Across England, Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs) are being developed to identify priorities for habitat protection, restoration and creation, and to map opportunities for nature recovery. They play a key role in delivering national ambitions set out in the Environment Act 2021 and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 at county and other administrative scales. But how do these new strategies align with existing landscape-scale conservation frameworks?
In an evaluation undertaken by DICE Biodiversity Consulting, we explored this question by examining the relationship between the High Weald National Landscape Management Plan and overlapping LNRS areas across Kent, Surrey and Sussex.
The High Weald provides a pertinent case study. As a protected landscape spanning multiple counties, it intersects four LNRS boundaries while operating under its own statutory management plan that integrates objectives for biodiversity, landscape character, and cultural heritage.
Our review compared the biodiversity priorities of the High Weald Management Plan with emerging priorities from the Kent and Medway, Surrey, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove, and West Sussex LNRSs. Drawing on strategy documents and discussions with practitioners in LNRS development and High Weald management (based on information in March-May 2025), we aimed to identify overlap between the frameworks, understand differences, and determine what this might mean for delivery.
Encouragingly, we found broad alignment across high-level priorities. Woodland and grassland habitats featured prominently across all strategies. There were shared ecological principles, such as those set out in the Making Space for Nature report, which emphasise creating “more, bigger, better and more joined” habitats.
However, when examining the strategies in greater detail, important differences emerged, particularly in relation to spatial priorities, proposed actions and implementation mechanisms. Four key themes stood out.
Figure 1. A view from the High Weald, showcasing the mosaic of habitats it supports [L Kor]
Uncertainty in spatial data
Spatial mapping is central to LNRSs, with “local habitat maps” intended to inform planning decisions, guide investment mechanisms, and help coordinate conservation action. However, complex ecological landscapes and conservation actions are not always easily translated into maps.
In the High Weald, many habitats occur as fine-scale mosaics that are difficult to represent accurately using national datasets, while data gaps and variation in survey coverage mean that outputs inevitably carry uncertainty.
There was therefore a perceived risk amongst stakeholders that if maps are used in isolation or interpreted as definitive, important but non-spatial conservation measures, such as land management advice, skills development, or regenerative farming, would be overlooked. Ensuring that data sources, resolution and limitations are clearly displayed with mapped outputs could help ensure their appropriate use.
Creation versus enhancement
LNRS maps were often perceived by those interviewed as focusing on opportunities for habitat creation. Yet in landscapes like the High Weald, where woodland already covers around 28%, enhancing and restoring existing habitats is equally important.
This perception may partly reflect technical aspects of LNRS mapping. National standards separate areas already important for biodiversity from those that could become important, which can make enhancement actions within existing habitats less visible in spatial outputs.
It also reflects different policy roles. LNRSs focus on identifying opportunities for biodiversity recovery, while National Landscape management plans operate within multifunctional landscapes, integrating conservation with farming, heritage and rural livelihoods.
Cross-boundary coordination
While protected landscapes such as the High Weald are defined by ecological and historical patterns, LNRSs are developed within administrative boundaries. Coordination and consistency challenges can therefore emerge for a protected landscape overlapping multiple strategies, especially with LNRSs progressing at different paces and using varying terminology and approaches.
Stronger collaboration between LNRS teams, alongside clearer national guidance on outputs, could help ensure more coherent approaches across landscapes.
Translating targets across scales
Finally, the analysis highlighted the difficulty of translating global and national biodiversity targets into meaningful local priorities. International and national targets such as protecting 30% of land and sea for nature (30by30) or increasing woodland and tree cover provide important direction, but landscapes vary significantly in their ecological starting points. In the High Weald, woodland cover exceeds national targets, and other large areas are already recognised for biodiversity importance.
This raises the question of how national plans can be implemented in ways that complement and strengthen existing landscapes. Region-specific allocations of targets may help reconcile national ambition with local realities and could potentially be supported by England’s Land Use Framework.
Bridging strategy and practice
Taken together, these findings highlight both the promise and the complexity of England’s emerging nature recovery framework. LNRSs provide a strategic layer for identifying opportunities at scale involving broad consultation, while National Landscapes bring long-standing relationships with landowners and detailed local ecological knowledge.
Ensuring these approaches work together effectively will require continued dialogue, coordination and clarity around delivery mechanisms. Recognising their complementary roles will be key to ensuring that national biodiversity ambitions translate into meaningful action on the ground.
Acknowledgements: this project was funded by the High Weald National Landscape Partnership and the E3 Sharing Space for Nature Initiative. The project team consisted of Laura Kor, Emily Rampling, Dave Seaman, and Bob Smith, who are grateful to all interview participants for sharing their time and knowledge.
Key references
UK Government (2021). Environment Act 2021.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents
Defra (2023). Environmental Improvement Plan 2023.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-improvement-plan
Defra (2023). Local Nature Recovery Strategy statutory guidance.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6421a4bdfe97a8001379ecf1/Local_nature_recovery_strategy_statutory_guidance.pdf
Lawton, J.H. et al. (2010). Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130402170324/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf
High Weald National Landscape Partnership (2024). High Weald National Landscape Management Plan.
https://www.highweald.org/home/our-work/management-plan.html