Ellie Strike – Head of Regulatory Programmes, OEP
Back in September, we published our first OEP blog, where I talked about our work on Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) – looking at their role in achieving government's ambitions for nature's recovery. Since then, we've been busy gathering evidence from 37 of the 48 responsible authorities (RAs) and about 40 other stakeholders involved in LNRS. Through this engagement, we've learned a lot about the experiences of those tasked with creating these strategies, including the challenges they've faced and those things that have helped along the way.
We’re grateful to those who’ve participated so generously in our work, both in terms of time and in sharing their experiences. It is clear to see that there is real passion and dedication from many people involved in creating LNRS, and it is impressive to see how much has already been accomplished.
In this blog, I share some of the insights we've gathered from talking to RA’s in relation to the challenges faced. While this is a summary and not exhaustive, we hope it will raise awareness of these issues while many LNRS are still in development. In a future blog we will look at enablers and some of the solutions to these challenges.
A more detailed analysis, including findings and recommendations, will be provided in our full report to Parliament next year.
We've grouped what we’ve heard so far into five broad themes:
- guidance & advice
- data & evidence
- mapping
- resources & timescales
- stakeholder engagement
Here are some headlines from each.
- Guidance and Advice
The Environment Act 2021 established the need for LNRS, with further details provided in statutory guidance and further non-statutory guidance from Defra and Natural England. Each LNRS area also had a Natural England Senior Adviser to offer tailored support.
Whilst advice and flexibility in guidance has been appreciated, for example, in that it allows for tailored approaches to local circumstances, some reflected it will also have led to inconsistencies and inefficiencies. We also heard that information was 'drip fed' and there was some confusion or disagreement over guidance – specifically in relation to some of the terminology used. Where guidance was received at a late stage for some elements of LNRS development, we were told this led to RAs having to redo parts of their strategy.
Many RAs highlighted key guidance which is still outstanding – namely the guidance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on integrating LNRS with local planning systems. This is causing ongoing uncertainty. There is a desire for further guidance on the relationship between LNRS and agri-environment schemes. Some RAs have highlighted a desire for guidance on the use of local targets and measuring success, which they feel would help in creating more robust and actionable plans.
2. Data and Evidence
Good data is crucial for LNRS to ensure nature recovery efforts are targeted effectively. Feedback indicates varied experiences with data and evidence. Local Environmental Record Centres (LERCs) and previous studies have provided valuable baseline data for some, while others have faced challenges due to data access, gaps, and quality issues.
Some RAs, who have struggled with data gaps, have relied on incomplete or older data, which they fear may impact the accuracy and reliability of their strategies. The issue of data licensing was highlighted frequently, with some RAs creating two maps, one for internal use and one that could be published. Data issues added to administrative burdens and caused delays.
RAs told us they would like to see clearer data standards and consistent requirements for future monitoring to ensure robust evaluation of LNRS success.
3. Mapping
Mapping is a core component of LNRS and is legally required. Each LNRS must include a local habitat map that identifies existing areas of importance for nature conservation, potential areas for biodiversity, and areas where nature recovery could contribute to other environmental benefits.
Established frameworks like the Lawton principles and digital mapping methodologies have helped some RAs identify high-priority areas that align local actions with national goals. However, we heard that flexibility in mapping guidance may lead to inconsistencies, making it challenging to aggregate individual LNRS maps into a cohesive national picture. RAs are unclear how LNRS together will contribute to the nature recovery network.
Additionally, the lack of clarity on the scope and scale of mapping has introduced complexity, with some RAs opting for scales that may not support future uses. The technical skills and resources required for mapping have also varied, impacting on what was possible to achieve in terms of mapping functionality. To create their maps, many RAs had to reallocate or buy in additional resources.
4. Resources and Timescales
LNRS were rolled out in April 2023, with an expected completion timeline of 12-18 months, aiming for all LNRS to be in place by March 2025. The government provided £14 million in 'new burden' funding to support this process. While this funding has been tailored to local needs and supported strategy development, there is widespread concern about long-term funding beyond March 2025. This uncertainty has affected current LNRS development, particularly in areas like engagement, developing realistic measures, and considering longer term monitoring, where lack of certainty around future funding has affected confidence about delivery. Some suggested a desire for a statutory requirement for delivery of LNRS to improve confidence in relation to funding and delivery.
The ambiguity around ongoing funding means there is significant concern about losing staff who have now established expertise in the LNRS process. There is also concern over future prospects of delivering and monitoring progress of LNRS to inform future review, and ensure they make a meaningful contribution to nature recovery.
The resource-intensive nature of creating the LNRS has required significant input from stakeholders, often on a voluntary basis, leading to mixed levels of engagement and subsequent impacts on timelines. Despite these challenges, the first LNRS, West of England, was launched in November 2024, well ahead of the March 2025 deadline. We anticipate more being adopted ahead of March 2025, but many will come a long time after.
5. Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement is central to LNRS development, enabling RAs to leverage local knowledge and work towards consensus and a shared vision for nature recovery. Relationships with organisations like LERCs, Natural England, and Local Nature Partnerships have been invaluable, providing essential data and practical support. Conversely, we’ve received feedback that some Defra arm’s length bodies have engaged quite late in the process, which has caused some frustration.
Achieving effective engagement has required significant resources, with challenges in engaging certain communities frequently raised. RAs told us they felt poorly equipped to address challenges from farmers and land managers due to the limited information available on funding or benefits. Lack of clarity around the relationship between LNRS and agri-environment schemes was commonly cited as an issue that impacted on RAs ability to effectively engage with this group of stakeholders.
What next?
Our work continues as we review 12 LNRS to inform our overarching review. We will combine all elements of our work into a report to be published and laid before Parliament in the summer of next year.
If you have experiences to share or reflections on the LNRS process, in particular in relation to how you may have overcome or worked around any issues summarised in this blog, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us at: LNRS@theoep.org.uk
