NELMS Local Validation Issues paper
Introduction
This paper is intended to set out the issues of national resonance that have come from the NELMS
local validation exercise which took place during July and August 2014.
The national targeting team welcome the wealth of feedback received through this exercise and
have reflected on this and, where appropriate, have used it to refine the national targeting
framework. In addition to this, the many issues raised that were of local significance, will be
considered in the next phase of work on targeting that includes the drafting of target statements.
The issues set out below have been identified through a detailed analysis of the responses that were
provided using the standard feedback proformas. There were many general comments which
reflected a misunderstanding of the targeting approach or NELMS itself. The NELMs Targeting
Framework paper sets out more detailed information on the targeting approach for each objective
and should be used in conjunction with this paper.
In addition to the general issues, there were a number of issues raised that were specific to one of
the objectives of NELMs; specific and detailed responses for each objective are also set out in the
following sections.
1)
General issues
Need to ensure that targeting data remains up to date; how frequently will it be updated?
We are always keen to use the latest quality data and evidence, and are happy to work with partners
in keeping the targeting framework up to date. The framework has been designed to be flexible and
is able to accommodate changes. We do expect to review the evidence base from time to time and
whilst no decisions have been made, we anticipate a review about half way through the RDP cycle.
We are also keen to provide consistency in communications to the land management community on
scheme priorities in their local area. Please note that there were several specific issues raised that
relate to this element and responses to these are covered in the relevant sections below
What about all the information missing from the maps? The local validation maps appeared to
indicate a significant amount of ‘white space’ i.e. areas with no targeted priorities.
We emphasised that the maps provided as part of the local validation exercise were not targeting
maps and that they must not be viewed in isolation. The lists of priorities and the wealth of
additional supporting information (the full supporting package) were essential elements in
presenting the full picture of targeting for NELMs. A map simply could not show all of the priorities
for the scheme as it becomes too cluttered to be meaningful. The maps that were used for local
validation were to illustrate a small number of the key data sets being used. The finalised NELMS
target information will show information on all priorities not necessarily on a map.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2.)
Biodiversity – priority habitat issues
Significant areas of priority habitat, SSSIs and Local Wildlife Sites were missing from maps.
National data sets used were not fit-for-purpose; include ‘better’ local data sets.
We accept that some areas of priority habitats were missing from the maps and we will verify the
examples provided to check that, where eligible, they are covered by the NELMS targeting
framework and within target statements. The reason some areas were missing from the local
validation maps was largely as a result of the use of version 1 of the single Priority Habitat Inventory
data layer. However, these sites were covered by the lists of priorities for each area provided with
the maps. We intend to utilise version 2 of the single Priority Habitat Inventory data layer, which will
be more comprehensive than v.1 but it will not incorporate all habitat data. Priority habitat is a
priority for NELMS and will be covered by standard wording emphasising that priority within target
statements. Local information about priority habitats will be taken into account during the pipelining
process for high tier applications.
We do not target designations per se, as some include features which are ineligible for NELMS. SSSIs
as a data layer were excluded from the maps to avoid clutter and over-complication. Eligible SSSIs
are a priority for NELMS as emphasised in the lists accompanying the maps.
As stated, NELMS is a national programme with national objectives and priorities, hence the need for
national consistency in the data sets to be applied within the framework. The use of local data gives
rise to a number of issues (e.g. varying data quality, inconsistent coverage of data across the
country, consents and data licences etc) that are beyond the scope, remit and timescales of this
NELMS targeting exercise. In discussion at the 24th September stakeholder meeting, we agreed to
try and resolve these over the next year to enable them to be included in future revisions of single
PHI data layer to incorporate local data so this could feed into the mid-term review of NELMS. These
issues will be taken forward by NE evidence colleagues as part of ongoing evidence work.
However, the value of local data for agri-environment schemes is recognised; it is often a great
source of local information that has been informally used and will continue to be used by delivery
body advisers as evidence to inform pipelining of potential agreements, as long as that is consistent
with national priorities, standards and criteria for NELMS, especially for high tier application.
No data layer has been applied within the national targeting framework for habitat restoration
and creation, to address habitat connectivity and fragmentation (especially in comparison to data
layer for woodland creation opportunity – ref separate response). Use local biodiversity
opportunity mapping.
An appropriate, nationally-consistent data layer was included but that was not apparent on NCA
maps (but was on the lists). Local biodiversity opportunity mapping can be used in the same way as
local data by delivery body and external advisers as described above but the data sets are not
nationally consistent and cannot be included for some areas but not others where none exists.
Priority habitat restoration and connectivity is a priority for NELMS and will be covered by standard
wording emphasising that priority within target statements.
Priority habitat area thresholds as applied were too high
There appeared to be some considerable misinformation in the validation workshops and lack of
understanding about this issue. Priority habitat area thresholds were applied but these were
consistent with area thresholds used currently within HLS as advised by NE habitat specialists.
However, version 2 of the single PHI data layer utilises minimum mappable units of 0.25ha and so
this will be the minimum size threshold for priority habitats in NELMs. However, the NELMS
appraisal/ scoring process will also need to rank and favour applications making the most significant
contribution.
__________________________________________________________________________________
3.)
Biodiversity - Priority Species issues
Priority Species Data used: The main issues raised were in regard to the quality of the data used
and how that was presented on the maps provided
The species data sets provided at the time of the local validation were not complete and so the data
shown for some species was out of date. This has now been rectified with all revised data sets now
complete and ready to inform the writing of targeting statements in October and November.
Completed spatial data sets have now been provided by the RSPB, BTO, PlantLife, BSBI, Butterfly
Conservation, ARC, Natural England/Buglife non Lepidoptera Invertebrate data and the Bat
Conservation Trust. The data used has been verified by both Natural England national species
specialists and national species specialists from the organisations listed above.
Breeding Wader Assemblages: Concern was raised on the data being used to define breeding
wader hotspots across England
The data provided at the time of the local validation was not complete. The new BTO Atlas is being
used to define where we target our effort for breeding waders in both the uplands and lowlands of
England and the use of this data has been co-ordinated through the NE/RSPB National Wader
Project – this now provides the most up to date data available to define key hotspots across England
to target effort. Key NCAs will be identified for the breeding wader assemblage to help inform the
writing of targeting statements.
Farmland Bird Hotspots and Data used: Concern that the data presented to define farmland bird
hotspots and where the Wild Pollinators Farm Wildlife Package (WPFWP) would be targeted was
out of date and did not take into account other species associated with the wider countryside
The data provided at the time of the local validation was not complete. The new BTO Atlas is now
being used to better define where we target our efforts for farmland birds. For the targeting of the
WPFWP, BTO Atlas data sets for farmland birds will be used in conjunction with spatial data for wild
pollinators (those bee species associated with the wider countryside), arable plants and bats. By
using this combination of species we will be able to widen the geographical reach of the WPFWP, to
deliver the needs of species found across different farmed landscapes in England. The WPFWP will
be tailored to arable mixed and pastoral farming systems. Specific reference will be made to the
WPFWP in those NCAs where it will be targeted. We recognise concerns expressed about the
WPFWP and its link to the targeting framework and will be working with partners and stakeholders
to resolve these issues. Further information will be provided in due course on the WPFWP,
summarising the approach and setting out in more detail the approach used to target the WPFWP
across England.
Why were some priority species listed and shown on the validation maps and not others?
Natural England working with national species specialists and stakeholders have identified some 650
priority species that will benefit directly from NELMS. The majority of these will be delivered by the
good management of priority habitats and so will be targeted through the management of protected
sites and priority habitats. However some species will need extra help and management with advice
to deliver for their needs. These species have been identified and will be targeted specifically. They
will be mapped and made specific reference to on targeting statements in the areas where they are
known to occur.
__________________________________________________________________________________
4.)
Water quality issues
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) have not been mapped
This is correct. NVZs are designated zones where specific regulatory actions should take place with
the aim of reducing the input of nitrate into the water environment. NELMS is a multi-objective agrienvironment scheme which aims to fund options which can deliver public goods over and above
what would be required by regulation. NVZs in themselves are therefore not a good basis on which
to prioritise NELMS. However, the monitoring information that underpins NVZs is used in
classification under WFD where this is relevant and so there will be some information that is
common to both NVZ delineation and NELMS targeting. In addition designations were not mapped
for the local validation exercise to avoid maps becoming too cluttered.
Data will change over time, through revisions of the Medium Term Plan, Water Framework
Directive (WFD) updates within River Basin Planning Cycles etc. and these need to be incorporated
in targeting
Defra anticipate a review of the targeting framework once during the programme and changes to
datasets will be made at that point. While data will change, given the amount of data in the
targeting framework it is not possible to revise the targeting priorities every time a dataset is
updated. Multiple revisions would also cause confusion for the applicants.
There are areas or catchments which fail one or more objective but these are not identified on the
maps or spreadsheet
All WFD failures that NELMS can improve have been identified. These cover a large proportion of the
country.
Some proposed missing failures relate to WFD failures associated with pressures on the water
environment that NELMS cannot help or support. This included failures due to minewaters, the need
to ensure fish passage in a river and problems with pesticides on golf courses. These problems are
wholly relevant to WFD but are not supported via NELMS options. The options which may be
available through NELMS (subject to Commission approval) have already been established.
However, there are also many WFD failures relevant to agriculture and NELMS which cannot be seen
on the maps and spreadsheets. If all the areas where there is some form of agricultural WFD
objective failure across England were targeted this would cover about 70% of the land area of
England. Targeting this entire area equally would spread NELMS spend too thinly to result in
measurable changes in water quality. The local validation maps therefore showed only the areas of
highest priority: those which have multiple WFD failures attributable to agriculture. The other areas
were not shown on the local validation maps but will get credit via the scoring system for options
which can improve the water environment in the wider countryside. However those areas with the
highest priority will receive a higher score for water quality.
Groundwater is missing from the targeting.
Groundwater has been considered in targeting but NELMS would be unable to deliver for all
groundwater bodies at poor status. The primary reason for failure for groundwater from agriculture
is elevated nitrate and there are specific options currently proposed in NELMS (subject to
Commission approval) which can support improvements. These options are very costly and best
focused on discrete areas to ensure maximum impact such as safeguard zones delineated within
groundwater drinking water protected areas and on land draining to groundwater dependent
wetlands.
There are some known groundwater safeguard zones with an agricultural reason for failure which
have not been included
During the detailed modelling work, some very small sites were omitted as these were not spatially
significant in the modelling. These will be included in the final version of the national targeting
framework and the targeting information provided to applicants.
In addition, some new safeguard zones have been delineated and added whilst the local validation
process was ongoing. This dataset was not available prior to the validation process. These will be
included in the final version of the national targeting framework and the targeting information
provided to applicants.
Failures in downstream water bodies has resulted in upstream catchments being targeted
This is correct. If there is a WFD failure then the land draining to that failing point has been identified
as potentially contributing to that failure. This may have included water bodies that are meeting
WFD objectives as activities on this land will still contribute to the downstream failure.
The WFD objective of ‘no deterioration’ has not been considered
This is correct. NELMS is designed as a targeted scheme intended to cover approx 40% of utilisable
agricultural area. No deterioration under WFD applies to all water bodies (groundwater, rivers, lakes,
estuaries and coasts). This requirement applies across England equally as there is no way of
identifying, with a sufficient degree of confidence for targeting, those water bodies that are at
greatest risk of deterioration resulting from any changes to agri-environment or future land
management or land use activities. Therefore no deterioration has not been used as a basis for
NELMS targeting.
Boundaries for water quality do not make sense as they do not relate to WFD boundaries. Some
water quality target areas are not adjacent to rivers.
NELMS Targeting has been focussed on the land that could deliver the greatest number of WFD
objectives. This may mean the land may influence failures in rivers, lakes, estuaries coastal waters or
groundwater. The high priority mapped area is therefore the area of overlap within a catchment
where options can be used to the greatest effect to meet these multiple WFD objectives. They are
therefore not always whole catchments or water bodies. As there are many types of water body
which are relevant to WFD, there are likely to be many situations where high priority mapped areas
are not adjacent to rivers, for example a groundwater safeguard zone, a discrete catchment to a
lake, or groundwater dependent wetland.
There are some known Natura 2000 designated sites with a diffuse water pollution plan which are
not shown on the maps or spreadsheets
During the detailed modelling work, some very small sites were omitted as these were not spatially
significant in the modelling, an example being the Midlands Meres and Mosses. These will be
included in the final national targeting framework information provided to applicants.
There are some known catchments to water dependent Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
with a diffuse water pollution plan which are not part of the maps or spreadsheets
Though SSSIs are important they are a national designation and not identified as protected areas
under the WFD, unlike Natura 2000 sites. They have been included as an objective in the targeting
but will only be a high priority if they coincide with other objectives. This means they will be
recognised as a priority in the scoring but may not be included in the targeting statements or maps
which only show the highest priority areas.
There are some surface water safeguard zones delineated where there are colour issues. These
have not been included in either the maps or the spreadsheet
Options that can be used under NELMS to improve colour problems are needed in the uplands. Cross
checking has shown that all the relevant areas are prioritised for biodiversity improvement and so
these areas are already top priority for these purposes. The options to address colour problems will
be predominantly supported through the higher tier of NELMS which is delivery body-led. Areas
where there are known catchments with colour issues will therefore be included in all of the
information available to Natural England and Forestry Commission advisors. This information will be
included in the national targeting framework for use through advice-led activity in the higher tier to
improve both biodiversity and colour together.
There are some surface water safeguard zones delineated where there are pesticide issues that
have not been included in either the maps or the spreadsheet. There is not sufficient weighting
placed on this objective
These areas have been considered. Safeguard zones delineated where there are drinking water
protected area failures at relevant abstraction points have been used for the targeting process. This
means that, in line with all the other objectives, where these zones overlap land causing failures for
other objectives they may be identified on the map as highest priority. All the other areas which do
not overlap with other objective failures are not shown on the map but will get credit via the scoring
system for options which can improve the water environment. However those areas with the
highest priority will receive a higher score for water quality.
Catchment Sensitive Farming advice and capital grants have delivered measurable improvements in
pesticide pressures and we are examining how to include pesticide-specific capital grants in NELMS.
However it is worth noting that there are many activities that can support pesticide improvements
which sit outside NELMS, such as measures that water companies have agreed as part of the
periodic review and industry-led approaches such as the Voluntary Initiative (VI) and the
Metaldehyde Stewardship Group (MSG).
There are some bathing waters where it has been commented that they may be possible
candidates for de-designation and so should not be included in the targeting. It has also been
identified that some of the bathing water catchments are very large.
The outcome of any de-designation cannot be pre-empted. Consequently, all currently designated
bathing waters will continue to be part of the NELMS targeting. If bathing waters are subsequently
de-designated we will consider how to incorporate these changes within the NELMS targeting
framework and scoring.
For some of the larger bathing waters catchments, we have adapted the targeting to consider travel
time to make sure the targeting focussed on the parts of the catchment nearest to the beach.
There are a number of comments stating that certain Section 41 aquatic species have not been
included in the maps or spreadsheet. This includes freshwater pearl mussel, white clawed
crayfish, otters, water voles and certain species of fish.
Section 41 species have been identified where there is a direct beneficial link between NELMS
option/s and the species (or the habitat on which it depends). An example is where a specific habitat
that a species needs is created through a NELMS option and so directly benefits this species. This has
meant that the focus has been on terrestrial species. However, it is understood that there are
NELMS option/s which can improve the habitat of species dependent on the aquatic environment by
for example reducing the amount of soil and nutrients entering rivers, or creating and maintaining
riparian shade.
Two types of approach have been identified when classifying how Section 41 species are dealt with
under NELMS: “bespoke” and “mosaic.” The latter applies to the majority of species (>600) where
NELMS option/s applied in the wider countryside should deliver improvements. These are not
mapped and the species are not specifically targeted. The majority of aquatic species will be
improved by the mosaic approach as they will benefit from any type of land management to reduce
nutrient and sediment input into watercourses and so will not be specifically targeted (e.g. fish,
otters and water voles). It has been agreed to include species where experts have agreed that
bespoke management is necessary .
__________________________________________________________________________________
5.)
Flood risk issues
The data that has been used is incorrect and the targeting should have used Environment Agency
datasets, the National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) or flood map for development. A number of
Environment Agency datasets have been used for the flood risk targeting. The aim of the mapping
was to indicate where land management or land use changes could help reduce runoff and flood risk
lower down in the catchment rather than mapping the areas at risk of flooding. NaFRA and flood
maps for development show areas at risk of flooding and so have not been used.
The mapping uses the best national information currently available to the Environment Agency. Any
local information which suggested that additional areas need to be included will be reviewed by the
Environment Agency locally and incorporated into the NELMS targeting statement where
appropriate.
This area is at significant risk of flooding but has not been included in NELMS targeting
In developing the targeting for flood risk, evidence was used to determine the types of catchments
which benefit the most from land management or land use change that can be funded through
NELMS. This evidence shows that smaller catchments, and those of a flashy nature best demonstrate
measurable change in flood risk and reduction in flood events from these types of options under
NELMS. This means that large, low lying catchments to major rivers such as the Severn and Thames
are not the highest priority in the mapping.
Areas of lower flood risk priority should be prioritised, such as those not supported through
normal flood risk funding using rapid response information, Catchment Flood Management Plan
areas where land management has been identified and Biodiversity Action Plan Regional Habitat
Creation schemes
We used the following information to create the mapping for flood risk management:
•
Coastal locations where managed realignment of the shoreline is the stated policy within the
next 20 years of the Shoreline Management Plan
•
Water bodies that fail Water Framework Directive objectives due to physical modification
(hydromorphology) and Natura 2000 (Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)) designated rivers
where hydromorphology is given as a reason for adverse condition
•
Land draining to locations where a specific flood risk capital project has been proposed
through the Integrated Environment Programme, particularly for habitat creation, river
restoration and natural flood defence and
•
Land draining to further Natura 2000 (Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)) designated rivers
where Natural England propose to conduct a river restoration project
•
Parts of catchment flood management plan areas and also land within rapid response (little
warning of flood event) catchments, where agricultural land management offers a suitable
natural flood defence measure and where runoff and soil loss controls are required (lower
priority)
Targeting for woodland to reduce flood risk needs refining
This is correct, but the greatest amount of refinement should be undertaken very locally when
identifying a holding/ holdings for higher tier agreements. It should be noted that all woodland
activities are higher tier and that the woodland targeting uses an opportunity map. As woodland
creation is a significant change in land use, the Forestry Commission (FC) have highlighted that it is
challenging to get good uptake so the FC opportunity map shows large areas of land where
woodland could be created, not areas where woodland should be created. For more details on
woodland, please see the woodland section.
Flood and coastal risk management is planned in the same location as Scheduled Monuments,
Royal Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields. Careful consultation will be needed, to avoid
damage to these assets or negative impacts on their setting.
Works to reduce flood risk will not take place over the whole targeted area. Where works are
proposed in similar locations to nationally designated heritage assets Natural England will ensure
relevant parties will be consulted. The same approach applies to designated sites. English Heritage
will also be consulted on the NELMS targeting statements.
__________________________________________________________________________________
6.)
Woodland Issues
Woodland creation
Woodland creation opportunity areas are too extensive
An explanation of the policy context and rationale for woodland creation is provided in the National
Targeting Framework paper. Additionally, we know that the effectiveness of a woodland planting
scheme to deliver water benefits is highly dependent on being in the right part of the landscape and
planted to the right specification and design. It is not possible to map that level of spatial specificity
at a national level and for this reason the area of search has been made quite wide. Having said that,
the following specific issues were raised under the general ‘extent’ heading and the stated
amendments are being made to the spatial targeting layers for woodland creation:

EA priority areas for flood risk targeting – the approach has been changed such that EA
priority areas will now no longer be used to define high priority areas for woodland creation.
Instead, high priority areas will be limited to opportunity areas for floodplain and riparian
woodland creation, and EA Flood Risk Management project areas where natural flood
management measures are promoted will be given additional weighting i in the scoring
framework;

Overlap with existing priority habitats – while this is recognised as an issue, there is still
potential scope and need for woodland creation particularly for water benefits within many
of these priority habitat areas. It is proposed that any potential conflicts will be managed at
a local level by delivery body advisers through the application assessment process. The two
exceptions to this are that opportunity areas with deep peat (>0.5m) have been removed
altogether from the woodland creation targeting map in line with the requirements of the
UK Forestry Standard, and any land over an altitude of 450 metres will also be regarded as
lower priority.

Overlap with locally identified areas for priority habitat creation – the basis on which
different organisations have identified priority areas for habitat re-creation vary significantly.
It is proposed that any conflicts that arise under this heading will be left for local decision
making;

Opportunity mapping include sensitive landscapes – as with past woodland grant schemes,
any landscape issues arising in relation to specific planting proposals will be resolved
through the application assessment process with delivery body advisers, and in line with
requirements of the UK Forestry Standard;

Opportunity mapping include areas of Common Land – there are likely to be areas of
common land where woodland creation for biodiversity and/or water objectives would be
beneficial but any applicants for grant aid would have to have a legal interest in the land.
Any issues arising in relation to specific planting proposals will be resolved through the
application assessment process with delivery body advisers;

Opportunity mapping include sensitive historic environment features –as with past
woodland grant schemes, any historic environment issues arising in relation to specific
planting proposals will be resolved through the application assessment process, and in line
with the requirements of the UK Forestry Standard resolve through application processing;

Opportunity mapping areas include urban areas – it is recognised that the opportunity
mapping included built up areas. We are awaiting a final definition of what constitutes of
‘urban’ in the Rural Development Programme and will then amend the opportunity mapping
accordingly. It should be noted though that targeted woodland planting within urban areas
can potentially still deliver biodiversity and/or water benefits. If such schemes can be funded
through NELMs, these applications will be assessed on their merits.

Opportunity mapping includes open water – this was an artefact of mapping some data at
1km2 grid scale. The mapping has now been amended to remove overlaps with open water.
Priority Woodland Species Data
Red squirrel target area is too small – the extent of the opportunity mapping has been amended to
include updated species distribution data from RSNE;
Butterfly & bird data not included – the extent of the opportunity mapping has been amended to
include updated species assemblage data from BTO to target woodland bird assemblages and
Butterfly Conservation have supplied priority woodland butterfly target layers to target individual
butterfly species.
Ancient Woodland Sites
Ancient Woodland Sites have not been specifically prioritised – these have been included but the
main national policy priority is the restoration of Planted Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS) and
bringing currently un managed Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW) sites into active
management. As the primary objective of NELMS is achievement of Biodiversity 2020 commitments
this will inevitably mean that priority habitats will be prioritised to get them into target condition.
Other Mapping Issues
Areas designated as Community Forests have not been mapped – this was deliberate as no
designated areas were specifically mapped. The focus of NELMs targeting is on existing features and
potential opportunities, not the means by which the desired outcomes might be delivered;
Regeneration & community initiatives have not been included – these are not objectives that
NELMS can address
__________________________________________________________________________________
7.)
Historic Environment Issues
General Issues picked up for HE
Errors in the terminology used for the maps and out of date data being presented
This is correct, there were inaccuracies in the terminology and this will be resolved in future
iterations. The most up to date versions (received at the end of September) of all HE datasets will be
included in the final targeting framework
Misunderstandings over data used and who had been involved in the targeting process for the HE
sector
A number of respondents did not seem to have had sight of the simple rationale that the HE Topic
Group produced for each dataset which outlined why we were using them and any attendant issues.
These are set out in the National Targeting Framework paper.
Suggested additional/other datasets
In some cases other data was proposed (e.g. Historic Landscape Character or information from local
authority Historic Environment Records), however none are currently available as a national layers
and so are not suitable for use in the national targeting framework.
The need to understand & promote synergies between objectives, beyond those identified for
water and biodiversity
Many respondents noted that NELMs options could also provide significant gains for the HE if
located appropriately and that targeting should focus benefits for all outcomes, together as well as
individually. Target statements for each NCA should highlight the key synergies across all scheme
objectives where relevant.
The need to ensure that buildings were included in targeting, given that there is no dataset
available for them
The method for representing un-mappable features has been discussed with the National Team. The
wording in the targeting statements will need to be adequate to cover features without datasets so
these don’t get excluded from NELMS where they are an identified priority for the scheme.
Use of Heritage At Risk (HAR)
Prioritisation
Generally, respondents agreed with the prioritisation of designated sites. However some were
unaware of the rationale for targeting all designations rather than those ‘at high risk’ only, which
was confused by the terminology on the maps. Re-presenting the original rationale would overcome
this. This rationale is set out in the National Targeting Framework paper.
Using Principal Vulnerabilities to explain what is needed
Some respondents noted the potential for using HAR principal vulnerabilities (i.e. risk from arable
cultivation) to focus what management would be needed. This information is held in the data
attributes and the HE Topic Group will be considering its use with application appraisal and scoring
to see if this can be used in practice, i.e. through directed option choice.
Use of SHINE to represent undesignated assets
Generally this seemed to be acceptable, although some respondents noted issues:

with completeness of data / representativeness for each county

in whether the data owners had authorised the use of it for this purpose
On 12-9-14 the HE Topic Group alerted HERs to a short window of opportunity to do a rapid update
before the final dataset was ‘locked down’ and for de facto authorisation of the use of the dataset
for NELMs . Around 25 local authorities were able to submit reviewed and updated information,
which has now been incorporated in the final dataset for the targeting framework and none of the
HERs rescinded the use of their data for NELMS.
The Need for Regular Updates of SHINE and HAR Data
A large number of comments related to the need for an annual mechanism for updating SHINE and
HAR in the targeting datasets due to:

changes in risk status or vulnerability for designated sites

HERs providing more complete coverage for SHINE to address its ongoing use

new designated and undesignated sites being added which need active management or be
to protected by the ‘no detriment’ rule
These issues are being discussed with Defra and English Heritage.
__________________________________________________________________________________
8.)
Landscape issues
There were three main themes of national resonance arising from the landscape comments within
the local validation:
Missing information on the NCA maps provided.
Examples will be checked where relevant by NE landscape specialists. It is the case that the maps
did not show all of the targeting features, for example some designations, (landscape designations –
AONBs, NPs, Heritage Coasts, and others for example SSSIs), were not illustrated as the maps would
have been too confusing. However, where relevant they were listed within the supporting high
priority data sets, and were used and explained in the targeting methodologies. This methodology is
set out in the National Targeting Framework paper.
The potential to include certain landscape strategy information.
The examples cited were designated landscape management plans, local Landscape Character
Assessments (LCAs), and information on tranquillity and remoteness.
It was suggested that the design and delivery of NELMS needs to take account of the NP and AONB
strategic management plans and support their implementation. Designated landscapes have been
incorporated as high value landscape areas within the targeting framework and NELMs targeting
information will identify to applicants the specific actions and benefits that the scheme options can
deliver in these designated landscapes. In this way agri-environment schemes will continue to
support the NP and AONB strategic plans.
NE and FC advisers will also take these strategic plans into account when delivering NELMS and they
are in any case very used to working with designated landscape partners.
Local LCAs provide valuable and integrated baseline information on landscape character. There is
good but not complete and consistent national coverage of these, and they are produced at
different scales to suit their local needs. Consequently they do not provide a consistent national
data set that can be used for national targeting.
However the evidence in local LCAs, (where they exist and been produced following the national
standard guidelines), should be used by NE and FC advisers, alongside NCA profile evidence and their
Statements of Environmental Opportunities in implementing NELMS e.g. by providing context and
information to those advisers (and to external advisers) for advising applicants on what options to
use and where in order to best benefit landscape character.
Agreements may indirectly contribute to conserving and enhancing characteristics such as
tranquillity (which are often well represented in designated landscapes) but there are no specific
NELMS options delivering or protecting these characteristics and therefore these landscape
attributes will not be used in prioritising NELMS actions.
Concerns about the potential landscape effects implied by the woodland creation maps The
woodland creation maps are opportunity maps, please see the woodland section for more
information. As with past woodland grant schemes, any landscape issues arising in relation to
specific planting proposals will be resolved through the application assessment process with delivery
body advisers, and in line with requirements of the UK Forestry Standard;
__________________________________________________________________________________
Defra, October 2014