Guidance

Feedback on the last round of applications in 2022

Updated 20 October 2023

Applies to England

1. Overview

This feedback is applicable to round one of Landscape Recovery. Read the guidance for Landscape Recovery round 2 .

2. General

We received some applications that were not eligible for round one. In the guidance for this round, we specified that projects should cover 500 to 5,000 hectares of broadly contiguous (connected) land. We also specified that public bodies could apply, but only in collaboration with private land managers (including landowners and tenants). Some applications did not meet these requirements.

Stronger bids tended to be ambitious but realistic about what could be achieved in the project development phase. They set out how they would use this phase to refine and clarify roles, responsibilities and environmental objectives, identifying the key issues to resolve and the evidence gathering activities they would need to undertake to substantiate decisions.

The panel found that in some cases, there was a divergence between the total area put forward for the bid and the amount of land which would be subject to restoration, targeted management or other activity.

Bids should keep to the word limits on each question. We set word limits so that everyone had the same opportunity to express their proposals. In cases where applicants went over the stated word limit, the text past the word limit was not shared with the panel so as not to give the applicant an unfair advantage. Some bids included hyperlinks, which we were unable to consider in the evaluation due to the word limits.

When compared to the stronger projects, lower scoring applications often did not provide as much relevant detail on the issues they were trying to address or on the interventions planned, particularly on key elements of the criteria (such as the primary environmental objectives). Some applicants did not make full use of the words available within the word limits to provide as much detail as possible.

It was helpful when answers to the questions were structured to align with the criteria. This helped to ensure and evidence that applications addressed each element.

Some applicants inserted links into their application, which we were unable to consider in the evaluation due to the word limits.

3. Longevity

Many projects successfully conveyed an awareness of the local area and its current issues. The stronger bids demonstrated a clear vision for their project and what they hoped to achieve, bringing in the local environment and co-benefits. They also demonstrated how their projects will be safeguarded for the future.

Some applicants struggled to explain how their projects would restore natural processes.

Some projects did not explain how their project would be carried out in a manner sensitive to the local environment, including considering local geology, soils, heritage and historic features.

Some applicants did not propose any methods to safeguard the outcomes of their project.

4. River restoration

Most applicants clearly explained the problems impacting the water environment in their area. Some bids lacked evidence of a clear definition and understanding of the key issues that they were seeking to address.

The inclusion of current and planned land use maps for project areas helped to illustrate the scale of the project and the proposed land management change.

It was helpful where bids referred to projects’ position in the catchment and where some attempt was made to consider the wider catchment, for example downstream designated sites or the number of properties at risk of flooding. Some weaker applications lacked the potential to deliver the desired outcomes due to their scale or location within the catchment and/or the ambition of the proposed river restoration.

Some bids did not identify the relevant rivers or catchment and/or did not show a clear understanding of the sources, pathways and receptors for key issues to justify the proposed nature-based action.

Detailed responses on the types of land use and management and/or the processes projects would use to establish a clear plan made it easier for the panel to judge whether they could deliver their intended environmental outcomes. A lack of detail hampered applicants’ ability to score highly.

High scorers made clearer links than lower scorers between the proposed interventions and the desired outcomes, for example, habitat to be restored or created and how that would benefit specific target species.

Strong projects clearly understood the importance of land use beyond the river corridor. For example many applications mentioned riparian buffer strips. In these cases, it was helpful to understand the type of buffer strips proposed, for example their width (for example 5m or 10m) or design (for example grass, scrub or wooded), which can have an impact on their effectiveness.

Some applications did not include aquatic target species, for example fish species, that would benefit from the project.

5. Species recovery

Most proposals demonstrated a good understanding and commitment to the application of the four ‘Lawton principles’, including connectivity, as well as a focus on the creation of habitat mosaics.

High scoring applications clearly outlined the project’s focal species, their current status and the reasons behind their decline, as well as demonstrating an understanding of the species’ specific needs throughout their lifecycles. They explained how planned interventions would accommodate these needs and what practical, realistic and deliverable land management the project would put in place to deliver for these species over the long term.

They then identified further assemblages of priority species that would benefit from the land management being proposed, with a strong rationale as to why these species would benefit.

Strong applications clearly set out how they would deliver a diverse mosaic of habitat types or vegetation structure at different scales across the proposed project area in an appropriate way for the local landscape, and then described how this would benefit the species in focus.

They explained how proposed interventions would increase habitat resilience and connectivity, particularly for existing high-value sites (such as sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and special areas of conservation (SACs)), and again outlined how this would benefit the target species. They often also identified actions that would likely improve the condition of relevant existing sites.

Where relevant, high scoring projects provided detail on how their proposed interventions would help control invasive species that posed a risk to the target species, providing supporting evidence based on studies or trials.

Where projects had not yet agreed the details of the proposed interventions, they still scored well if they instead set out a well-defined and credible process to establish a clear plan.

Less well scoring projects often:

• Did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the target species’ needs and/or did not provide sufficient detail on the proposed interventions (e.g. the spatial scale) and the timescales required for the species to recover, considering their habitat requirements and life cycles.

• Planned to reintroduce priority species but provided little detail on how this would be done and/or potential barriers to successful reintroduction.

• Listed additional species that might benefit from proposed interventions for recovery of flagship species but did not provide supporting evidence in terms of habitat requirements of those additional species.
• Did not explain how they would deliver a diverse mosaic of habitat types or vegetation structure and/or how this would benefit the species in focus.
• Planned to change grazing management but did not provide sufficient detail on the nature of those proposed changes and how they would be expected to benefit priority and other species.

6. Secondary environmental objectives

Strong applications involved details of the local issues and their sensitivities. This helped the panel to determine how significant the proposed change could be.

Applications scored more highly where they explained how the issues would be managed and the impact of proposed interventions.

Projects that scored highly under the secondary environmental objectives discussed connectivity for example between location of actions and sources of pollution to justify the measures proposed.

7. Carbon and climate resilience

The scores for the net zero question varied significantly. This was due to the inconsistent use of evidence behind estimates. Most projects responded well to the climate resilience question.

For the net zero question, projects which scored well used evidence in a consistent way. They were ambitious but realistic in their carbon estimates and explained assumptions behind carbon impacts of proposed land use changes.

Projects also scored well where they set out a clear rationale for their assumptions. They were not penalised for using assumptions to calculate carbon sequestration estimates.

Under the climate resilience question, high scoring projects explained how their projects impacted the local area. For example, they considered the potential impact upon local areas susceptible to downstream flooding or the impact of becoming a receiving site for species moving in response to climate change. Higher scoring projects also considered the impacts of climate change on the habitats and species present within the project area.

Projects that scored poorly on net zero and climate resilience often provided a generic response and did not set out details on how the proposed actions would contribute and/or did not provide estimates of potential carbon savings in line with guidance provided.

Some bids focused on the ability to secure carbon finance with little evidence provided as to how the quoted estimate of carbon sequestration was arrived at.

Some proposals missed opportunities to address likely climate impacts on habitats/species, such as tree planting along rivers to mitigate rising water temperatures.

8. Social impact

Most applications considered access to the environment for a range of groups and detailed various social benefits. Stronger applications had clearly tailored and targeted initiatives to ensure that less-well represented groups would benefit from the schemes and people with protected characteristics could access the environmental and social benefits.

In some cases, there was confusion about how access, social benefits and engagement were interpreted across the proposed actions. This led to repetition of initiatives under these criteria. This was particularly the case in relation to the proposed actions for social benefits and engagement, which meant that some bids lacked information about how they would involve local communities and stakeholders during project design and development.

Some applications described in detail how the scheme would enhance the cultural heritage of the area. Overall, the panel would have welcomed greater reflection on cultural heritage within proposals.

Some applications gave a strong response on the rationale for social outcomes but lacked detail on their proposed plans.

Some proposals could have been stronger on community engagement and consideration of how to improve inclusive access and engagement with less well represented groups.

9. Project leadership and delivery

The strongest responses demonstrated a clear governance structure (or future governance structure) and had engaged with all stakeholders involved, for example, tenants.

Weaker responses did not explain how land managers would work together and take decisions during the project development phase, including the key responsibilities and accountabilities of each partner during this phase.

Some also did not clearly identify a single legal entity or confirm security of tenure (including the support of tenants and those with rights to common).

Stronger responses also expressed a good awareness of the risks to their project’s deliverability and proposed some sensible mitigations. Weaker responses did not set out any consideration of the risks and/or included a risk assessment focused only on one or two aspects of delivery rather than showing a broader perspective.

In cases where projects were not strictly contiguous, some applicants did not provide good justification for the lack of contiguity, for example, why the landowners in any gaps were not currently on board and why this would not compromise the environmental outcomes of their project.

10. Costs

Projects that scored well in this criterion demonstrated that costs were reasonable, realistic and justified by providing details about the evidence gathered that could be verified and validated by the panel. For example, it was helpful where projects included evidence of engagement with suppliers, such as quotes or correspondence, in their bid documents.

Projects that scored well also ensured that any uncertainty over the exact magnitude of costs was minimised and/or justified.

Less well scoring projects struggled to demonstrate that the development funding they were bidding for represented good value for money, as they did not provide enough/any evidence of the reasonableness of their costs and/or did not provide sufficient justification. For example, some of these bids reported that engagement with suppliers had occurred but did not provide any evidence of this.