of nature (page 14)

More specifically (and illustratively), Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) are intended to contribute to the green economy (page 20); the planning system must reflect the value of natural systems (page 22); biodiversity offsetting is encouraged (page 22); and the scope for improving the environment while increasing food production will be investigated (page 24)


Overall, the Ambition seeks to properly value stocks and flows of natural capital (page 34)

More specifically (and illustratively), natural capital will be put at the heart of government accounting (page 36); Government will fully consider the value of nature in all relevant Impact assessments and new supplementary guidance to HM Treasury’s Green Book will be provided to help value the natural environment in appraisals (page 43); a “road map” to the green economy will be published (page 36); schemes will be introduced to encourage Payments for Ecosystem Services (page 39); and steps will be taken to price environmental resources correctly (page 37)

NEA (2)

Building on the National Ecosystem Assessment, the Government will support a further phase of ground-breaking research. It will investigate the mix of future actions most likely to secure the most benefits for nature and for people from our ecosystems. It will also develop practical tools to assist decision-makers in applying the lessons of the NEA.


Overall, the Ambition aims to ensure that more people enjoy the benefits of nature (page 42)

More specifically (and illustratively),the case is made for improving access to green space to improve health and reduce healthcare costs (page 46), and the case is also made for using the Pupil Premium to ensure that pupils from deprived backgrounds have fairer access to nature (page 48)

International and EU leadership

In broad terms, the intention is to achieve sustainable economic growth and food, water, climate and energy security (page 58)

Specific commitments include steps to help developing countries value their own ecosystems (page 59)

Source: SQW

A.8 In relation to Theme 1, key evaluation questions include the following:

• are businesses/communities/government being equipped to recognise better the

value of nature?

• are businesses recognising new green market opportunities, and incorporating an

ecosystem approach (“valuing nature”) into their delivery?

• as natural capital being captured in value and prices?

A.9 The summary logic chain for Theme 1 is provided overleaf.


A-4

Figure A-1: Recognising the value of nature


A-5

Theme 2: Achieving integrated landscape delivery to create a more resilient ecological network

A.10 Underpinned by the findings of the Lawton Review, Theme 2 concerns the need for partners

to take a holistic, ecosystems approach at a landscape-scale in order to “leave the natural

environment of England in a better state than [it was] inherited”. It is reflected throughout

NEWP and its commitments, as the table below demonstrates.

Table A-1: Theme 2 (Achieving integrated landscape-scale delivery) and its fit with the Ambitions in NEWP

Ambition Read-across from Theme 2: Achieving integrated landscape -scale delivery to create a more resilient ecological network


In high level terms, there is a very strong read-across between this Ambition and Theme 2: the Ambition calls for “joined-up action at local and national levels to create an ecological network which is resilient to changing pressures” (page 14)

Numerous more specific statements provide greater expression – for example, through the establishment of Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) and Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) (page 19); using Environmental Stewardship and the Woodland Grant Scheme to advance ecological restoration at the landscape scale (page 21); and catchment-level partnerships (page 30)

Biodiversity 2020 will also help to drive/deliver landscape scale delivery – it is written through the strategy and its targets.


Although Theme 2 is not central to this Ambition, there are clear links. At a high level, for example, this Ambition commits to restoring degraded natural capital, and also to encouraging jobs and businesses that are resilient to pressures on the environment (page 35)

Specific activities and commitments consistent with Theme 2 include: completing a natural capital asset check (page 36), and using green infrastructure to promote sustainable growth (page 38)


This Ambition is concerned with helping people to take more responsibility for their environment and that in turn ought to be consistent with landscape-scale delivery (page 44)

Working at a “landscape scale” is premised on a wider approach to the management of the countryside and green spaces in towns and cities. Within this Ambition, there are many related commitments (e.g. new Green Areas Designations, page 49)


The imperative to work at the landscape scale was, in part, prompted by the failure to achieve biodiversity improvements – hence support for the implementation of Nagoya commitments is, in large part, support for integrated landscape-scale delivery (page 60)

Source: SQW


• are partners working together and across boundaries to achieve integrated

landscape-scale delivery?

• is nature being reconnected at a significant scale?

• is ecological resilience improving?

A.12 The high level logic chain for Theme 2 is presented in the graphic overleaf.


A-6

Figure A-1: Theme 2 - Achieving integrated landscape-scale delivery to create a more resilient ecological network


A-7

Theme 3: Enhanced partnership working, locally and nationally, consistent with the purposes of NEWP

A.13 Theme 3 is not an explicit ambition within NEWP in its own right, but it is absolutely critical

to its success. It is concerned with the processes through which NEWP’s overall aims will be

achieved: these ought to outlive the specific commitments which provided the immediate

catalyst for them.

Table A-1: Theme 3 (Enhanced partnership working) and its fit with the Ambitions in NEWP

Ambition Read-across from Theme 3: Enhanced partnership working, both locally and nationally, consistent with the purposes of NEWP


At the highest level, in relation to this Ambition, NEWP states that “we will achieve this through joined-up action at local and national levels” (page 14); and, further, that progress will be achieved by “encouraging collaboration between sectors” (page 15)

More specific partnership-based commitments and priorities linked to this first Ambition include: forming Local Nature Partnerships (page 19); establishing catchment-level partnerships (page 30); and working with partners to develop more flexible approaches to Environmental Stewardship (page 25)


In relation to growing a green economy, the comment is made that “the government cannot do this alone; businesses and wider society must also play their part” (page 25), and the inference is stronger partnership working

For example, there are commitments to create a Green Economy Council with leading businesses (page 37) and also to work with local authority partnerships through the Total Environment initiative (page 38)


At the highest level, this Ambition is premised on a “partnership” between people and nature – or at least, strengthened connections between the two (page 44)

Specific commitments include: Local Nature Partnerships and Health and Wellbeing Boards working together (page 46); and the establishment of a Green Infrastructure Partnership (page 51)


This Ambition is concerned, inter alia, with collaborating closely with EU partners (page 60) and supporting the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) (page 60)

Source: SQW


• are meaningful and effective cross-sectoral partnerships emerging?

• are available resources being used more effectively; and is the knowledge/

competence of partners improving?

• at the highest level, are good connections being forged between people and nature?

A.15 The high level logic chain that has been developed for Theme 3 is presented overleaf.


A-8

Figure A-1: Enhancing partnership working, both locally and nationally, consistent with the purpose of NEWP


A-9

Theme 4: Influencing wider decision-making

A.16 Theme 4 is linked implicitly to “mainstreaming the value of nature” – another process that is

intrinsic to NEWP – and is consistent with the overarching narrative of localised and devolved

delivery. Again, this is likely to be crucially important in securing sustained delivery over the

medium-long term.

Table A-1: Theme 4 (Influencing wider decision-making) and its fit with the Ambitions in NEWP

Ambition Read-across to Theme 4: Influencing wider decision -making


In the narrative, the statement is made that “our society must act on all the evidence we now have” and the clear implication is that wider decision-making ought to be informed by an understanding of the value of nature (page 15)

The accompanying text provides many more specific examples. For instance, reference is made to the Localism Bill (now Act) and the freedoms and responsibilities this affords on local authorities and communities (page 20). Further, a Natural Value Ambassadors Programme is envisaged to engage with key decision makers (page 20). In addition, new voluntary approaches to biodiversity offsetting are a clear commitment (page 22) as is the imperative to influence the National Planning Policy Framework (page 22); in both cases, there are clear links to decisions made with regard to land use and wider spatial planning


Central to this Ambition is the thesis that if the value of natural capital is placed at the heart of economic thinking, businesses (and, indeed, government) will make better decisions

More specific interventions are also proposed. One example surrounds the use of environmental taxes (where appropriate) to create efficient markets and price environmental resources correctly (page 37). Another surrounds the extension of schemes in which the provider of nature’s services is paid by beneficiaries (page 39)


This Ambition is concerned, fundamentally, with removing the barriers that prevent people connecting with nature (e.g. lack of information): the intention, then, is to “make it easier for people to do the right thing” (page 45)

Various specific commitments are proposed. One example is an online “one stop shop” for teachers, parents and children interested in learning outdoors (page 48). Another is concerned with the provision of a single “My Environment” web portal (page 56)


There is a strong read-across to this Ambition from Theme 4. Reform of the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries Policies (page 63) are among the most important

Source: SQW


• are individuals/communities making well-informed choices?

• is the planning system taking account of nature appropriately as part of decision-

making and delivering good results for nature?

• in making decisions, is government considering the state and value of natural capital

in England?

A.18 The high level logic chain for Theme 4 is presented overleaf.


A-10

Figure A-1: Theme 4: Influencing wider decision-making


B-1

Annex B: Bilateral consultations and the stakeholder workshop

B.1 The individuals listed below have been consulted as part of this study during the scoping stage

in summer 2012 and/or the more detailed fieldwork in winter/spring 2012/13. SQW would

like to thank all of those who have contributed to this study for the time they made available

and the insights and reflections they provided.

B.2 The consultees included individuals from Defra (involved at both strategic levels and with

specific NEWP commitments); Defra’s agencies such as Natural England, the Environment

Agency and the Forestry Commission; Other Government Departments; and a wide range of

individuals across the environmental and commercial sectors. We sought to gather views

from a range of roles, levels and backgrounds – from Central Government to academia to those

working on the ground. We also sought to include stakeholders operating in different parts

of the country. Consultees were identified through discussion with the Steering Group for this

study and through a process of co-nomination.

Table B-1: Consultees

Name Organisation

David Cooper Defra

Helen Dunn Defra

Michele Pittini Defra

Sarah Webster Defra

Giles Golshetti Defra

Kim Martin Defra

John Kilner Defra

Clive Porro Defra

Benkia Raybould Defra

Andy Davy Defra

Christopher Bailey Defra

Mark Smethurst Defra

Chris Blake Defra

James Markwick Natural England

Andy Nisbet Natural England

Anna Hall Environment Agency

Pat Snowdon Forestry Commission

Ian Bateman University of East Anglia

Dr Bhaskar Vira Department of Geography, University of Cambridge

Rosemary Hails Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, University of Oxford

Kerry Turner School of Environmental Sciences, UEA

Graham Cooper Environmental Finance Magazine


B-2

Name Organisation

Martin Collison Collison & Associates

David Dixon Association of AONBs

Dione Hills Tavistock Institute

Paul Wilkinson Wildlife Trust

Darren Moorcroft RSPB

Emily Barker Worcestershire Biodiversity Partnership

Paul Holley DoH

Helen Hampton DoH

Alison Gowers DoH

Fiona Bowditch DfE

David Pencheon NHS Sustainable Development Unit

Julie Ridge NHS Sustainable Development Unit

Prof. Michael Depledge European Centre for Environment and Human Health

Jennifer Faulkner National Trust

Blanche Cameron RESET Development

Source: SQW

In addition to one-to-one consultations, a workshop was held with the NEWP “Keep in Touch”

group to gather their feedback on progress to date and how the implementation of NEWP

might be improved looking forward. The workshop attendees are listed in the table below.

Table B-2: Workshop attendees

Name Organisation

Penny Bramwell Defra

James Cooper Woodland Trust

James Markwick Natural England (Study Steering Group)

Simon Maxwell Defra (Study Steering Group)

Diane Mitchell NFU

Jeremy Moody The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers

Ben Stafford CPRE

Paul Wilkinson Wildlife Trust

Duncan Williams Defra (Study Steering Group)

Source: SQW

C-1

Annex C: Literature review summary

Introduction

C.1 This annex provides a brief summary of each document reviewed. The table at the end of the

annex distils headlines from each document in terms of what appears to be working well and

less well with regard to NEWP implementation. A full Bibliography is also provided.

Key messages

Link Nature Check 2012

C.2 The view of Wildlife and Countryside Link in its Nature Check 2012 report is that since the

publication of NEWP in June 2011, “progress towards the Ambitions of The Natural Choice –

and the Government’s wider natural environment commitments – has been patchy, at best”. The

report’s view is that “where implementation is dependent on action from other government

departments, as is the case for many of the commitments made in The Natural Choice, progress

has been slow or non-existent”. The report uses the Coalition Government’s 20 major

commitments relevant to the natural environment to make an assessment on progress against

a red, amber, green classification. The report found there to be only two green (good progress)

commitments, both relating to the international protection of animals. There were a further

14 in the amber (delayed or under-delivered) commitments and seven red (poorly or not

delivered) commitments. There is some evidence of progress between the red to amber

categories compared with Link’s 2011 assessment (two green, seven amber and seven red).

House of Commons EFRC fourth report 2012-13

C.3 The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in its fourth report

on the Natural Environment White Paper, collated evidence gathered in an enquiry to examine

NEWP’s policies. The committee raised concerns on delivery, noting that “Defra has not

published an overarching action plan for delivery of the White Paper’s aims, nor has it produced

a timetable for delivering each of the White Paper’s 92 commitments”. The report concluded

that although “there appears to be a genuine will within Defra to pursue the key elements of the

NEWP”, the committee was not assured that the “effective mechanisms have been established

to maintain consistent progress, particularly in other government departments”.

Government response to the Environment, Food and Ru ral Affairs Committee’s report 2012-13

C.4 The Government released a response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

report on the Natural Environment White Paper. The response states that “fourteen months

after the launch, we are making excellent progress in implementing NEWP”. The response

agrees that it is important to be able to assess progress within the Ambitions and states that

Defra is developing a set of indicators to be published.


C-2

Link response to Biodiversity 2020

C.5 Wildlife and Countryside Link produced a standalone report in 2011 to respond to the

publication of the new biodiversity strategy for England. Link expressed disappointment in

relation to the delays in publishing the report as well as concerns that beyond Nature

Improvement Areas and Local Nature Partnerships from the White Paper, details and delivery

of other aspects are delayed. The report supports the four theme outcomes (habitats and

ecosystems on land, Marine habitats, ecosystems and fisheries, species and people) proposed

within the report but suggests a fifth theme of ‘government leading by example’. Link, along

with 15 other organisations, raised concerns about clear delivery plans, linking delivery to a

robust national framework and funding in the longer term.

British Wildlife article by Graham Tucker and David Baldock

C.6 Graham Tucker and David Baldock, in their article The Defra White Paper on the Natural

Environment: laudable ambitions, but timid actions, praise the White Paper in reinforcing the

importance of nature and for committing the government to “an ambitious 2020 mission”.

However they criticise the White Paper for a “lack of a longer-term funding strategy” and they

also note that “many of the actions proposed are rather tentative, with many being pilots, small-

scale initiatives, dependent on further reviews, task-forces investigations or initiatives with slow

timetables”. The article concludes with the view that the 2020 nature conservation targets are

unlikely to be met without significantly more resources.

Link paper on the first year of the Natural Environment White Paper

C.7 The Wildlife and Countryside Link report on the first year of the Natural Environment White

Paper looks specifically reflect on progress made with its commitments and wider Ambitions.

Despite raising concerns about a need to integrate messages within other departments and

their resource allocations, “insufficient urgency in identifying funding mechanisms” and clarity

of purpose and dedicated support for initiatives, the report is mainly positive. Link

congratulates Defra on its achievements and acknowledges that after one year, there are early

signs of “significant milestones” which have been achieved in terms of the National Planning

Policy Framework (NPPF), Nature Improvement Areas, and Local Nature Partnerships.

C-3

What is working and what is not, and the added value of NEWP?

C.8 Table C-1 presents the conclusions from the different documents we have reviewed on what is working well and less well in the implementation of NEWP.

Table C-1: Views on success and barriers in delive ry from literature

Theme What is working well, and why? What factors have e nabled success? What is not working well, and why? what are the ba rriers to delivery

Recognising the value of nature (costs and benefits)

• Progress has been made 2011 – 2012 in relation to land use planning commitments, “reflecting the Government’s willingness to engage and listen to stakeholders on this issue”. [1]

• Defra did not provide a clear road map on how biodiversity offsets would interact with the planning system, particularly the work that has been done through the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) process. This gap must be addressed, as the implementation of any biodiversity offsets scheme will depend on the legal and policy framework of the planning system. [6]

• A “lack of practical action to deliver Biodiversity 2020 commitments”. [1]

• A “lack of action for the marine environment, which is leading to further degradation of this precious natural habitat, and the animals and plants that it supports”. [1]

• Creative approaches to funding for the natural environment - Defra must monitor the effectiveness of market-led/ private sector-driven funding mechanisms and initiatives to ensure that they deliver the funding required. [6]

Achieving integrated landscape-scale delivery to create a more resilient ecological network

• Good progress has been made in establishing NIAs, “thanks to the clear commitment to establish them in The Natural Choice, dedicated administrative support within Defra and the availability of some initial funding”. [1]

• Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) have received funding within a year of the White Paper’s publication. The progress made to date in the delivery of initiatives such as the NIAs has been due to their clarity of purpose, dedicated administrative support within Defra and the availability of initial funding. [6]

• Failing policies on bovine tuberculosis, “the Government continues to give insufficient regard to scientific evidence and the promised ban on performing wild animals in circuses, which is now being undermined by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ proposed licensing regime”. [1]

• Budget of £7.5 million to establish 12 NIAs. Inadequate to achieve significant impacts especially in lowland areas where land-purchase costs are high. [4]

Enhanced partnership working, both locally and nationally, consistent with the purposes of NEWP

• Defra has successfully launched 12 pilot Nature Improvement Areas across England with the support and cooperation of partners such as non-governmental organisations, local authorities and statutory agencies; this initiative is also supported by appropriate policies in the new National Planning Policy Framework. [1]

• NIAs have strong political and departmental support, are recognised within the NPPF, and generated much interest across England from communities, landowners, farmers and conservation Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). [6]

• Rationale and objectives of the Local Nature Partnerships unclear. “It is not clear how local authorities are supposed to collaborate, and many will not have much capacity to do so”. [4]

Influencing wider decision-making

• International protection of animals. “Ministerial support, active stakeholder engagement and appropriate resourcing have combined to deliver real progress in protecting endangered cetaceans and elephants”. [1]

• Nature Check 2011 called for the Prime Minister to step up and be a champion for the natural environment. According to the report, that has not happened.


C-4

Theme What is working well, and why? What factors have enabled success? What is not working well, and why? what are the barriers to delivery

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) demonstrated the valueof a strong White Paper. [6]

• The White Paper provides Defra with a strong, clear message to thewhole of Government about the importance of our naturalenvironment and what is needed to secure it for the future. Yet thismessage has not been fully integrated within other departments,their initiatives or resource allocation. [6]

General comments on NEWP • The setting up of NIAs and LNPs showed the potential of the WhitePaper to inspire people to take action on the ground, and theprogress which can be made when government commitment,administrative support and funding are targeted and made to workeffectively. [6]

• Implementation of government policy is confusingly varied. Whereimplementation is dependent on actions from other governmentdepartments, progress has been slow or non-existent. [1]

• The NEWP contains 92 specific commitments but there is littleinformation as to how they link into an overarching ambition toembed the value of nature within decision-making. The quarterlynewsletters sent to all stakeholders only provide an update whereprogress has been made, rather than to all commitments. [2]

• Commitments have no timetable for delivery and so it is difficult tosee whether progress has been made and whether deadlines havebeen met. [2]

Source: SQW


C-5

Bibliography

[1] Wildlife and Countryside Link, November 2012, Nature Check 2012: An analysis of the

Government’s natural environment commitments.

[2] House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, July 2012, Natural

Environment White Paper Fourth Report of Session 2012–13.

[3] Wildlife and Countryside Link, December 2011, Implementing Biodiversity2020: A strategy

for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services.

[4] Tucker, G and Baldock, D, August 2011, British Wildlife, The Defra White Paper on the

Natural Environment: laudable ambitions, but timid actions.

[5] House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, October 2012,

Natural Environment White Paper: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of

Session 2012–13.

[6] Wildlife and Countryside Link, July 2012, The first year of the Natural Environment White

Paper: is the ambition being delivered?


D-1

Annex D: e-survey of NEWP stakeholders

Introduction

D.1 To inform the process evaluation, an e-survey was undertaken with stakeholders. The aim of

this survey was to collect stakeholders’ views on progress made in the implementation of

NEWP; what has worked well and less well; emerging outcomes; the extent to which NEWP

has influenced stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviour; and key lessons looking forward.

D.2 In consultation with Defra and Natural England, a list of 85 stakeholders was developed. This

included members of the NEWP Keep in Touch group, key environmental and non-

environmental bodies, members of the Wildlife and Countryside Link, and those who had

contributed to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee review of NEWP and the

Lawton report. Hence it was a list of informed stakeholders.

D.3 The survey was carried out online, using KeySurvey. Following approval from Defra’s Survey

Control Unit, it was piloted prior to use. It was issued to stakeholders by email in early

February 2013. A total of 17 responses were received (a 20% response rate). A mixture of

public, private and voluntary sector stakeholders and non-governmental and

lobby/representative groups responded to the survey.

Stakeholder understanding and engagement

D.4 Figure D-1 presents stakeholders’ assessments of their understanding of what NEWP is

seeking to achieve. All 17 stakeholders reported that they had an understanding of what

NEWP is seeking to achieve: 14 claimed to have a “good” or “excellent” understanding.

Figure D-1: Stakeholders’ assessment of their understanding of what NEWP is seeking to achieve

Source: SQW stakeholder survey analysis

D.5 Stakeholders were asked what aspects of NEWP they had engaged in over the last 18-24

months: Figure D-2 presents these results. Eleven respondents had been involved in

developing the NEWP document itself, whilst 13 respondents had been engaged directly in


D-2

delivering NEWP’s Ambitions and commitments. Some respondents had been involved with

NEWP in other ways, including: in an advisory capacity, in policy groups, with partnership

working, engaging people, assessing engagement and tracking progress of recommendations.

Figure D-2: Stakeholder engagement in NEWP over the last 18-24 months


D.6 Figure D-3 shows that sixteen respondents considered that the implementation of NEWP was

meeting their expectations to either a “small” or “reasonable” extent. None considered that

their expectations were being met fully; and equally, none considered that they were not being

met at all.

Figure D-3: Stakeholders’ answers to the question of whether the implementation of NEWP is meeting their expectations?

Response options Number of respondents

No, not at all 0

To a small extent 9

To a reasonable extent 7

To a significant extent 0

Yes, fully 0

Don’t know 1


Influence of NEWP on organisations

D.7 Figure D-4 presents stakeholders’ responses to the question of how – and to what extent –

NEWP had influenced their own organisation. Respondents considered that NEWP had

influenced their organisation’s “commitment to the Ambitions” the most, with ten out of

seventeen respondents answering to a “reasonable” or “significant” extent. Eleven

respondents considered that NEWP had influenced their organisation’s “policy making”, at

least “to some extent”.

6

1

1

1 1

3

5

2

1

4

7

6

4

4

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other engagement /

involvement

Directly delivering NEWP’s

ambitions and

commitments

Developing the NEWP

document itself

Not answered Don’t know/not applicable No engagement

Limited level of engagement Some engagement High level of engagement


D-3

Figure D-4: Extent to which NEWP has influenced stakeho lder’s organisations


D.8 Stakeholders were then asked whether this influence on their organisation would have

happened without the existence of NEWP. Figure D-5 shows that respondents considered that

most of the changes possibly or would have happened anyway. Eight respondents suggested

that their organisation’s commitment to the Ambitions set out would have happened anyway

in the absence of NEWP.

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

8

3

6

9

7

5

2

5

4

6

4

1

5

2

2

7

1

2

7

5

8

2

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Your organisations

investments/spending…

Your organisations policy-

making?

Your organisations ability to

work in partnership?

Your organisations capacities

and capabilities?

Your organisations attitudes?

Your organisations practices?

Your organisations commitment

to the ambitions set out in…

Not answered Don’t know Not at all

To a small extent To a reasonable extent To a significant extent


D-4

Figure D-5: Stakeholders’ views on whether influence on their organisation would have happened in the absence of NEWP


Stakeholder views on delivery

D.9 Figure D-6 presents stakeholder views on the aspects of NEWP that have worked well to date.

Overall, respondents were positive on aspects that had worked well, citing the establishment

of NCC, LNPs, NIAs and biodiversity pilots. Cooperation, communication, funding and resource

availability were considered enabling factors.

Figure D-6: Stakeholder views on what aspects of NEWP (as a whole and/or its commitments) have worked well to date, and what factors have helped in enabling delivery

Theme Worked well Enabled delivery


• Working groups

• Technical reporting

• Establishment of NCC

• Awareness raising

• Commitment to form the EcosystemsMarkets Task Force and Natural CapitalCommittee

Cooperation

Good literature

Funding of pilot projects

NERC funding

Individual groups assigned to take tasks forward


• Too early to say

• Successful establishment of LNPs

• Establishment of the NIAs and biodiversityPilots

• Water catchment pilots

• Environmental Stewardship funding

Partnership working and commitment

Availability of funding

Resources

Land availability

The Lawton Review

Good levels of engagement

4

2

2

3

3

2

2

3

1

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

3

3

9

4

5

6

6

7

5

4

7

6

6

6

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Your organisations

investments/spending

decisions?

Your organisations policy-

making?

Your organisations ability to

work in partnership?

Your organisations capacities

and capabilities?

Your organisations attitudes?

Your organisations practices?

Your organisations commitment

to the ambitions set out in

NEWP?Not answered

Don't Know

No

Possibly

Yes


D-5

Theme Worked well Enabled delivery


• Amount of partnerships, initiatives andpilots

• A vision for nature provides a good basisfor setting the scene

• Engaging with stakeholders

• Funding to set up LNP‘

• Need for LPAs to prepareLocal Plans

• Good communication

• Commitment


• White Paper as a framework

• Environmental Stewardship

• Publication of headline objectives

• The Government

• Clear messages

Other aspects of NEWP

• Delivery of biodiversity enhancement

• Stepping stones

• Good relationships

• Funding


D.10 Similarly, stakeholders were asked which aspect of NEWP had not worked so well to date.

Figure D-7 presents this data. Respondents had concerns around the variation in the quality

of some of the relationships and the communications between LEPs and LNPs. Also, there

were concerns around the clarity of ownership of NEWP and the engagement of non-

conservation sectors. Budget cuts, reduced resources, lack of support and uncertainties were

considered hindering factors.

Figure D-7: Stakeholder views on what aspects of NEWP (as a whole and/or its commitments) have not worked so well to date, and what factors have hindered delivery

Worked not so well Hindered delivery


• The Natural Capital Committee

• Engagement of economicdevelopment sector

• The Environment Bank (littleimpact)

• Lack of resources for LNPs

• Conflicting messages from centralgovernment

• Rushed reports


• Lack of strategy within Local Plans.

• Support of LNPs

• Variation in the quality of therelationships LEPs and LNPs

• NIAs focus purely on environmentalgains and too biodiversity focused

• Budget cuts

• Reduced resources

• Too many pilots

• Lack of government support

• Uncertainty around NIAs


• Limited communication betweenLNPs and LEPs

• Engagement of non-conservationsectors

• Timescales too short.

• Difficulties of engaging key localstakeholders

• Inconsistent funding


• Clarity of ownership of NEWP

• Difficulties around CAP process

• Lack of staff

• Treasury policy

Other aspects of NEWP • Connecting nature with children

• Peat targets

• A commitment to the NEWP fromthe Government.

• Evidence


Benefits, outcomes and impacts

D.11 All respondents were asked whether they had observed any benefits, outcomes or impacts of

NEWP. Figure D-8 provides responses received in relation to this. Greater awareness of the

value of nature, new partnerships and increased communications across stakeholders were

considered benefits, outcomes and impacts which could be observed so far.


D-6

D.12 Responses were limited as some respondents had not yet observed any benefits, outcomes or

impacts whilst others felt it was too early to tell.

Figure D-8: Benefits, outcomes and impacts observed by stakeholders

Benefits, outcomes and impacts


• Greater awareness of the need to produce more food but haveless of an impact

• Overall greater awareness about the value of nature

Achieving integrated landscape -scale delivery to create a more resilient ecological network

• “Nature Improvement Areas have increased the ambition ofconservation partners and others through the funding andprestige of being selected as an NIA”

• Ecosystems assessment mapping


• New partnerships/ area based landscape initiatives• Health related and education project partnerships

Influencing wider decision -making • Project to value ecosystem services should result in higherprofile and influence on decision making

Other aspects of NEWP • Greater dialogue across stakeholders


Looking forward

D.13 Finally, all respondents were asked for comments on how the implementation of NEWP could

be improved to maximise the White Paper’s impact going forward. The following suggestions

were made by stakeholders:

• “targeted and efficient funding”

• “flexible yet coherent structure within which organisations can work and collaborate”

• “simple, concise guidance for planners on how NEWP relates to their work”

• “revoke the 2026 cut off for definitive path-claims”

• “more delivery and fewer pilots”

• “identification of gaps where interests and specialisms are not being addressed by

different stakeholders”

• “better promotion to industry of NEWP”

• “more financial support for LNPs”

• “clearer policy context, funding and longer time horizon for some initiatives”

• “ensure that Local Wildlife Sites are taken into account”

• “realistic targets”.


E-1

Annex E: List of abbreviations used frequently in NEWP

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

EMTF Ecosystems Market Task Force

LEP Local Enterprise Partnerships

LNP Local Nature Partnership

NCC Natural Capital Committee

NEA National Ecosystems Assessment

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NIA Nature Improvement Area

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

OGD Other Government Department (i.e. not Defra)

PES Payments for Ecosystem Services

TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP): Initial Process...

Documents

Transcript of Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP): Initial Process...