This presentation was given as part of the EPA-funded Catchment Science and Management Course focusing on Integrated Catchment Management, held in June 2015. This course was delivered by RPS Consultants. If you have any queries or comments, or wish to use the material in this presentation, please contact catchments@epa.ie It is increasingly being recognised internationally that integrated catchment management (ICM) is a useful organising framework for tackling the ongoing challenge of balancing sustainable use and development of our natural resource, against achieving environmental goals. The basic principles of ICM (Williams, 2012) are to: • Take a holistic and integrated approach to the management of land, biodiversity, water and community resources at the water catchment scale; • Involve communities in planning and managing their landscapes; and • Find a balance between resource use and resource conservation ICM is now well established in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. In Europe the ICM approach has been proposed as being required to achieve effective water and catchment management, and is the approach being promoted by DEFRA for the UK, where it is called the “Catchment Based Approach” (CaBA). The principles and methodologies behind ICM sit well within the context of the Water Framework Directive with its aims and objectives for good water quality, sustainable development and public participation in water resource management. In Ireland it is proposed that the ICM approach will underlie the work and philosophy in developing and implementing future River Basin Management Plans.

1. ICM Vision

2. Build Partnership
Create an ICM
Vision
Characterise the
Catchment
Undertake further
characterisation
Identify &
Evaluate Possible
Management
Strategies
Design an
Implementation
Programme
Implement the
River Basin
Management Plan
Measure Progress
and Make
Adjustments
Background and context
• What is integrated catchment management?
• Why now?
• How does it fit?

3. What is Integrated Catchment Management?
Integrated Catchment Management is a process that
recognises a catchment as the appropriate organising unit
for understanding and managing ecosystem processes…
- in a context that includes social, economic and political
considerations, and
- guides communities towards an agreed vision of
sustainable land and water resource management for their
catchment
Motueka River catchment, New Zealand

4. ICM differs from Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) in that
it isn’t just about water – although that
may be one focus. It’s about how you
manage all the ‘ecosystem services’ in a
given area – a river catchment. The
health of a river is a measure of the
health of the surrounding landscape

5. Living working landscapes delivering all of the services required by
society in the context of climate change and the desired level of
food security…..
and fit to pass on to future generations.
Environmental Sustainability Meter
Slide courtesy of the Westcountry Rivers Trust

6. Another definition
ICM is a process through which people can develop a vision,
agree on shared values and behaviours, make informed
decisions and act together to manage the natural resources
of their catchment.
Their decisions on the use of land, water and other
environmental resources are made by considering the effect
of that use on all those resources and on all people within the
catchment
Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, Australia

7. after Bowden 1999
ICM is an ‘emergent
property’ of the
integration of three
strands of society

8. Why do we need to be more integrated?
• The climate’s changing quickly with
uncertain knock on effects and uneven
impacts.
• Populations are expanding – fast, along
with expectations/demands
• We’re running out of resources….
including water and food
• Economies, markets… and
environmental goods and services are
now linked globally – changes happen
quickly and through remote decisions Everything’s linked but we don’t know how
the connections work

9. It’s always sensible to understand all the implications before you take action to
address a problem

10. Do we need a different approach?
The WFD is not “business as usual”
– Risk-based (sets objectives not procedures)
– All embracing (includes all waters and by inference involves land
management)
– Ecosystem-centred (Good Ecosystem Quality the ultimate target)
– Sets geographical boundaries for management – natural not artificial,
political ones
– Participatory - mandatory participation by citizens, municipalities,
NGOs etc in the development of River Basin Plans.
– Hugely challenging!

11. So what happened in the 1st RBP round (in E&W)?
• Largely business as usual
• Regulators charged with implementing – too
inflexible, top down, undemocratic, detached
• Despite lots of data, huge gaps in knowledge
and understanding
• And a lack of serious intent to want to change

12. The Need – what ‘they’ said about the 1st round of River Basin
Plans - (in England and…) - 1
• Lack of ambition – only 19% compliance (by length) expected by 2015
• Lack of clarity as to “how” to be achieved; especially the huge leap to 60%+
compliance by 2027. “The measures to achieve compliance in 2027 need to be in
place now.” Plan is largely a statement of status quo
• Non engagement of “people” – neither local nor general public
• A lot of local work (by NGOs etc) not recognised in plans
• Local authorities not engaged – “what’s in it for them”; no extra funding, no vision
to engage them. “How will RBPs integrate with spatial planning?”
• The need to be 95% certain of there being a problem before implementing a
measure is simply not possible given lack of data in some places and therefore an
excuse for inaction.

13. The Need – what ‘they’ said about the 1st round of River Basin
Plans - (in England and…) - 2
• Key issues not addressed through concerns over cost dressed up as uncertainties
about the evidence/science
• Clear goals not identified, particularly for physical restoration; Plans should
establish “catchment restoration funds” adequate for targeted pilot studies
• “Non-use” benefits not taken into account well enough.
• (Private) water companies concern over them being asked for most
expenditure/effort – “the usual suspects”. Water consumer NGO concerns over
rising costs to householders
• Lack of data and information in plans makes it difficult to assess issues identified
in relation to each other. “Have the right pressures been identified?” “Are the
measures adequate?”.

14. 14
The Challenges
• Water and river ecosystems have little identifiable
“value” in our society;
• We have lost the connectivity of people to their
(environmental) surroundings - who knows where “their”
catchment is and how they relate to or influence it?
• We tend to work in top-down systems;
• River Basin Plans are poorly connected to the land use
planning system
• Our river basins do not lend themselves to large scale
joined-up planning - geographically and institutionally;
• Science/research is not involved in “the process”

15. – not another new initiative but a
way of achieving several objectives.
Not only: WFD but other EU
Directives – Habitats, Nitrates, Bathing Waters etc
But also? Resource management;
flood management; land use
planning; biodiversity goals;
landscape/environmental
enhancement, etc. etc.
Integrated Catchment
Management

16. Pilot Catchments
• 25 Pilot Catchments run
during 2012
• 10 led by the Environment
Agency; 15 by other
organisations
• 35 others applied
• Aim – to produce a
collaborative Catchment Plan

17. In 2014 - 80+
Catchment
Partnerships in
England in varying
degrees of progress
with developing a
vision and a plan

18. 2009
Integration
Engagement
Justifying the
action taken
Overall
Character
Certainty
RBD
Consultation
Confidence of outcome not
supported by evidence
available to Environment
Agency
WFD is seen as WQ Directive
and delivers remediation, but
little work across disciplines
Disproportionate cost
justification.
Costly measures excluded
from plans
2015
Catchment level information
and some local steering linked
to RBD
Improved evidence base and
investigations but not
exploiting all evidence sources
Growing integration but still
formative and culture hampers
progress
Clear planning assumptions, local
benefit values, proportionality at
overall plan level
Top down and local, with
increasing focus on benefits
2021
Local engagement shapes
choices and priorities and helps
direct action
Well founded and shared
evidence, confidence of
outcome – few exemptions
Delivery of multiple benefits
justifies joint projects & actions
Benefits driven and
transparent
Largely bottom up and directed
by delivery of benefits
Largely top down and
process focused and
concerned primarily with
GES

19. 2009
Integration
Engagement
Justifying the
action taken
Overall
Character
Certainty
RBD
Consultation
Confidence of outcome not
supported by evidence
available to Environment
Agency
WFD is seen as WQ Directive
and delivers remediation, but
little work across disciplines
Disproportionate cost
justification.
Costly measures excluded
from plans
2015
Catchment level information
and some local steering linked
to RBD
Improved evidence base and
investigations but not
exploiting all evidence sources
Growing integration but still
formative and culture hampers
progress
Clear planning assumptions, local
benefit values, proportionality at
overall plan level
Top down and local, with
increasing focus on benefits
2021
Local engagement shapes
choices and priorities and helps
direct action
Well founded and shared
evidence, confidence of
outcome – few exemptions
Delivery of multiple benefits
justifies joint projects & actions
Benefits driven and
transparent
Largely bottom up and directed
by delivery of benefits
Largely top down and
process focused and
concerned primarily with
GES
Local priorities shape what is done
Shared aims, many actors contribute
What is done reflects best benefits
From top down to bottom up
Shared analysis and evidence

20. Setting a Framework
• Learning from others
• Some principles
• Who’s involved – the ‘actors’, governance
• Steps in the process

21. Others have been there before
and we can extract the basic
principles

22. Basic Components of ICM
• Delivers sustainable water quality improvements
• Public participation – knowledge, priority setting and integration
• Scientific/technical underpinning
• Transparency and accountability
• Co-operative Partnerships – integrating skills and objectives
• Adequately resourced with equitable allocation of resources
• Demonstrates cost effectiveness
• Legitimate approach – top down support
• Capacity to monitor and adapt – iterative process
• Trusted brokers/intermediaries
Adapted from Smith et al
2010…. and with thanks to
Westcountry Rivers Trust

23. 23
Wider benefits of ICM
• More holistic appreciation of land.
• Integration of social and economic needs with natural ecosystems and the long term
use of natural resources.
• Clearer identification of roles and responsibilities for implementation.
• Development of structures and mechanisms for co-ordination and cooperation.
• Development of social commitment and cohesion.
• Focus for attracting technical and financial resources allowing better utilization of local
resources.
• Provides a forum for local interests and can result in early identification of potential
problems.
• Provides a forum for feedback to Government.
• Healthier catchments = healthy environment.
• More robust communities
Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia

24. • Holistic
• Twin-track
• Adaptive
• Informed
• Catchment based
• Co-ordinated
• Locally led
• Trusted
• Legitimate
• Funded
10 Principles from the Rural
Economy & Land Use (RELU)
Programme : Developing a
Catchment Management
Template For the Protection of
Water Resources: exploiting
experience from the UK,
eastern USA and nearby
Europe

25. Learning from Others
• Have to work at the catchment scale and below, but socio-economic issues
considered at a larger scale;
• Local knowledge and local community involvement is essential – invest in
partnerships;
• Stakeholders/decision-makers must use best available science
• Models have an important role to play;
• A shared conceptual understanding of the catchment is essential;
• Water/water environment has to be valued by the stakeholding
community;
• “If you can’t measure it you can’t manage it” – data is important;
• There has to be institutional support.

26. 26
Policy framework National/Regional/River Basin
- strategic level
Local/site, farm, water body
- operational level
Stakeholder activity
Catchment/Landscape
- translation and co-ordination
level
Institutional layer to:
Translate policy,
Fund, co-ordinate, synthesise and communicate,
Link to spatial planning
Surridge, Holt and Harris, Wiley 2010
Levels of governance, & associated roles, relevant to ICM

27. Adaptive - an iterative sequence that should be
followed for any given place
• Understand the issues
• Build capacity to deal with the problems
• Build collaboration between the
stakeholders
• Improve water quality/
hydromorphology
• Improve the ecosystem goods
and services
• Monitor, check/verify
• Go back to the start
Maitland River Watershed, Ontario

28. Adaptive Management Framework, Queensland
- ongoing knowledge acquisition,
monitoring and evaluation leading
to continuous improvement in the
identification and implementation
of management.
- Recognition of the need for active
research, critical role of
monitoring/evaluation, effective
communication of knowledge for
policy/planning

29. • Build partnerships
• Create and communicate a
vision
• Characterise the catchment
• Further characterisation
• Identify and evaluate possible
management strategies
• Design an implementation
programme
• Implement the RBD Plan
• Measure progress and adjust

30. • Governance style - Polycentric, horizontal, broad stakeholder
participation.
• Integration across sectors - Cross-sectoral analysis identifies emergent
problems and integrates policy implementation.
• Information Management - Comprehensive understanding achieved by
open, shared information sources that fill gaps and facilitate integration
• Infrastructure – Appropriate scale, decentralized, diverse sources of
design
• Finances and Risk - Financial resources diversified using a broad set of
private and public financial instruments
What might adaptive water management look like?

31. Adaptive Management Cycle
From Aspirations to
Agreeing Actions.
– What needs to be done?
– Agreeing a vision with the right people/
right groups
– Collective ownership necessary

32. Who needs to be in the
catchment partnership?
It depends which scale
you’re working at

33. It is important to be aware of the scale we’re
working at, for what purpose,
and connect between them
Each scale of working will
have its own set of actors
with a different vision and
ownership of it

34. • Business & Industry
• Regulators
• Water Supply Company
• Environmental NGOs
• Local Authorities
• Parish Councils
• Regional Assembly
• Universities and colleges
• Schools
The Actors – users, regulators & spenders
• Regional Development Agency
• Farming
• Forestry
• Rural business
• Ports
• Waterways
• Consumers
• People

35. Everyone
has a part
to play

36. What’s the vision? What do people want?
• A vision has to be shared to be effective
• Different people/groups have different objectives
– different needs from the range of ecosystem
services

37. Typical English catchment visions:
• Healthy functioning rivers flowing through a
balanced living landscape, cherished by all in
the X Catchment”
• The X Catchment is a place where people are
working together to protect and improve the
water environment for everyone.
• Water is clean, plentiful and, sensitively managed, meeting the needs of all those that rely on its resource but enabling it
to reach its full biological potential, supporting rich and diverse populations of fish, birds and other wildlife. The
Catchment is a healthy, economically vibrant environment, creating a natural and attractive amenity for people to enjoy
and improving social wellbeing for present and future generations.

38. Summary of the Steps
1. Build capacity/develop partnership
2. Agree Aspirations
3. Identify the Problems
– WFD failures (+ issues raised by
stakeholders)
4. List the Suspected Causes
5. Turn Data into Evidence
6. Agree the Main (most likely) Causes
7. Agree Actions
7. Get actions into business plans and
implement them
8. Record the consequences of the
implemented actions
9. Monitor, revise