Introduction
This paper provides information on the work of the NELMs targeting project. It brings together detailed information on prioritisation of scheme objectives.
Why are we targeting NELMS?
Evidence and evaluation of previous schemes shows that greater targeting of schemes is important to secure better outcomes. Targeting is therefore part of the process by which we will deliver the right agreements and options in the right places. Targeting will work alongside appraisal and scoring of NELMS applications to achieve this.
It is also particularly relevant because resources for NELMS are constrained and therefore there is a need to focus delivery on priority environmental outcomes agreed by Ministers following the CAP consultation in November 2013. Also, we need to reflect the multi-objective nature of the scheme and identify and accommodate where multiple benefits can be delivered.
Promotion and advice will also have a role to play.
Ministerial priorities
Ministers have already announced the priorities for NELMS. These are that overall, biodiversity should be the priority for the scheme. The scheme will also make an important contribution to meeting our water quality commitments. We will also seek to maximise opportunities to deliver biodiversity, water quality and flooding benefits together (synergies).
The new scheme will be broad in scope, like its predecessor, contributing to the delivery of outcomes also on soil, the historic environment, landscape, genetic conservation and educational access. It would also retain the overarching objective of helping the natural environment to adapt to climate change by, for example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as providing and protecting carbon storage.
Integrating the delivery in NELMS of biodiversity, woodland management and woodland creation, water quality and flood risk management objectives is critical to providing applicants with a picture of the scheme priorities, and where action by applicants can meet those priorities. The targeting framework is a key tool to achieve this.
The national targeting framework is about articulating these ministerial priorities; it is this
framework that will set out the NELMS priorities across England.

The national targeting framework approach
Development of the national targeting framework has been led by the national targeting core technical group made up of Natural England (NE) colleagues representing all the key objectives along with representatives from Defra, the Environment Agency (EA) and the Forestry Commission (FC); this group has carefully considered and ranked relative priorities and looked to integrate objectives, in line with Ministerial priorities. The targeting framework that has been developed provides a single, coherent prioritisation of NELMS objectives across England.
The targeting framework consists of a large data matrix (around 400 mostly national datasets; drawn from delivery bodies such as NE, EA and FC and other partners) which is related to the Rural Land
Register (RLR) at a parcel level. Each of these datasets is weighted on a logarithmic scale basis (either
1, 10, 100, 1000). This method provides a good degree of separation and therefore allows the highest priorities to be readily identified. The weightings that have been applied to the datasets reflect Ministerial steers around prioritisation for NELMS for delivery for Biodiversity 2020 and
Water Framework Directive outcomes.
A full data catalogue has been produced that lists the data included in the database and the weighting applied to each dataset alongside additional metadata associated with this.
Work to check and validate this first version of the national targeting framework was carried out, with local stakeholders, in July/August 2014, to ensure it reflects the local picture and priorities.
Feedback received as part of this local validation exercise has been invaluable in informing the latest iteration of the targeting framework; more detail on the issues raised during the local validation exercise and the responses to it are contained in a separate document – NELMS Local Validation
Issues paper.
Data included in the framework covers the following objectives; more detail on the approach to the targeting of each objective is set out in the Annexes.

Biodiversity – Priority Habitats and species (Annex 1)

Water Quality (Annex 2)

Flood Risk (Annex 3) Historic Environment (Annex 4)

Historic Environment (Annex 4)

Landscape (Annex 5)

Forestry (Annex 6)

Climate Change (Annex 7)
The framework will be used to inform the applicant of the priorities for each area of England. The framework also identifies where there is the best opportunity for delivery of single and multiple objectives. This approach identifies relative priorities in each area and means the scheme will be open to all across the whole country. For the applicant, bespoke targeting information (and the key scheme options for delivering those priorities) for their holding should be available via CAP IS. This information will enable applicants and advisers to tailor applications to deliver the best environmental value for money and avoid missed opportunities.
Other elements
There are certain NELMS objectives that cannot be targeted via a data framework either because data does not exist or because it is not appropriate to do so, for example the maintenance and restoration of historic buildings. It is still important that these objectives are recognised and it is

proposed that the prioritisation of these objectives will be set out within the targeting literature
(target statements).
From national framework to local statements
The national targeting framework will be used to develop local scale targeting statements for use by customers and local stakeholders to understand what the priorities are in their local area. These statements will be produced for each National Character Area (NCA).
Drafting of the local targeting statements will also build on the responses from the local validation exercise, and will commence in October. Drafts for all targeting statements are timetabled for completion by mid-December so that they are available for the rollout of the scheme information and guidance.
NE area team leads will have the lead role in drafting these target statements, working closely with
FC and EA and EH colleagues. Drafting will be an iterative process and will provide opportunities for involvement and comment from partners and stakeholders during October and November. Quality
Assurance will be provided by the national targeting team - to ensure national consistency in both format and content; and that the final target statements take into account the feedback provided in the local validation exercise.
Targeting, prioritisation and scoring
In addition to articulating the scheme priorities for applicants, there is also a need to be able to select applications to ensure that they reflect the scheme’s priorities and that these fit within the available budget in any given year. The information within the targeting framework is a critical element within the decision making process for appraisal and scoring of NELMS applications.
The detail of the scoring system is still being developed however all NELMs agreements will require appraisal to establish value for money from public investment and to ensure environmental priorities are met.
October 2014

Annex 1 - Biodiversity: approach to NELMs targeting
Biodiversity 2020 terrestrial biodiversity outcomes to 2020
Biodiversity and water are the priority objectives for NELMS and for the purposes of targeting
NELMS on priority habitats; we have taken our cue from Biodiversity 2020, Defra’s strategy for biodiversity.
For Priority Habitats:-
Outcome 1A: Better wildlife habitats with 90% of priority habitats in favourable or recovering condition and at least 50% of SSSIs in favourable condition, while maintaining at least 95% in
favourable or recovering condition. Note outcome covers both SSSIs and priority habitats.
Outcome 1B: More, bigger and less fragmented areas for wildlife, with no net loss of priority
habitat and an increase in the overall extent of priority habitats by at least 200,000ha
Both outcomes are at the heart of the ‘better, bigger, more and joined’ approach which Prof. Sir
John Lawton and his panel recommended to re-establish coherent, resilient, ecological networks.
Summary of biodiversity prioritisation for priority habitats:
Priority Habitat (in designated sites)
(non-designated) Priority Habitat that is:-
• Not small (above defined habitat threshold area); and/ or,
• Part of a network (i.e. connected); and/ or,
• Has synergy with the Water Framework Directive/ FRM
These are the top priorities for priority habitat and have equal ranking in weighting relevant datasets. These are consistent with Lawton principles and will enable NELMS to make a significant contribution to delivery for Bio2020 outcomes 1A and 1B.
For priority species:
Outcome 3; By 2020, we will see an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and will
have prevented further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species.
Summary of biodiversity prioritisation for Priority Species:
Biodiversity will be a key objective of the new scheme. Awareness of need to deliver for S41 species
(some 650+ require NELMS delivery). There is agreement from the conservation community that we want to move species management to a more habitat based approach, we want to make habitats and landscapes work better for species using the new scheme as effectively as possible.
By adopting a ‘two-tier’ approach to species delivery, it should be possible to do this by accommodating the needs of the vast majority of important species that rely on agri-environment schemes.

The two complimentary approaches developed are:

The Mosaic approach
For species conservation to be properly integrated into habitat-based approaches we need to place much greater emphasis on creating mosaics within habitats that include the important elements that are required by species, e.g. bare ground, sympathetic management of scrub, varying sward structures. By managing habitats in this way and embracing heterogeneity into habitat structure, the majority of species (whose ecological needs/limiting factors can be addressed through generic ‘best practice’ habitat management) will be catered for.
In the new agri-environment scheme we have look to build in these essential elements (and management) into the newly designed options/prescription sets

The Bespoke approach
It is recognised that for certain species or assemblage of species, a more Bespoke tailored management will be needed to deliver their specific habitat requirements. Such an approach caters for species whose ecological requirements/limiting factors at the option, agreement
or landscape scale, cannot be fully addressed through more generic habitat management described above. This is because the species may require certain aspects to ensure successful delivery, for example:

Option-level management of a habitat that goes beyond that prescribed under the mosaic approach (eg higher proportion of bare ground, bespoke seed mix etc.).

A higher level of pre-agreement advice, within-agreement aftercare or monitoring to inform successful delivery (ie iterative management) is required (eg wet grassland breeding wader assemblage, specific management for Greater Horseshoe Bat and Duke of Burgundy butterflies).
Wildlife associated with the Wider Countryside
It is recognised that important areas for widespread farmland biodiversity (e.g. farmland birds, wild pollinators, arable plants, bats) do not tend to coincide with those which may be of particular importance for priority habitats/protected areas. There is, therefore, a real risk that areas of importance for widespread farmland wildlife will fall outside of the reach of a more focussed and targeted land management scheme, unless such areas are targeted specifically.
To avoid this risk, delivery for priority species associated with the wider countryside will be promoted through a specific Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package (WPFWP). This package will identify the options associated with the key year round life cycle requirements of wild pollinators and farmland birds. The needs of other key groups, such as arable plants, mammals (in particular bats) and amphibians will benefit from these measures put in place.
National Targeting for Species
Working with NGOs and national specialists we have now identified those species which benefit from the more general Mosaic type management and those which require more tailored bespoke management.
Mosaic species will be largely targeted through habitats, but species assemblages will be used to identify priority sites/areas for some habitats:


Breeding waders for lowland wet and upland in-bye grasslands and assemblages of priority birds species associated with woodlands

Farmland Birds, Wild pollinators, arable plants assemblages and bat species for the targeting of the Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package
Those species requiring more tailored bespoke management will be specifically targeted.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Annex 2 - Water Quality : approach to NELMs targeting
Water quality target areas for NELMS consist of the following three layers:
1.
Water Framework Directive (WFD) target areas with multiple priorities. These are selected areas of land where NELMS actions can deliver against the greatest number of overlapping or synergistic WFD failing objectives and where those actions will make the greatest contribution towards improving water quality.
2.
Land draining to water-dependent Natura 2000 sites not in favourable condition due to water quality, where NELMS actions can deliver synergies that meet both WFD objectives and Habitats Directive objectives.
3.
WFD target areas with single issues. This targets a small number of selected Protected Areas which are high priority for WFD but where there may be only a single water quality issue to address. These include some (but not all) land draining to failing bathing and shellfish waters and selected groundwater drinking water protected areas.
Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) target areas were included on the maps for local validation for contextual information. These were priority areas where CSF currently offers CSF capital grant to support and encourage farmers to adopt further voluntary or beneficial actions to address water quality.
1.
These data layers are explained in turn in the following 3 sections
Target areas with multiple WFD priorities
These target areas can offer the greatest potential to deliver improved water quality to meet as many WFD objectives as possible. In these locations, targeted NELMS options to address the specific water quality issues identified in each catchment will be sought. This includes pressures caused by nitrogen, phosphorus or pesticide pollution, soil loss or contamination of waters by faecal matter.
These areas have been defined and selected using a targeting method developed by the
Environment Agency on behalf of Defra. They do not cover all land with failing WFD objectives but prioritise those where NELMS measures will have most impact. The method consists of a number of steps:
1.
Identify land draining to a monitoring point or water body which fails WFD objectives and where the contribution of agriculture to that failure is considered significant.. This assessment is conducted for rivers, lakes, groundwaters and land draining to marine failures.
It considers both protected areas and waters which are failing to meet Good Ecological
Status. Other failures where the contribution from agriculture is not considered significant are ignored. Define the areas of land which drain to one or more hydrological features. This means combining the hydrological boundaries of the relevant river, lake, groundwater and marine catchments in order to identify the parts of catchments where these features coincide geographically and so NELMS measures would benefit the greatest number of receiving waters.
2.
Score each area of land according to the number and type of WFD failures it contributes to.
Land which gains a higher score in this process tends to be where:

a.
there is more than one failing objective (e.g. WFD failures that coincide in a catchment but are unrelated), b.
where failing objectives for different hydrological features are potentially interrelated to each other (e.g a lake catchment is located within a river catchment and both fail for phosphorus) and c.
where failing objectives might be causally-linked and therefore delivering a single or group of NELMS options to address the cause will have knock-on benefits for a range of different WFD objectives (e.g. actions to address runoff might control both sediment and phosphorus loss; or control of fertiliser application reduces both nitrogen and phosphorus losses).
3.
Score each area of land on its potential for water quality to improve after NELMS measures are applied. This involves: a.
Identifying the current status (failing to meet good status or other WFD objective) of water bodies associated with each area of land (as identified in Step 2 above) b.
Modelling the impact of a set of representative NELMS measures on specific agricultural water quality determinands (nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, faecal indicator organisms and pesticides) and identify the level of water quality improvement that can be achieved, c.
Assessing the potential contribution of NELMS measures in moving from current towards desired WFD status (or WFD protected area objective). Higher scores are awarded to land that achieves the greatest level of improvement in modelled water quality but also to those closest to achieving their WFD objective/s.
4.
Combine the scores from steps 3 and 4 above to produce a final ranked list of water quality target areas. Highest scoring areas of land are the highest priority for receiving NELMS funding. These include land which has the highest number of overlapping objectives or synergies in delivering water quality objectives but also scores highly the locations where
NELMS measures will achieve the greatest level of benefit at lowest cost. These areas do not necessarily correspond to whole water body catchment boundaries but pick up parts of catchments.
5.
Define the cut-off point between land areas that are high priority for action to address water quality under NELMS and those which are lesser priority. Ministers have given a steer about the extent of NELMS funding that may be available. Modelling shows that there is insufficient funding within NELMS to address all land which drains to a failing WFD objective.
To understand how far the funding might stretch, the potential cost of NELMS measures for every discrete land area was calculated. The ranked list in step 5 was then used, with each area looked at in turn and cumulative NELMS costs calculated until the potential NELMS budget was reached.
2.
Land draining to water-dependent Natura 2000 sites not in favourable condition due to water quality
Work conducted for Defra in March 2014 indicated that addressing water quality WFD failures associated with land draining to water-dependent Natura 2000 sites failing to meet target condition due to diffuse water pollution could deliver against both WFD and Habitats and Birds Directives. The

target areas are based on the boundaries of land draining to sites not in favourable condition which have a Diffuse Water Pollution Plan. Within these areas, it is more important to target the land posing the highest risk of pollution due to runoff and losses of soil and nutrients.
3. WFD catchments with single issues.
Under the WFD, water quality issues should be tackled in all Protected Areas. However specific areas have been prioritised where NELMS actions are essential to deliver WFD requirements. These are:
 some (but not all) land draining to failing bathing and shellfish waters and
 selected groundwater (drinking water) protected areas where local action in the catchment around a borehole has potential to secure measurable improvement to water quality.

Flood risk data for NELMS has been provided as a series of independent data layers which will be refined and prioritised further as part of the local targeting validation and verification process.
Flood risk layers for NELMS are:
High priority:

Coastal locations where managed realignment of the shoreline is the stated policy to be delivered within the next 20 years in the relevant Shoreline Management Plan

Water bodies which fail Water Framework Directive objectives due to physical modification
(hydromorphology) and Natura 2000 (SAC) designated rivers where hydromorphology is given as a reason for not achieving favourable condition and

Land in the riparian corridor of further Natura 2000 (SAC) and sites of special scientific interest (SSSI designated rivers where Natural England propose to conduct a river restoration project, or those rivers are at risk from hydromorphology pressures

Environmental outcome projects as part of the flood and coastal risk management investment programme where habitat creation or protected area improvement are the desired outcome measures

Parts of catchment flood management plan areas and land within rapid response catchments, where agricultural land management could offer a suitable natural flood defence measure and where runoff and soil loss controls are required.
Lower priority:

Land in the wider catchment of selected Natura 2000 (SAC) and SSSSI designated rivers where Natural England propose to conduct a river restoration project, or those rivers are at
 risk from hydromorphology pressures
A combined flood and coastal risk management targeting layer has been produced by combining all of the above information. Land is therefore considered a high priority area if one or more of the component layers is present.
The aim of this layer is to identify wide areas of opportunity for delivering flood risk mitigation priorities alongside biodiversity and water quality objectives from NELMS options. It does not represent areas of greatest flood risk. These data are indicative only at this stage and all flood risk benefits should be reviewed by relevant staff.

Historic environment assets are finite and irreplaceable. Once lost, they cannot be restored or recreated. The Historic Environment (HE) Working Group therefore identified that the prioritisation of agri-environment activities for the benefit of HE assets must start with designated assets that are deemed to be at ‘high risk’. However, in addition to dealing with features ‘at high risk’ the need for the continuation of HE gains bought in the last CAP period, and the ‘maintenance’ of important sites to avoid further deterioration were also identified as key factors in delivering the best environmental goods. As such, a High Priority was also given to other designated assets. The
Working Group also agreed that undesignated assets of high significance were also a High Priority, because the designation process could not be considered to be an exhaustive process.
Since previous agri-environment scheme targeting work in 2007/8, the HE sector has worked on developing several data sources, these include the Heritage at Risk dataset – which is held by English
Heritage (EH) and considers the vulnerability of nationally designated heritage assets and ranks them as ‘at risk’, ‘vulnerable’, or ‘low/not at risk’.
For undesignated HE features, there has been RDPE and NE-funded work with the Association of
Local Authority Archaeologists (ALGAO) to acquire a more comprehensive mapped baseline of assets of known size and character that can be managed under ES. This is known as the Selected Heritage
Inventory for Natural England – SHINE – and each record includes an indication of the ‘significance’ of the asset. For the most part, these datasets have allowed the Working Group to develop a high level, feature-led prioritisation that can be mapped.
However there are some asset types which do not have suitable mapped data available, such as historic buildings. Farm buildings are currently not well represented in the listed building dataset or in SHINE, and the scale of the resource and the lack of data available means that it is difficult to identify ‘up front’ which buildings should be a priority for high value works, such as ‘restoration’, where we should rely on a process of selection through assessment of each case (within specific eligibility parameters) to identify the most suitable buildings for action.
The Working Group also identified that, whilst it is possible to effectively map designated historic parklands, a similar issue exists in terms of representing undesignated, regionally or locally important historic parklands at a national level. As undertaking parkland restoration can often be of a high monetary value, in addition to the data-led prioritisation, there needs to be a more involved assessment of individual parklands at the point of application to confirm their priority for action and ensure that they represent the best value for money in terms of the proposed activities to be funded.
Finally, in addition to targeting features for management, the Working Group considered that - as now - HE features should be subject to a rule of ‘no detriment’ resulting from the management of any other environmental asset, and should be ‘protected from damage’ for the duration of any agreement, regardless of whether a feature is being managed under an option.

The HE targeting working group comprised Ken Smith (ALGAO); Vince Holyoak (EH), Jeremy Lake
(EH), Amanda Chadburn (EH) and Victoria Hunns (NE).

Historic Environment Targeting - Priority Values and Rationale
HE Priority Description Relative
Priority
Ranking
Rationale for inclusion/Relative
Prioritisation
Heritage at
Risk
Prioritised
Historic
Buildings
SHINE High
Significance
Designated HE features that appear on the EH
Register as ‘High Risk’. This includes archaeological features of national significance (Scheduled
Monuments (SM),
Registered Parks and
Gardens (RPG), Registered
Battlefields (RB)
Designated and undesignated traditional farm buildings and nondomestic historic buildings on farmsteads that are a high priority for
‘restoration’
National ALGAO dataset of verified undesignated HE features that can be managed under ES, and which have been identified as being of high significance.
A*
1000
A*
1000
A
1000
Relevant Data set
This is a subset of all nationally designated features and identifies those that have been defined as being at high risk and requiring a change in management to secure their future. Many of these features are affected by land management practices. In 2010, there were c.
3,000 SMs at high risk and approximately 85% of these could be addressed by AES. The risk status identifies the ‘Principle
Vulnerability’, e.g. arable cultivation, which allows some indication of suitable options and potential cost.
SM/risk
RPG/risk
RB/risk
Provided by
EH
Listed Building dataset is survey-led and farm buildings are currently poorly represented. A process of prioritisation has been developed
(and is currently being evaluated) to allow the prioritisation of historic buildings that offer the best value for money in terms of their condition, significance and their contribution to landscape, access and biodiversity objectives.
None
Scheduled Monument dataset is survey-led and has had little development in the last decade. It does not include all sites of national
(high) importance. This dataset allows features of regional or national importance to be identified for management. Features in the
SHINE dataset are additionally categorised by ‘form’ – e.g. as
‘above’ or ‘below ground’ features, which allows some indication of suitable options and potential cost, although there are some features with multiple categories .
SHINE
Provided by
ALGAO

National
Designations at Medium &
Low Risk
Designated HE features that are currently rated as
‘Medium’ or ‘Low’ Risk on the EH Register. This includes archaeological features of national significance (Scheduled
Monuments), Registered
Parks and Gardens (RPG),
Registered Battlefields
(RB)
A
1000
SHINE
Medium &
Low
Significance
Historic
Buildings
Priority
Undesignated
Historic
Parklands
National ALGAO dataset of verified undesignated HE features that can be managed under ES, and which have been identified as being of medium and low significance.
Designated and undesignated traditional farm buildings in need of maintenance
B
100
A/B
100
Undesignated Parklands of high significance which are particularly vulnerable to changing land management practices
A
100
This is a subset of all nationally designated features and identifies those that have been defined as being at a lower risk. However ongoing management of features and, in some cases, defined change is still required to secure the future of these vulnerable assets. For
Scheduled Monuments the risk status identifies the ‘Principle
Vulnerability’, e.g. arable cultivation, which allows some indication of suitable options and potential cost.
SM/risk
RPG/risk
RB/risk
Provided by
EH
This dataset allows features of regional or more local importance to be identified for management.
Features in the SHINE dataset are additionally categorised by ‘form’ – e.g. as ‘above’ or ‘below ground’ features, which allows some indication of suitable options and potential cost, although there are some features with multiple categories .
Listed Building dataset is survey-led and farm buildings are currently poorly represented. Traditional farm buildings needing maintenance are present in every landscape, and make a fundamental contribution to landscape character, and often to biodiversity objectives.
SHINE
Provided by
ALGAO
None
Historic parklands offer wide benefits in terms of their historic, landscape, wildlife and access. A process of prioritisation has been developed to allow local prioritisation of parklands coming forwards that offer the best value for money to wider objectives based on
‘scoring’ of risk, need, significance and contribution.
None

Annex 5 - Landscape: approach to NELMs targeting
Landscape is everywhere, is the context that connects people to the natural and manmade environment, and is promoted through the European Landscape Convention and its principles.
Benefits to landscape character are achieved through properly planned/targeted and appropriately delivered land management that in most cases will also be delivering benefits for one or more of the other scheme objectives - biodiversity, water management, historic environment, woodland management and climate change. Landscape naturally acts as the integrating environmental framework forming the ‘glue’ between the different natural and cultural elements.
Landscape is an overarching objective of NELMS to be considered in all applications and agreements.
Targeting Guiding Principles
These were developed and agreed by the national landscape targeting group (NE, FC, CPRE, Defra)
1. The UK Government is signed up to the European Landscape Convention which is comparable to the Convention for Biological Diversity in terms of high level principles promoting the need to; ensure that local communities are engaged in the setting of priorities and objectives for their local landscapes; an holistic approach is taken to landscape by recognising that natural and cultural factors contribute to landscape character; opportunities are sought for an integrated approach to align conservation and landscape objectives for designated sites.
2. Targeting should maintain nationally valued landscapes (hold the line), preventing degradation of landscapes of inherent quality and loss of characteristic landscape features. But also supporting opportunities to restore and enhance landscapes where they provide the context for priorities around biodiversity, soil, water (as the ‘hooks’) including opportunities in the wider countryside and close to settlements.
3. Landscape prioritisation and targeting builds on experience and evidence gained from previous agri-environment work. This uses a suite of products which includes the still valid value/risk assessments undertaken for spatial targeting of Environmental Stewardship
4. Landscape targeting will complement the ecosystem approach as a way to deliver landscape function, services and benefits on the ground whilst conserving and enhancing the landscape character and features that help to deliver those services.
5. Using the NCA framework provides an all-England interface between national priorities (topdown) and local (bottom-up) priorities. The NCAs indicate the broad opportunities for landscape and make links with other interests including ecosystem services. More local, detailed information can add to and refine this.
Method
Comprehensive analysis was undertaken in 2007/8 to provide the landscape contribution to HLS targeting. As change in lasting landscape character resulting from farming related land management activity is generally relatively slow, it was felt that the national level of that previous work was a useful basis for our current national targeting framework. The approach taken was to identify a set of nationally high value landscapes and landscape features and to initially consider these against the

level of risk from detrimental trends in landscape change for the NCA in which they were located, so that areas of highest value within a NCA at highest risk would become the top priority locations to target to secure beneficial land management activity. The 2008 NCA risk weightings were based on the Countryside Quality Counts (CQC) results for the themes that could be affected by agrienvironment activity with additional detail and evaluation provided through local team adviser, specialist and local stakeholder input. There has been no further countrywide landscape monitoring since the previously used CQC results.
In 2014 these results have been adjusted and developed in several ways:
All of the high value data sets have been equally weighted. In 2008 there was some variation.
For this national targeting phase, recognising synergies with other objectives and the opportunities for environmental connectivity, a new category of landscape ‘opportunity’ has been identified and included on the prioritised map. Opportunities are offered through: landscape-scale projects that link people to landscapes, the cultural and natural environment, particularly where underpinned by landscape character assessments, (HLF Landscape Partnership projects, NIA projects and those that have developed from the shortlisted NIA bids); nationally rare and distinctive cultural landscapes where Environmental Stewardship had previously developed Special Projects; the opportunities for facilitation and building on a legacy of landscape character achievements within protected landscapes and previous ESA areas.
The 2008 risk data layer was initially used and embedded in the new landscape priority map. After further consideration and developing concerns about some potentially misleading NCA results which could wrongly skew the prioritisation output, together with some partner feedback during the local validation phase, it was decided to remove this element of the prioritisation.
Due to the timing, a complete set of NCA Profiles was not available, and initial plans to incorporate information from these relating to a wider range of rare or very distinctive landscape areas and features within an NCA and any appropriate identified Statements of Environmental Opportunities, could not be realised. This information will inform the drafting of the Target Statements and the delivery of agreements.
The list of high value data layers used incorporating the additional high ‘opportunity’ landscapes and feature:

National Parks (national high value landscape designation)

AONBs (national high value landscape designation)

Heritage Coasts (nationally defined and valued undeveloped coast)

ESA boundaries (classic scheme legacy of landscape scale opportunities underpinned by landscape character assessments)

World Heritage Sites (internationally designated heritage sites – sifted to only include those where NELMS might have a role in the management of the sites and their settings)

NIAs and Near Miss NIAs (opportunities from collaborative landscape scale projects)

HLF Landscape Partnership Projects (opportunities from landscape scale projects underpinned by landscape character objectives)

CSS Special Project landscapes (classic scheme legacy of landscape scale opportunities on rare surviving landscapes)


Traditional Orchards (declining features that especially contribute to a distinctive character and sense of place)

Historic Park and Gardens combined with priority NCAs where the concentration of parkland landscape is particularly significant. (Features that especially contribute a distinctive character and sense of place)
A spatial overlapping of high value landscapes or features results in a higher opportunity and priority.
The national targeting exercise by definition and pragmatism has produced a high level coarse cut of landscape priorities based on an assessment of national value and opportunity. Good articulation of the opportunities in the NCA targeting Statements will be fundamental to additionally identify unique or specially distinctive local landscapes and the relevant features that NELMS is able to positively affect.

Annex 6 - Forestry: approach to NELMs targeting
Context
The top priorities for NELMS are delivery of Biodiversity and Water. These priorities bring significant elements of the Government’s forestry and woodland policy within the scope of NELMS.
In particular, the Government policy statement expresses an ambition to create 5000ha of new woodland a year with a commitment to support 2000ha of that annual woodland creation ambition.
In addition, Ministers have stated that “…grants to support the planting of woodland, for instance, will be universally available.”
The potential contribution to Biodiversity 2020 from forestry, across all partners, using all mechanisms, not just that delivered by the Forestry Commission (FC) has been calculated as follows:

Outcome 1A - Woodland Management
70% or 386,000ha priority woodland habitat in favourable or recovering condition by
2020. Current situation approximately 30%, or 55% all woodland

Outcome 1B – Habitat Creation/Restoration
30,000ha priority habitat restored or created by 2020, comprising 22,000ha woodland creation and 8,000ha PAWS restoration

Outcome 3 - Woodland Priority Species
Targeted action for declining species will continue, creating improved or more habitat in the right places and will be a subset of the above.
Assumptions made in the calculations include:
 aspiration to have 66% of all woodland in active management within 5 years is met, and woodlands not in current active management will be prioritised;
 activity is equally balanced between broadleaved and conifer woodland;
 woodland management actions deliver favourable / recovering ecological condition i.e. address all threats to favourable condition;
 acceleration of rate of woodland creation
Together, these policy objectives and Ministerial commitments have influenced the way in which targeting for woodland creation and management has been undertaken. The approach has been to develop prioritised opportunity maps that indicate where in the country woodland creation and management for biodiversity and water objectives might be appropriate.
It should also be understood that proposed planting and woodland management schemes will be subject to a rigorous assessment process that includes a number of safeguards to ensure on the best schemes will be funded. That process includes the following stages:

FC/EA/NE will be working together to prioritise development of schemes that are located within the higher priority opportunity areas;


All woodland schemes will be Priority Site/Upper Tier, and therefore will be adviser led;

All planting and woodland management proposals will continue to be checked against known constraints and sensitivities that will highlight potential conflicts;

All planting proposals will continue to be subject to a broad consultation process that will allow local stakeholders to raise any concerns;

The Environmental Impact Assessment regulations will continue to apply as they have in the past;

All planting proposals and woodland management will be subject to a scoring process in order to ensure that only the best schemes will be offered grant support.
‘Forestry’ isn’t an explicit priority for NELMS, but many woodlands are a priority habitat in their own right and woodland creation is a key option measure for delivery of biodiversity and water objectives. As such, targeting maps have been developed for both woodland management and creation.
Forestry priorities in England are guided by two key documents: the 2013 ‘Forestry & Woodlands
Policy Statement’ and the ‘United Kingdom Forestry Standard’. The policy statement sets out the
Government’s priority objectives to protect, improve and expand the woodland resource in England.
The latter sets the standard for sustainable forest management in the UK.
1.
WOODLAND MANAGEMENT
One of the key objectives of the Government’s ‘Forestry & Woodland Policy Statement’ is to bring more woodlands into management. Except for protected woodland in deteriorating condition, targeting for management has therefore been prioritised towards those woodlands not currently in active management, using the following categories:
High priority

Protected woodland – target woodland specifically designated as or situated within N2K sites plus other SSSI and NNR sites

Priority woodland habitat – target unmanaged broadleaved woodland

Priority species – target all woodland within current red squirrel range , or within priority areas for woodland butterfly and woodland bird species

PAWS restoration – target conversion of conifer Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites to broadleaf woodland where they are in close proximity to existing broadleaf woodland.

UKFS – target unmanaged conifer woodland to meet the UK Forestry Standard within catchments subject to eutrophication and acidification, both to reduce pressures on the water environment and improve biodiversity.
Medium priority


Continued management of existing broadleaved woodland

Continued management of existing conifer woodland
Lower priority

Other woodland not captured above
2.
WOODLAND CREATION
The two priority objectives for NELMs funding are biodiversity and the water environment. As such, targeted opportunity maps for woodland creation have been developed as follows:

Biodiversity – the creation of new native woodland will deliver Bio2020 objectives wherever it is planted. Therefore the approach to spatial targeting has been to focus creation for biodiversity where new woodland can improve connectivity between existing woodlands, and to prioritise areas where the greatest improvement in connectivity is likely to be achieved. This gives the following ranking of spatial priorities for biodiversity through targeted woodland creation: o Top Spatial Priority – woodland creation within an existing, higher priority woodland habitat network; o Medium Spatial Priority – woodland creation within an existing, lower priority habitat network; o Lower Spatial Priority - other native woodland habitat creation but not within an existing habitat network.

Water Quality – to reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture through targeted woodland creation, opportunity areas have been identified and then mapped against EA-defined high priority areas of the country for delivery of the Water Framework Directive through NELMs.
This has given the following ranking of spatial priorities for improving water quality through targeted woodland creation: o Top Spatial Priority – EA-defined priority areas where woodland opportunity mapping indicates that woodland creation can help address two or more ‘pressures’
(phosphates, nitrates, pesticides, sediment or faecal indicator organisms) on the water environment; o High Spatial Priority – EA-defined priority areas where woodland opportunity mapping indicates that woodland creation can help address only one ‘pressure’; o Medium Spatial Priority - outside EA-defined priority areas where woodland opportunity mapping indicates that woodland creation can help address two or more ‘pressures’;

o Lower Spatial Priority - outside EA-defined defined priority WFD areas where woodland opportunity mapping indicates that woodland creation can help address only one ‘pressure’.

Flood Risk – to reduce flood risk, opportunity areas have been mapped where targeted woodland creation can either help reduce surface run-off and erosion through protecting soils and increasing infiltration or increase hydraulic roughness on floodplains when rivers are in flood. This has given the following ranking of spatial priorities for reducing flood risk through targeted woodland creation: o High Spatial Priority – within FC mapped opportunity areas for floodplain planting plus riparian zones within wider woodland planting areas; o Medium Spatial Priority – within FC mapped opportunity area for wider woodland planting below the 450m contour; o Lower Spatial Priority – within FC mapped opportunity area for wider woodland planting above the 450m contour.


Annex 7 - Climate Change: approach to NELMs targeting
Climate Change is an ‘over-arching’ objective of the RDPE and, hence of NELMS. The Climate Change
Community of Practice has been working with Defra, EA and FC, through the Adaptation Delivery
Group, to embed climate change across all aspects of RDPE development. As part of this work we have looked for opportunities to embed climate change within NELMS targeting.
Starting with the anticipated impacts, risks and opportunities from climate change, identified in
Defra’s National Adaptation Programme, we have then focussed in on those impacts that are relevant to NELMS objectives. Where there is a spatial dimension to the issue and there is sufficient evidence to understand the issue and its spatial variation, we have sought to include it within the
Targeting system.
Hence we have provided datasets relating to Biodiversity 2020 Outcome 1D, habitat networks and fragmentation, soil carbon, flood risk management and riparian shading. As climate change is an over-arching objective for NELMS, these datasets are to be linked to biodiversity, WFD and woodland composite layers in the targeting system, rather than free-standing as a separate layer.
By doing this we are applying the latest evidence to our delivery plans and are working to meet our obligations in NE318: ‘Natural England’s climate change risk assessment and adaptation plan’. Defra have asked for an update on our progress with the NE318 commitments, so we shall be able to highlight this Targeting work in our response. It should also be of interest to the EU DG-Clima, who will be looking at how member states are addressing climate change in their RDPs.