• Like
Managing borderlands presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Managing borderlands presentation

  • 598 views
Published

 

Published in Technology , Economy & Finance
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
598
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Law, Policy & Science IHP-HELP Centre for UNESCO Cross Boundary Water Partnerships Managing Borderlands: Engaging stakeholdercommunities in decisions concerning sustainable flood management. 10/2/2011 Prof. Chris J Spray
  • 2. Background • UK and devolved governments have recognised the need to develop co-operative land and flood risk management strategies in order to build resilience required to mitigate the uncertain impacts of climatic, economic and societal changes • Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 will require development of a better science evidence base for policy- making and increased stakeholder participation. • Environmental management needs to develop new methodologies that integrate a diverse collection of stakeholders, with a diverse (often conflicting) collection of expertise, practices and contested knowledge.IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 2
  • 3. SNIFFER Flood Risk Management Conference – Edinburgh 10th February 2011 Tweed research: Dundee University & partners Eddleston Water: • Eddleston Water scoping study Environment Agency • Eddleston Water restoration study SNH NFU(S) • Managing Borderlands (RELU project) Tweed Foundation • Scottish Universities Insight Institute Gatekeepers of participatory management Forest Research Cbec Ltd Durham University York University Newcastle University Nicole Archer, Tom Ball, Andrew Black, Mike Bonell, Brian Cook, Josselin Rouillard, Chris Spray, Alan Werritty IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 3
  • 4. Eddleston Water Restoration Scoping study (July 2010)• Improvement to river structure & habitats - failinggood status (WFD) - due mainly tohydromorphological alterations• potential contribution of “Natural” FloodManagement techniques – flood history• and potential for multiple benefits & ecosystemservices (fisheries, biodiversity, diffuse pollution)A total Catchment Approach, not just 2 Main drivers•Output Recommendations:• Plans for physical restoration of channel andfloodplain• Proposals for interventions to achieve flood riskreductions• Value for money and priorities for action• Stakeholder engagement• Detailed monitoring IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 4
  • 5. Characterisation and current status: landscapes, habitats, ecology. Sources PathwaysIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 5
  • 6. Characterisation and current status: topography Eddleston Water: • a south-flowing tributary of Tweed draining 69 km2 • fractured greywackes mantled with highly variable covers of till, fluvio- glacial outwash and peat • annual precipitation: 850 mm (valley floor)-1500 mm (summits) • steeper slopes east of main stem => flashy runoff: gentler slopes west of main stem => delayed flow. QMED c. 23 m3s-1 , Q10 c. 38 m3s-1 • ideal exemplar of “source-pathway- receptor” flood risk management modelIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 6
  • 7. Characterisation and current status: hydromorphology and channelisation Roy Map Main stem sinuous c.1750: but extensively channelised by 1811 Minimal recovery since and main reason for ‘poor’ WFD status because of current hydromorphologyIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 7
  • 8. Characterisation and current status: flood risk Annual flood Return Discharge risk probability period (yrs) (m3s-1) QMED 2 22.8 0.2 15 31.7 0.1 10 38.1 0.05 20 47.1 0.02 50 54.8 0.01 100 63.5 0.005 200 73.2 Source: JBA Consulting 2008 Peebles flooded every 5-10 years. Currently no structural Scottish Borders Council defences, identifies 589 properties only flood within SEPA’s 1:200 year warning flood envelope. scheme.IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 8
  • 9. Characterisation and current status: summary• fails to achieve WFD ‘good’ status – because of ‘poor’hydromorphology• channelised reaches of main stem poor habitat (poormix channel types, lack riparian vegetation)• highest runoff from eastern tributaries and rapidincrease in downstream bankfull discharge• ideal exemplar for flood risk management measures(source-pathway-receptor) no structural defencesProposed measures: overall aim... “to restore river and its whole catchment whilst atthe same time promoting livelihoods of those whoderive income from the sustainable management offarms, forests and fishery”:• improved physical habitat;• reduction in flood risk;whilst promoting sustainable management of farms,fisheries and forestry, and recreational opportunities KmIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 9
  • 10. Proposed measures: locations and types Selected groups of measures: A: breach/set back embankments, new fence margins, riparian woodland, wet woodland, large woody debris C: re-meander channel, riparian woodland L: Reduced stocking density, tributary woodland, floodplain forest N: create ponds, wetlands, riparian woodland block ditches, large woody debrisIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 10
  • 11. Natural flood management: -Influencing “sources” by intervention in the upper catchment and hill slopesExtensive Groundwater monitoring with BGSPlanting up hillsides & river banksWorking with Forestry Commission Scotland IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 11
  • 12. Natural flood management: Influencing “pathways” by interventions in thefloodplain itself Breach in embankments could permit temporary flood storage on left bank during high flow events. Re-meandering opportunities. Intensive monitoring programme IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 12
  • 13. Socio-economic Opportunities, Constraints and Barriers Interviews with key stakeholders: • Organisations - Scottish Govt, SEPA, Tweed Forum, Scottish Borders Council, SNH, Tweed Foundation, Scottish Water, NFU(Scotland), Scottish Wildlife Trust, Country Landowners Business Association. • Interviews with five landowners (three floodplain and two upland farmers) middle-aged, male, long-term landowners in the valley (>30 years) with several sources of income.IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 13
  • 14. Opportunities, constraints and barriers: institutional • Legal constraints: EC Environmental regulation (Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directives) operation of statutory duties by SEPA and SNH; • Land use policy: high quality agricultural land on floodplains for food or flood control? Delivery of agri-environmental schemes over longer time spans (eg planting woodlands); • Land tenure: contrasting planning horizons for tenant farmers, owner-occupiers and large estates – value of multiple benefit measures (eg Coed Cymru project in Central Wales); • Quality of science: nature of science evidence base crucial in persuading land managers;IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 14
  • 15. Opportunities, constraints and barriers: farmers• understand aspirations andland tenure systems of thefarming community – a realopportunity and a threat;• develop trust and a commonvision for aims of the restorationprogramme;• role of an intermediary,independent stakeholder-ledorganisation, with technical andsocial support networks (TweedForum highly valued);IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 15
  • 16. Opportunities, constraints and barriers: farmers • local expert knowledge must be factored in to any planning; • financial incentives must be set at the right level – to sustain farm units and to attract engagement; • long-term, guaranteed contractual arrangements to deliver focused outcomes; • simplicity in any contractual arrangements.IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 16
  • 17. Managing Borderlands: – RELU project (Lead Newcastle University) Linking the Eddleston Water and the Wooler WaterExamining how local communities can become more resilient andadaptive to flooding in the context of the “borders” that exist betweeninstitutions, between different knowledges (and access to knowledge) anddifferent stakeholders in England and Scotland, faced by challenges ofclimate change 16/02/2011 17 IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 17
  • 18. Managing Borderlands:• Professional & Stakeholderknowledge• Responsible Agencies in England &Scotland• Nations that share the Tweed IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 18
  • 19. Length: 156 kms Catchment: 5,000 sq km Tweed Scotland (84%): England (16%) Mainly agricultural & valley townsIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 19
  • 20. Partners: RELU Programme 2 (ESRC)Newcastle University: Liz Oughton (lead), Andrew Donaldson, Dave Passmore, Terry CarrollDurham University: Louise BrackenYork University: John Forrester, Steve CinderbyDundee University: Chris Spray, Brian CookTweed Forum: Nicola BissettSkills cover social sciences, flood hydrology, GIS, participatory mapping, knowledge exchange, governance, wetland ecology, and stakeholder engagement IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 20
  • 21. Building on existing work of Tweed Forum and partnersBringing people together around Flood RiskManagement issues:• Conflict resolution and future scenarioplanning• Sustainable Flood Risk Management;• Research, demonstrations, pilots and actionTillIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Flood management Wetland Restoration Project Bowmont/Glen Slide | 21
  • 22. Project Objectivesanalyse existing research, and howdata is used (or lost) withinstakeholder groups, and relevantmanagement systems•Incorporate local knowledges intoland management strategiesFacilitate knowledge exchangebetween different groups, agenciesand across national bordersUse Q methodology to exploreoptions for adaptive management inthe face of increasing uncertainty Evaluate the effect of sociallearning in and through the projectfrom feedback by partners IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 22
  • 23. Timescales:• Project started September 2010 –14 month period• Run as four inter-linked workpackages, north and south of theBorder (Eddleston and WoolerWaters)• Initial team launch meeting inNewcastle - August 2010• Team site visit to Eddleston Water- Sept 2010• Creation of knowledge databases -Oct 2010 – Feb 2011• Final Report to RELU November2011IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 23
  • 24. Background – Eddleston WaterTweed catchment landscape includes moorland, forestry, upland livestock grazing and arablefarmingSalmon, trout fisheries andtourism are important to theeconomyAdministrative difficulties ofmanaging a cross-border riverCatchment is subject to complex environmental designations and rural development regimesthat make integrated management difficult. IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 24
  • 25. Background - Wooler WaterParts of the catchment suffered severeflooding in 2008 and 2009Climate change projections suggest moresevere weather in the future.There is a need to increase the floodresilience of the region.IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 25
  • 26. Science-based estimates of flood extentIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 26
  • 27. Methods Overall approach is to help stakeholders refine the problem of flooding from differentperspectives and experiences (I.e. not just the “science-based” estimates and impacts) Knowledge exchange will be facilitated through the Tweed Forum (the only organisationworking across the border to establish a network between English and Scottish stakeholders) IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 27
  • 28. MethodsThe project is organisedin four related workpackages:WP1: Interrogatingexisting knowledges Critical analysis of thelocal evidence base foradaptive flood riskmanagement Expert interviews• Creation of datainventories, and analysisof accessibility tostakeholdersIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 28
  • 29. MethodsWP2: Capturing the diversityin ways of building floodresilience Q methodology Informed by WP1 analysis Uses a mix of quantitativeand qualitative techniques tostudy the range of subjectivepositions on a topic Participatory GIS mappingof wider local knowledgeIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 29
  • 30. MethodsWP3: Producing strategiesfor building resilience inland management Return to the expertstakeholders with results ofQ methodology andparticipatory mapping Aim to identify preferredland management strategies,informed now by a muchwider network of interestsand breadth of knowledgeIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 30
  • 31. MethodsWP4: Learning andevaluation Elucidate and recordexpert stakeholder learning Record social learningtaking place within theManaging Borderlandsproject team (analysis ofresearcher diaries)IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 31
  • 32. Outputs• An assessment of impacts of Scottishand English policies and practices onBorder communities• Recommendations concerning policiesthat stakeholders, managers, and agenciesdesire or oppose• Identification of local data needs andperspectives relative to Scottish andEnglish governance• Comparison of concerns between diversestakeholder groups and interested parties• Workshops, research papers anddissemination via Tweed Forum, RELU,UNESCO HELP Basin network and otherstakeholder networks IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 32
  • 33. Learning across International boundariesScottish Universities Insight InstituteGatekeepers of Participatory ManagementDundee University and St. Andrews University, with Tweed ForumWorkshops and Field VisitsMay 2011, and subsequentMotueka River Basin, New ZealandFraser Basin, CanadaTweed, Scotland/EnglandDee, ScotlandCatchment NGOs and their roleinterfacing between government andsociety in integrated water resourcemanagementIHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of Slide | 33