Written evidence submitted by the Greatert Lincolnshire Nature
Partnership (GLNP)

This evidence is submitted by the Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP) – the Local Nature Partnership (LNP) for Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. More information about us can be found on our website: www.glnp.org.uk

1. We are submitting evidence as we are one of the 48 LNPs about which this Inquiry is concerned and we believe we have a particular viewpoint that should be heard.

Executive summary

2. The GLNP has had a robust approach to governance because of our long partnership history and our particular focus on partnership working. This has given us credibility and accountability.
3. Lack of funding has caused resource issues for many LNPs. This is seen as disappointing given the strategic and policy commitments expected of LNPs through the ‘Natural Choice’. The GLNP has a different funding model to other LNPs, in that it provides services. This has allowed it to achieve a great deal. However funding is still an issue and central funding should be provided if delivery of central policy commitments is expected.
4. The GLNP has a portion of a national Nature Improvement Area (NIA) within its area and has worked with it where possible. The GLNP has established a process for selecting local NIAs and this local process has been perceived positively by other LNPs.
5. Through the local Biodiversity Action Plan and the work of the Partners the GLNP has had a positive impact on habitats.
6. The GLNP has undertaken numerous activities with the planning system including a planning roadshow, a position statement and consultation responses. One of these responses achieved an 84% success rate.
7. The GLNP has 48 Partner organisations and strong links have been made because of the partnership approach. Building on the existing expertise and credibility of the Partnership. The same approach was used successfully to develop wider contacts including with the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the Health and Wellbeing Board
8. Despite the success of the GLNP there are still challenges and the GLNP make a number of recommendations to the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) throughout this evidence. 

Evidence in detail

The governance, composition and funding of the LNPs

9. In the experience of the GLNP many LNPs have struggled with governance. The emphasis from Defra in the accreditation process was to recruit influential people to a board without any further advice on how to run a credible partnership with accountability.

10. The GLNP believes we have had a robust approach to governance for two reasons:

10.1.                    Our longer partnership history – the GLNP was a partnership before it was an accredited LNP. Before we became an LNP we were known under a different name, undertook a different (smaller) range of activities and had a different number and suite of Partners. Yet there were similarities in that organisations were used to working with each other under a terms of reference and that a structure was in place to facilitate this including meetings and funding.

10.1.1.  The key point is that this structure was designed to fit local needs, took many years to agree and set up. The effort involved should not be underestimated. This needs consideration against a LNP structure that has been nationally designed and applied to local organisations.

10.2.                    Our focus on partnership – the GLNP believes that the board should represent the partnership as a whole, as this is the only way it can be accountable. In this way the GLNP board is elected from the wider partnership annually according to our terms of reference (which we re-wrote on becoming an accredited LNP). To become a member of the Partnership, organisations need to sign up to the vision of the GLNP. This ensures that everyone in the GLNP is working towards the overall aims of the GLNP rather than partisan interests. Furthermore the work of the GLNP is determined by the Partners and has been solidified into a business plan.

10.2.1.  At the development stage of the LNP interviews were conducted with as many Partners as were available to ask their opinion on the work of the LNP and its priorities. These priorities formed the business plan so Partners are engaged with LNP work and see the GLNP as a credible partnership delivering with and for them.

11. The GLNP would like to recommend two areas under governance for the EAC to consider:

11.1.                    That LNPs are given more time – establishing credibility and then delivering outcomes at this scale and complexity without resources takes significant time.

11.2.                    That LNPs are offered business support – determining appropriate partnership models, terms of reference, funding models, developing business plans. These are areas of support that government departments specialise in and could create a step change in LNP credibility and therefore outcomes.

12. In the experience of the GLNP many LNPs have struggled with funding. The GLNP appreciates the initial funding from Defra to kick start the LNP process. However the lack of ongoing funding is seen as particularly disappointing by many as one of three things that LNPs are supposed to do is “Contribute to achieving the Government’s national environmental objectives locally”[1].

13. In addition, we wish to highlight that a lack of ongoing funding for LNPs to deliver on the Governments’ national environmental objectives locally is incongruent with statements in the ‘The Natural Choice’[2] that state that:

13.1.                    “A healthy, properly functioning natural environment is the foundation of sustained economic growth, prospering communities and personal wellbeing” (paragraph 1)

13.2.                    “The Government wants this to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited” (paragraph 2)

13.3.                    “Economic growth and the natural environment are mutually compatible. Sustainable economic growth relies on services provided by the natural environment” (paragraph 8)

13.4.                    “High-quality natural environments foster healthy neighbourhoods; green spaces encourage social activity and reduce crime” (paragraph 13)

13.5.                    “the value of nature to our economy and society, and to our personal wellbeing, is also clearer than ever. Science, economics and social research have broken new ground, demonstrating that, year by year, the erosion of our natural environment is losing us benefits and generating costs.” (paragraph 1.1)

14. Comparisons are easily drawn with other sectors such as the LEPs. These partnerships are delivering on economic policy for the government and are funded to do so both with funding for projects and secretariat support.

14.1.                    Much of the funding for projects allocated to the LEPs has requirements for match funding and delivery of policy outcomes. Could a similar system be developed for LNPs?

15. The GLNP has a different funding model to most LNPs, we have brought together several areas of service delivery (the Local Records Centre, Local Sites and the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan). These pre-existing service areas have enabled a stable base for LNP activities but we have been unable to bring in additional funding for newer strategic ‘LNP’ work and we are now operating at a deficit.

16. The GLNP has however clearly demonstrated to its Partners that it is capable of delivering outcomes over a number of years. On this basis the GLNP would be capable of delivering further national environmental objectives locally if funding was available.

17. The GLNP would like to recommend one area under funding for the EAC to consider:

17.1.                    That LNPs are offered central funding to further deliver national environmental policy outcomes at the local level where they are able to deliver.

Their impact on Nature Improvement Areas, habitats more generally and on the planning system

18. The GLNP has a portion of a national NIA, the Humberhead Levels, within our boundary. There has been good communication between our organisations, we have set up a data sharing agreement in order to allow easy access to biological data and worked together to contact Local Wildlife Site owners. There were few other opportunities for shared working or projects.

19. Following Defra’s suggestion to establish local NIAs[3] the GLNP has developed a process for selection. This process has been discussed by a number of neighbouring LNPs and by some further away and many of the principles are being adopted by others.

20. The GLNP has also taken part in discussions with other LNPs and planning authorities on a local cross border NIA and again our principles were perceived positively.

21. In the widest sense the GLNP is having a positive impact on habitats – we measure this through the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan with the actions of all the Partners in the Partnership. At the last review in April 2014 73% of actions were on or ahead of schedule and 8% were completed. Without such a reporting system it would be almost impossible to keep track of priority habitat changes and delivery.

22. Looking to the planning system, this is a new area of work the GLNP only began with our accreditation as an LNP. Determining impacts in a slow moving area can be difficult.

23. Our activities so far have included:

23.1.                    A ‘planning roadshow’ jointly with the Greater Lincolnshire LEP to determine issues and barriers in the planning system for both the economy and the natural environment. This was very positive in terms of engagement and clearly showed that the barriers were broadly the same for economy and the environment[4].

23.2.                    Development of a planning position statement. This enables the staff of the GLNP to work on planning issues within an agreed framework without needing to consult all 48 Partner organisations. The development of this position statement is a major success in itself as it brings together traditionally opposed groups, the local authorities and the statutory agencies.

23.3.                    Responding to nine local plan consultations and attended one local plan examination in public. In one of those local consultations a review of the subsequent draft revealed that of the 31 responses the GLNP made, 26 were taken on board, most of them word for word. This is an 84% success rate and a great impact.

23.4.                    Supporting Local Planning Authorities in the administration of their statutory duties (NPPF and NERC duties) through the maintenance and management of a Local records and Local sites systems and other daily work, (e.g. the hosting and steerage of the Central Lincolnshire Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping study) brings us into regular contact with our local authority Partners, and ensures that we have a good working relationship with them.

24. The GLNP would like to recommend four areas under NIAs, habitats and planning for the EAC to consider:

24.1.                    That the government make it clear what their commitment to local NIAs is. Currently there is no national register or standing for local NIAs yet there is a requirement to recognise them in the National Planning Policy Framework and for LNPs to put a process in place for their selection.

24.2.                    That the government make it clear what standing national NIAs have once the initial funding has finished. Are these the same or different to local NIAs?

24.3.                    That the government make it clear what they expect LNPs to deliver in terms of habitats and planning. Furthermore if LNPs are delivery bodies for national policy they should be funded as such.

Their links and co-ordination with other environmental and planning organisations and Local Enterprise Partnerships

25. In the experience of the GLNP, LNPs have a plethora of links with other organisations on a continuum of co-ordination. Many LNPs have focused effort on LEPs as recommended by Defra.

26. The GLNP has strong links with a wide range of environmental and planning organisations. We also believe that we have made positive progress with the Greater Lincolnshire LEP. There are a number of reasons for this:

26.1.                    As described in point 11 – our approach to partnership is inclusive. Every Partner has a voice, their opinion is sought and this process has been honed over many years.

26.2.                    The GLNP sub groups include a Geodiversity group, this expertise has added depth and breadth to the Partnership and demonstrates our relevance to wider audiences. It was our response to the Lincolnshire minerals and waste plan that was 84% successful (see point 24.3) and the response needed the expertise of this group.

26.3.                    As described in point 16 – the GLNP offers services. In this way we are a source of expertise to many of the Partners and they turn to us when they need something. This builds our credibility and our Partners recommend us to others within their organisations or to other organisations.

26.4.                    In seeking to engage others such as the Greater Lincolnshire LEP or the Lincolnshire Health and Wellbeing Board we took a similar approach. We sought to talk to individuals with areas of similarity where we could work together using expertise from both our sectors. With the Greater Lincolnshire LEP this led to the project mentioned in point 24.1. In addition the GLNP now sits on an agriculture sub group of the LEP and the European Structural Investment Funds board.

26.4.1.  However the GLNP has not been successful in securing reciprocal links at the board level between the GLNP and Greater Lincolnshire LEP. We have offered a place on our board to the Greater Lincolnshire LEP and it has not been taken up. There is still a significant disjoint in the perceived importance between the two types of partnerships.

26.5.                    In seeking to engage others we used our existing range of contacts and our credibility to open doors for us. Furthermore we have not sought to expound but to ask questions and understand others point of view. It is this approach that has enabled us to grow the GLNP to 48 Partners and engage successfully with the agricultural and developer sectors.

27. The GLNP has been incredibly successful – the clarity of purpose has brought together 48 organisations and enabled us make considerable progress, achieving a wide range of tangible benefits. The Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre (one of the services the GLNP provides) is one of the newest in England yet now has over three million records thanks to a new agreement with one of our Partners to supply data. This agreement is due to our credibility.

28. Yet there is much more that could be achieved. As with many other LNPs, we are limited by our resources and we sometimes have to turn down work and limit the expectations of Partners as we cannot fulfil everything that is currently being asked of us.

29. The mandate and policy deliverables for LNPs appears to be growing[5] yet there is no central financial backing for LNP work, and very little other support. Furthermore the pressure to deliver appears to be increasing. If funded government departments and non-departmental bodies have struggled to deliver on environmental commitments how does the government expect non-funded bodies to deliver?

30. The GLNP would like to recommend four areas under links and co-ordination for the EAC to consider:

30.1.                    As described in point 12.1 - That LNPs are given more time. Establishing credibility and then delivering outcomes at this scale and complexity without resources takes significant time.

30.2.                    As described in point 18.1 - That LNPs are offered central funding to deliver national environmental policy outcomes where they are able to deliver.

30.3.                    That government issues further guidance that clarifies how LNPs and LEPs should both work together.

30.4.                    As described in 25.3 and developing it – That the government make it clear what national policy commitments they expect LNPs to deliver, and on what timetable.

25 February 2015