A first assessment of river basin management plans

1. A first assessment of river basin management plans David Lerner and colleaguesCatchment Science Centre

2. Thanks to: Bob Harris, Ben Surridge, Alison Holt, Annelie Kolzkämper, Vikas Kumar, Natasha Tkachenko Emma Westling of the CSC Claire Reece, Sara Metcalfe, Vicky Hirst, Geoff Bateman and others at the Environment Agency, nationally and in the NE region I’m glad it wasn’t me …

3. Fly through the Don and Rother catchment

12. Index of multiple deprivation Health Employment -1.2 – 0.1 0.1 – 1.4 1.4 – 3.7 Income

13. The Don: typically English • Variable: • Geology • Topography • Land use • Layers of industrial legacy • Modified rivers • Heavily populated • Economic pressures • Conflicting aspirations • Complex!

14. WFD pressures Point source risk Mines and mine waters risk Diffuse PO4 pollution from agriculture Physical and morphological pressures Overall risk Urban pollution risk Abstractions and flow pressures Alienspecies risk Risk category high low moderate no risk

15. WFD status Ecologicalstatus Phosphate status Specificpollutants Hydrology Biologicalstatus Physico-chemicalstatus

16. What’s in the River Basin Plan for the Don and Rother?

17. What’s in the River Basin Plan for the Don and Rother? • There is no plan. • Reductionist analysis • No vision • No assessment of • Suitability • Capacity • No linking of solutions to issues • Not looking for synergistic effects or win-wins • Basically a load of scraps and exhortations • + the National Environment Programme for water utilities • No implementation approach • Doesn’t consider the Catchment as an entity

18. River Basin Liaison panels • Business & Industry • Consumers • Environment Agency • Environmental NGOs • Farming • Forestry • Local Authorities • Natural England • Ports • Regional Assembly • Regional Development Agency • Rural business • Water Companies • Waterways • Users, regulators and spenders

19. NEP

20. INDUSTRY PLC

25. Let’s rewind – what is the context?

26. Shading Shading Turbidity Turbidity PO4 load from STW effluent PO4 load from STW effluent PO4 load from CSO’s PO4 load from CSO’s Light Light Livestock Livestock Weirs Weirs BOD BOD Algae Algae Phosphate Phosphate PO4 load delivered to river PO4 load delivered to river PO4 load from agriculture PO4 load from agriculture Arable land Arable land O2 O2 Managed grassland Managed grassland Embankments Embankments Resectioning Resectioning Restored wetlands Restored wetlands River discharge River discharge Flow variability Flow variability GQA biology GQA biology Habitat modification Habitat modification Riparian buffer Riparian buffer Reinforcement Reinforcement Properties within floodplain Properties within floodplain Ammonia Ammonia Channel roughness Channel roughness Flood extent Flood extent Properties affected by flood Properties affected by flood Complex and integrated at all scales

27. Recognise: • Environmental systems are ‘wicked’ • The ecosystem is an emergent property • Catchment goods and services • Not just ecological quality! • Competition between services • The opportunities and capacities • ‘Co-delivery’ implies compromise

28. How might we get there next time?

29. Which model do we want?

30. 3 key points • Ownership • Co-deliverers have to be interested and empowered • The panel needs resources • Work at the right scale • No basin-scale stakeholders • Policy is large scale • Implementation and ownership is mostly local • There is no right answer • Trade-offs • Benefits cannot all be monetarised • Use the catchment goods and services approach

31. Suggestions • Independent liaison panels and chairs • Paid membership • Technical secretariat • Work at the catchment scale • Aggregate upwards • Look for win-win opportunities • Accept adaptive management