Supporting capacity and capability in the freshwater sector

Supporting capacity and capability in the freshwater sector A Cardiff University Water Research Institute report for Esmée Fairbairn Foundation November 2021

Suggested citation: Kean, EF, Crole, DA, Wightman, S, Ormerod, SJ and Durance, I. 2021. Supporting capacity and capability in the freshwater sector. A Cardiff University Water Research Institute report for Esmée Fairbairn Foundation

Cardiff University Water Research Institute Founded in 1883, Cardiff University is established as one of Britain's leading research universities. The Water Research Institute was launched in 2015 to address the grand challenge of sustainable water management for people and ecosystems in a changing world. www.cardiff.ac.uk/water-research-institute

Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Founded in 1961, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation is one of the UK’s largest independent funders. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation aims to improve our natural world, secure a fairer future and strengthen the bonds in communities in the UK. Their funds are generated by their investment portfolio. www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk

1

Contents Foreword by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.............................................................................................. 4 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Review scope and definition of the freshwater sector ......................................................... 8

2.

Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.1. Interviews ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.2. Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.3. Limitations of the review ..................................................................................................... 11

3.

Current state and trajectory of freshwaters ................................................................................. 12 3.1. Perceptions of state and trends .......................................................................................... 12 3.2. Supporting evidence ............................................................................................................ 13

4.

Pressures on freshwaters.............................................................................................................. 14 4.1. Pressures identified by interviewees................................................................................... 14 Diffuse pollution.................................................................................................................. 14 Point source pollution ......................................................................................................... 14 Alterations to water quantity, flow and physical character ............................................... 14 Alterations to ecosystems................................................................................................... 15 The understanding and valuation of freshwaters............................................................... 15 4.2. Geographical differences in freshwater pressures.............................................................. 16 4.3. Perceived magnitude of freshwater issues ......................................................................... 16 4.4. What has been difficult to progress? .................................................................................. 18

5.

Case studies: examples of innovation and success....................................................................... 20 5.1. Innovative collaborations .................................................................................................... 20 WWF and the Rivers Trust working with Coca-Cola ........................................................... 20 Environment Agency trials of Citizen Juries ........................................................................ 21 5.2. Securing investment ............................................................................................................ 21 Wyre NFM Investment Readiness Project .......................................................................... 21 The IGNITION Project .......................................................................................................... 21 5.3. Evidence as a lever for investment or action ...................................................................... 22 The Riverfly Partnership...................................................................................................... 22 Water company Catchment Management Schemes .......................................................... 23

6.

Future priorities ............................................................................................................................ 24 6.1. Aims and ambitions: is there a common goal? ................................................................... 24 2

6.2. Priorities in the next 5 years ................................................................................................ 26 6.3. The relative importance of different interventions. ........................................................... 27 6.4. Opportunities ...................................................................................................................... 28 Policy and regulation .......................................................................................................... 29 Public interest ..................................................................................................................... 29 Business interest ................................................................................................................. 30 Others ................................................................................................................................. 30 6.5. Limits or risks to progress .................................................................................................... 30 Funding ............................................................................................................................... 31 Governance ......................................................................................................................... 31 Sector capability.................................................................................................................. 31 Communication................................................................................................................... 31 7.

Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 33

Appendix 1. Interview questions .......................................................................................................... 34 Appendix 2. Interviewees ..................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix 3. Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix 4. Questionnaire respondents .............................................................................................. 42

3

Foreword by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation In 2020, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation launched a new strategy, setting out our contribution to restoring our natural world, securing a fairer future, and strengthening the bonds in communities across the UK. Given the magnitude of the climate crisis and the critical state of nature, we wanted to better understand how we could use our role as a funder to make the biggest difference, and where our resources could be applied most effectively. Charitable foundations do not have the resources of government and industry. But we do have independence to focus quickly on where we can have the most impact. We can be flexible, take risks and test new ideas.

One area that very quickly emerged as a key focus was freshwater. Over 10% of wetland species in the UK are threatened with extinction and 90% of wetland habitats have been lost over the last 100 years. Society depends on clean water, but it is often not valued as highly as it should be. Pollution devastates wildlife, increases the cost of supplying drinking water and poses a risk to the health of recreational users. Parts of the country are facing severe water shortage, whilst others experience devastating flooding, exacerbated by the way river catchments are managed. We are seeing the effects of climate change now and things will get worse.

Yet we know that there are solutions and creative organisations seeking to deploy them. There are collaborations working across different sectors looking to drive change based on common interests.

Whilst we have supported great work on freshwater, we want to ensure that we use our resources as effectively as possible over the coming years. We worked with Cardiff University Water Research Institute to undertake a review of organisations working on freshwater across the UK, to get a better understanding of who is active, what the issues we need to make progress on are, and organisational and sectoral priorities. We want to understand the degree of consensus on the state of play, and on the opportunities for unlocking change.

Whilst we certainly hope that this report will help us to understand the role that we can play, not just as a funder and investor, but using all the tools we can. We also hope that this report will be helpful to the diverse range of individuals and organisations working to ensure a better future for freshwater and all the benefits that will come from that.

Simon Wightman Funding Manager Esmée Fairbairn Foundation

4

Executive summary Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (EFF) has identified “clean and healthy freshwaters” as a key impact goal that they will work towards, with others, over the next five to ten years. EFF, therefore, commissioned Cardiff University Water Research Institute to investigate how the capacity and capability of the freshwater sector might be best supported and developed to deliver this objective.

This review outlines the threats and opportunities facing freshwater ecosystems as perceived by different organisations working to improve freshwater environments, considering also differences across the four countries of the UK. Areas of consensus and priority are also identified.

During April to June 2021, representatives from over 100 organisations were invited to semistructured interviews or an online survey. All interacted with freshwater ecosystems either as landowners, regulators, water companies, environmental organisations, or freshwater users (e.g., recreational organisations). Although responses were gained from organisations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, those from England were the most numerous possibly reflecting the larger number of organisations with an interest in freshwater that are based in England.

There was good consensus among respondents about the state and trajectory of freshwater ecosystems in the UK, with some differences between the four countries. English water bodies were generally considered to be in the worst condition. The differences between the four countries were attributed to recent changes in Water Framework Directive (WFD) reporting, larger populations and greater urban cover in England; and differences in land use. It was felt that although there had been significant progress made in some areas over the past decades, improvements to the chemical, physical and ecological state of freshwater bodies in the UK were at a standstill or declining. There was consensus that unless strong action was taken, future pressures driven by climate and demographic changes, would combine to drive further decline in the health of freshwaters.

Freshwater ecosystems are subject to multiple interacting pressures acting at different scales.

General pressures identified during this exercise were diffuse and point source pollution, including emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and plastics, changes to water quantity, flow and physical character, alterations to ecosystems such as biodiversity loss or invasive non-native species, and poor understanding and valuation of freshwaters. Abstraction and drought were more frequently cited as a pressure in the southeast of England. Northern Ireland was characterised by pressures associated with agricultural intensification e.g., ammonia, and hydroelectric dams were only mentioned for Scotland. For Wales concerns focused on pollution from the intensification of agriculture, water industry and the legacy of development (modified channels, mines). Although generalities about the differences between the four nations can be drawn, there is further granularity in the distribution of pressures within countries. This is likely to be reflected better in individual catchment assessment and planning than at the national scale of this report.

The issues that have been most difficult to gain progress on are diffuse pollution and the combined impact of multiple pressures. Inadequate resource to enforce existing legislation, monitor, research and address the challenges was also a consistent theme. Diffuse pollution issues are difficult to resolve due to the multiple sources and stakeholders involved, poor regulation and unclear governance. Emerging concerns, such as chemical pollutants, pharmaceuticals and plastics, posed challenges because regulation has not caught up with the scale of the pressure. However, despite greater understanding of the pressure diffuse nutrient and sediment pollution places on freshwaters, there are few examples of these having been addressed effectively. The nexus between 5

water, energy and food is a recurring theme because freshwaters have not been governed, regulated and managed in a holistic way.

There was marked variation in how organisations prioritise and respond to pressures on freshwater environments. While a diversity of approaches allows comparison between solutions, it was felt that impact could be enhanced by co-ordinated effort around common goals. Emerging examples of these new ways of thinking include the Blueprint for Water and the Catchment Based Approach Partnerships. Beyond the more traditional need for local restoration projects, the top three priorities in the next 5 years were: nature-based solutions; encouraging land management practices that reduce pressures on freshwaters; and integrating actions at catchment/landscape scale. While nature-based solutions (NbS) saw near unanimous support across organisations and geographies, there was also recognition of the need for more large-scale empirical research on NbS for freshwaters as well as training and support to deliver NbS at scale. There was less consensus on the importance of nutrient offsetting/credits, widening access to freshwaters for all and water efficiency labelling on products.

It is important to bear in mind the main limitations of this survey: i) The survey reflects a potential English bias, perhaps linked to the location of organisations that interact with freshwaters; ii) the sector is made up of a fragmented set of actors, with small freshwater specific NGOs. Given the foci of these organisations, this survey may reflect diverse and specific perspectives rather than a consensual and holistic view of freshwater needs; iii) whilst the perspectives expressed here were from highly experienced people, they are limited by the available evidence base, and reductions in monitoring were acknowledged. Further, current events or media coverage (e.g., recent focus on the impact of CSOs) may influence the ‘on the spot’ responses gathered and may distort an overview of priority needs for freshwaters that may be given if respondents had more time to reflect.

An overview of case studies from successful freshwater improvement projects provides an uplifting perspective on what can be achieved. In fact, most of the respondents seemed positive about the future, and felt the stars were aligned for a step-change for freshwaters if the right actions were taken. Suggestions included: • • • • • • •

Recognise and take advantage of the interconnectedness with other sectors, such as the food, leisure and water sectors.

Develop a shared, multi-sector vision for clean and healthy freshwaters.

Develop a long-term evidence base of what works and what doesn’t. Create a network to share best practice and disseminate evidence.

Invest in long-term and large-scale commitments.

Include and inform all stakeholders and other freshwater actors in any new initiative.

Develop training opportunities to retain skills and expertise within the sector.

Encourage and expand public understanding of freshwaters and our impact on them.

There is much work to be done to make progress towards clean and healthy freshwaters in the face of multiple local and global pressures. The current groundswell of public, policy and industry interest in clean and healthy freshwaters make this the ideal time to act, to seize a significant opportunity for environmental gain. Projects such as this review initiated by EFF, provide an opportunity for those involved in the freshwater sector to take a step back and reflect on their priorities and pave the way for coordinated actions around a shared vision.

6

1. Introduction The climate and nature emergencies, the value of green space in the face of COVID19 and the global importance of the 2020s as a nature-positive decade combine to place considerable focus on the natural environment. There is also growing recognition of the resource importance of nature – for example in the Dasgupta review, the growth of natural capital accounting and expanding interest in nature-based solutions to environmental problems such as flood risk.

Simultaneously, there is significant concern about the state and trajectory of many ecosystems, especially those that provide crucial human benefit alongside their large intrinsic importance to biodiversity. Among these, the rivers, standing waters and wetlands that make up the world’s freshwaters are increasingly recognised as environments that are both hotspots for human use but also for degradation and biodiversity loss. The WWF Living Planet Index shows, for example, that populations of organisms in freshwaters have declined more rapidly over recent decade than in any other ecosystem type. This is corroborated by other long-term data. Forward projections based on human population growth, resource demands and waste disposal also illustrate how pressures on freshwater ecosystem will grow in future.

In the UK, the fortunes of freshwater ecosystems are variable and complex. While some long-term problems have been addressed by effective regulation and management (e.g., acid deposition), some assessment metrics – for example for the Water Framework Directive – reveal that most the UK’s freshwater ecosystems are not in good ecological condition. Well known pressures reflected in these metrics include point and diffuse pollution, physical and flow modification. In addition, new and emerging problems risk impacting freshwaters, either directly (e.g., plastics, pharmaceuticals, invasive non-native species) or through interaction with other pressures (e.g., climate change).

Much attention is also focussing on specific issues, such as combined sewer overflows, disrupted connectivity in river environments or direct decline in high profile and/or designated species such as salmonids. All these pressures have ramifications for organisms in and around freshwaters, and for the natural resource values provided by water.

Alongside the above issues, there is an important opportunity to take stock of the perspectives of freshwater ecosystems held by different organisations across the UK. Given manifesto commitments by governments, the actions and advocacy of environmental NGOs, the requirements of water-related business, and the capability of the statutory sector, there is also a need to assess how well equipped we are in the UK to address freshwater problems. Past exercises, for example by the Freshwater Biological Association (2005), have drawn attention to the need for coordinated responses in the face of the challenges posed.

In this regard, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (EFF) has a long history of supporting work to improve the state of the environment in the UK, alongside interests in arts and social change. A new strategy, published in September 2020, saw EFF build on their commitment to the environment under Our Natural World. One of the three Impact Goals under this priority that EFF will contribute to by 2030, is clean and healthy freshwater. EFF commissioned Cardiff University Water Research Institute to investigate how the capacity and capability of the freshwater sector might be best supported.

7

This review aims to identify: •

• •

The current understanding of the threats and opportunities facing freshwater ecosystems in the UK, how those issues differ between the four countries, and the extent to which there is consensus on what the priorities should be, Examples of actions or mechanisms that have been successful in addressing these needs, The threats and challenges that have proved harder to address.

Whilst one of the drivers was for EFF to better understand how to invest resources to achieve the greatest change, the review should also be useful to individuals and organisations working on UK freshwater ecosystems.

1.1.

Review scope and definition of the freshwater sector

The focus of this review was on UK freshwater, accepting that several Irish river catchments span the border. The impact that policy changes made in the UK might have on freshwaters overseas and any learning from freshwater management overseas that could inform practice in the UK was also considered if raised by stakeholders.

Freshwaters were considered to include all types of freshwater water bodies, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. This includes small water bodies and temporary water bodies. The freshwater environment extends into the wider landscape, and activities in the wider catchment impact water bodies.

Figure 1. Stakeholders in the freshwater sector across scales. Local (orange) and national (blue) level organisations were consulted for this review.

8

The freshwater sector is made up of a complex mix of actors working across a scale from individuals to local, regional, and national (Figure 1). The stakeholders differ between the four nations of the UK, exemplified by the supply and regulation of water and sewerage (Figure 2). For the purposes of this review, we considered the freshwater sector to include organisations that have some responsibility for or to freshwater ecosystems (landowners, regulators, water companies, environmental organisations) and organisations that represent large groups of freshwater users (e.g., recreational organisations). Whilst it was recognised that everybody benefits from a healthy freshwater environment, it was not possible to gauge priorities at that level. Increasingly, community groups are taking a prominent role in leading change in freshwater ecosystem protection and so several community groups actively engaged in campaigning were consulted.

Figure 2. Water supply and sewerage across the UK

9

2. Methods

A steering group of 11 stakeholders plus EFF and Cardiff University Water Research Institute staff was convened in March 2021 to refine the scope of the review and identify missing stakeholders from the initial stakeholder mapping. Stakeholder mapping identified 82 organisations to be consulted. Whilst it is recognised that this does not represent a comprehensive list of all of the organisations with an interest in freshwater issues, it was considered to give a reasonable spread of type of organisation and geography.

2.1.

Interviews

31 semi-structured interviews were conducted between April and June 2021. Questions were predefined (Appendix 1), with some ad-hoc supplementary questions added for clarification or to explore topics in more depth. Interviews lasted approximately one hour. Organisations interviewed (Appendix 2) were from across the four countries of the UK (Figure 3) and represented the array of organisation types within the freshwater sector (Figure 4). The response rate to interview requests was very high, with 31 out of 37 organisations approached taking part in an interview.

Figure 3 Geographic focus of organisations interviewed

10

Figure 4 Types of organisations interviewed

2.2.

Questionnaire

A fourteen-question online survey was emailed to 51 organisations (Appendix 3). Organisations were requested to share with colleagues, particularly if their organisation comprised multiple regional charities e.g., the Wildlife Trusts and the Rivers Trusts. The questions focused on the state of freshwaters across the UK, the pressures faced by freshwater environments and potential solutions.

The questions were thus similar to those asked in the interviews, but the multiple choices were also informed by the interview discussions. In total, there were 72 individual anonymous responses from a variety of organisations across the UK (Appendix 4).

2.3.

Limitations of the review

It is important to highlight the limitations of this study: • A potential English bias: when selecting organisations for interview, the research team chose mostly UK wide organisations, hoping that they would provide a UK wide perspective.

However, many of these organisations tended to have an England focus, probably linked to the location of headquarters in England. As a result, it is possible that the results presented here are biased towards freshwaters in England. Scottish Environment Protection Agency were not able to give time to the project due to a recent cyber-attack.

• A fragmented set of actors, dominated by NGOs: it is striking that the sector is mostly made up of small NGOS. Unlike other environments, there are no large UK-wide NGOs specifically focused on freshwaters, but instead a collection of mostly smaller organisations, many with species (e.g. amphibians, salmonids) or habitat (e.g. pond, wetland) specific foci. There is a risk that the survey results reflect an aggregation of these diverse, specific and sometimes case specific perspectives rather than a consensual and holistic view of freshwater needs.

11

• Diminishing scientific evidence and knowledge: funding and resources for research has reduced compared to other sectors (e.g. NERC- Natural Environment Research Council compared to EPSRC-Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) and monitoring (e.g.

NRW – Natural Resources Wales and EA-Environment Agency monitoring) has significantly reduced over recent years. Some perspectives expressed here are likely to reflect the declining evidence and knowledge available.

• It is possible current events or media coverage (e.g., recent focus on the impact of CSOs) may influence the ‘on the spot’ responses. If given time to reflect, some may have given a different overview of priority needs for freshwaters. Interviews and questionnaires of this sort are often answered in the here and now, with what the respondent is currently dealing with. Some information can therefore be biased and miss detail not at the forefront of peoples’ minds.

3. Current state and trajectory of freshwaters 3.1.

Perceptions of state and trends

Most interviewees felt that freshwaters were generally in a poor state, whilst most questionnaire respondents (53%) selected moderate over poor (26%) or good (21%) to describe the state of freshwaters. The reason for this difference between interview and questionnaire responses is not clear, but it should be noted that questionnaire respondents were asked about the freshwaters where their work was focused rather than across the UK, and many worked on a more local scale.

Questionnaire respondents who worked across the whole of the UK (n=6) were more likely to select poor (4 out of 6) to describe the state of freshwaters.

Geographically, respondents considered that freshwaters in England were in the worst state and under the greatest pressures, with one interviewee describing the evidence as “clear and damning”.

Respondents also noted however that inclusion of new chemicals in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring may have contributed to more water bodies failing to attain ‘Good status’ in England. Overall freshwaters in Scotland were considered to be in good condition, with some evidence of improvement, although there are still some significant issues stalling progress and less data available (e.g. sewage overflow) than in England. Many respondents saw Wales as intermediate between England and Scotland, although Wales has not yet included the same new chemicals in WFD monitoring. One respondent described a decline in water quality in Wales with “glaringly obvious failures” and highlighted nutrient pollution and the status of migratory fish. In Northern Ireland the status of freshwaters was described as “disappointing” and “frustrating”.

Concern was expressed over the fact that even protected sites were not meeting favourable conservation objectives. For example, one interviewee cited that in Wales five out of nine designated freshwater sites are failing. Another interviewee compared the best and worst freshwater environments, stating that the best sites are declining, and the worse sites are improving, describing this as “converging on mediocrity”. Several interviewees noted specific species or habitats, for example citing declines in the condition of chalk streams and salmon, threats to sensitive endangered species and habitats such as freshwater pearl mussel or mesotrophic lochs, or more positively, recovering populations of otters and bitterns, and a potentially promising future for beavers.

12

Generally, respondents felt there would be a continuing decline in freshwater quality, quantity, and biodiversity. While some respondents cited large improvements in water quality and ecology compared to around 50 years ago, mainly obtained through advances in the collection and treatment of wastewater, many described stalled progress or decline in more recent years. The forward trajectory was described by one respondent as a “disappointingly doomed position” and another thought that there was “nothing obvious in the coming decades where we’ll see an appreciable step change”. Some felt more optimistic about the potential for change to policy, for example as part of a wider green recovery, and also felt that increasing public awareness of environmental issues could lead to more sustainable use of water.

"Whilst I’m an optimist, we’re going to have to run quite hard just to stand still."

Dr Stewart Clarke, National Specialist -Freshwater, Catchments & Estuaries, National Trust

3.2.

Supporting evidence

The WFD monitoring (Table 1) was the most frequently used source of evidence to inform the views of interviewees on the state and trajectory of freshwaters in the UK, their perceptions therefore very closely matched the evidence. However, other evidence sources were also cited, namely: • • • • • •

Statutory bodies reporting on protected sites e.g., SACs and SSSIs Species monitoring e.g., migratory fish Academic research (e.g., Harper et al. 2020) Conservation Evidence synopses www.conservationevidence.com Reports by NGOs e.g., State of Nature Report Own experience

Concerns were raised by many on the paucity of available evidence, linked for example to the reduction in monitoring frequency and the absence of monitoring of small waterbodies. Concerns were expressed about practices such as using data from previous assessment periods to classify WFD waterbody status, or in protected area assessments. There were mixed responses to how this shortfall in monitoring might be addressed: some, but not all, felt that citizen science and technology could at least partly fill the gap. Many commented on the need for long term datasets to understand the impact of management initiatives, and on how few and how unsupported such datasets were.

Table 1 UK waterbodies classified as good or better overall in Water Framework Directive monitoring.

Nation

Year and data source

England

Most recent WFD % of waterbodies overall classification of good or better 0%

Northern Ireland

31.3%

DAERA 2018

Scotland

65%

SEPA 2019

Wales

40%

NRW 2018

Environment Agency 2020

13

4. Pressures on freshwaters 4.1.

Pressures identified by interviewees

Interviewees outlined a large number of pressures facing freshwater environments, that often interact. These pressures fell into five categories that are detailed below:

Diffuse pollution Interviewees felt that the widespread nature and multiple actors involved made diffuse pollution particularly challenging to progress. This included: • Rural sources linked to intensive agriculture: nutrient, sediment, slurry, herbicides/pesticides.

Underperforming septic tanks (although data is lacking). Sediment and nutrient transport to water bodies linked to some forms of forestry management.

• Urban sources: a range of contaminants from runoff, misconnected sewage systems, and lack of sustainable drainage.

Point source pollution While this type of pollution is more readily identified and legislated, frequency of occurrences and the nature of the pollutants are of concern. This included: • Discharges by the water industry such as treated sewage effluent and operation of combined sewer overflows (CSO).

• Discharge from legacy infrastructure such as mines or landfills, and legacy pollutants trapped in sediments.

• Discharge from industries that may contain pollutants such as pharmaceuticals and other emerging contaminants that are currently poorly regulated or unregulated.

Alterations to water quantity, flow and physical character This stems from the combination of historical pressures (e.g., modification of channel structure) and current pressures (higher abstraction and climate change). They include: • Increased abstraction from higher demand, driven by changing demography and usage patterns. This is a particular concern when demand coincides with dry seasons or periods of the year where freshwater species are more vulnerable (e.g., spawning season).

• Increased water use by agriculture (although this is poorly quantified). This could be linked to drier conditions during the growing season, and to provide high water demand crops such as salads for a growing food market.

• Decreased quantity of freshwater in the landscape linked to historical land drainage and ponds being filled. Amongst other impacts this results in reduced water retention and increased run off from the uplands.

• Increase in water temperature which increases the metabolism of freshwater organisms (and thus resource needs) while also reducing oxygen availability.

• Increase in drought events, both in frequency and amplitude, which combined with higher temperatures can put species with low thermal tolerances at risk as well as seasonal drying out previously permanent wet features and a longer-term shift to drier habitat types.

14

• Legacy of alterations made to the shape and connectivity of water channels (upstream/downstream, and lateral). These change flow and can act as a barrier to the movement of species, but also affect the movement of sediments with potential impact of biota (e.g. when sediments affect spawning grounds).

• Ongoing and novel alterations to the connectivity and physical character of water channels such as hydropower schemes, water reservoirs or industries, which can affect the flow, sediment distribution and temperature of water bodies.

Alterations to ecosystems Alterations to water quality and water quantity combine to affect freshwater ecosystems, with knock-on effects on the way freshwater ecosystems function and deliver key ecosystem services: • Direct habitat destruction and fragmentation which reduces the amount of habitat for species to live in and reduces the capacity for species to recolonise habitats that have been temporarily uninhabitable (e.g., through a drought) or for species to take refuge from events such as droughts, floods, or higher temperatures.

• The rate of freshwater biodiversity decline, which is higher than in any other ecosystems, and affects all the food chain from the smallest primary producers like biofilm to apex predators like salmon.

• The increase in invasive non-native species (INNS) brought in mainly through human transport, which threaten the survival of locally adapted but less competitive species (e.g., the impact of signal crayfish on white-clawed crayfish).

The understanding and valuation of freshwaters Pressure on freshwaters can also come from lack of appropriate information: • Lack of understanding of the link between water use (or misuse) and the impact of that use on the freshwater environment (e.g., disposal of contaminants in rivers or sewers).

• Lack of evidence/knowledge on the impact of stressors, on their own and in combination, on freshwaters (for example the impact of emerging contaminants such as microplastics) • A history of low value placed on freshwaters and water bodies, which have often been viewed as a resource to be exploited and managed. For example, rivers have long been considered as a disposal conduit, small farm ponds have been seen as unproductive land and even language and culture has contributed to convey a negative value to freshwaters (e.g., bogs are often depicted as something scary or repulsive).

• Lack of prioritisation: Politically and sometimes within nature conservation, there is a hierarchy of nature, and freshwater is not at the top. Freshwaters are often lumped in with terrestrial biomes, but some interviewees advocated consideration of three realms: terrestrial, marine and freshwater. The benefits of freshwaters are not as well understood, or at least disseminated, as the benefits of trees or oceans. As an example, the media highlights plastics in oceans but very rarely acknowledges that the vast majority is transported by freshwater bodies. This may be changing though as nature awareness has increased through the pandemic, and recreation on or in freshwaters is increasing, including wild swimming, stand up paddle boarding, kayaking, boating and fishing. Increased recreational use was also highlighted as a potential pressure, with some water bodies not having capacity for the level 15

of demand. This raises the question if widening access could reduce pressure on those waterbodies that are currently accessible.

• Lack of access to freshwaters, leading to a lack of awareness of its benefits and value. Overall, this means fewer people valuing freshwaters and on a local scale it means that communities do not monitor the health and condition of waterbodies or take actions to protect and enhance them.

4.2.

Geographical differences in freshwater pressures

Priority concerns vary between UK countries and regionally within countries depending on the local prevailing pressures and reflecting differences in land use, climate, population size and governance.

Some general differences between the four UK nations were recorded. Abstraction and drought were cited as key pressures for England, particularly in the southeast, much more so than the other nations. The north of England, and Wales, were highlighted as areas that were under particular pressure from flooding. Northern Ireland has a smaller range of industries than England, and agriculture is seen as a leading source of pressure there, with more ammonia per head of population than anywhere else in the UK, for example. Trade deals following Brexit could potentially drive further intensification in Northern Ireland, along with a Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs who has said he wants to see agriculture intensified in Northern Ireland. The impacts of hydroelectric generation were associated with Scotland, with concern expressed about the cumulative impacts of small schemes, the effect they might have on the movement of sediment and species that inhabit gravel beds, bars and beaches. For Wales concerns focused on pollution from the intensification of agriculture, water industry and the legacy of development (modified channels, mines) with abstraction currently less of a concern.

Although generalities about the differences between the four nations can be drawn, they also have much in common when it comes to the pressures facing freshwaters. For example, the pressures caused in England by the intensification of agriculture are also experienced in the central belt of Scotland. Furthermore, the granularity is important and the distribution of pressures within countries varies. There is far more detail in the distribution of pressures across the UK than was within the scope of this report and they are best examined by stakeholders on a regional or catchment scale.

4.3.

Perceived magnitude of freshwater issues

Following initial interviews, and discussions around the main pressures (4.1.), questionnaire respondents were asked to rate how big a problem they considered the freshwater issues that were collated during the interviews (Figure 5). The issues could be rated as small, medium or big, or uncertain/not enough information to assess. Most respondents rated 12 out of the 15 issues as medium or big problems. This indicates a good level of agreement on the issues.

However, two issues were more frequently rated as small problems: lack of public access to freshwaters (49% of respondents rated it a small problem) and over-abstraction of water (33% of respondents rated it a small problem). Public access to freshwaters was a divisive issue, with some interviewees seeing it as vital to increase public understanding and valuing of freshwaters as well as an issue of equity, while others value private ownership or have concerns about the negative environmental impacts of increased human traffic on and around freshwaters. Some felt that given current interest in nature post pandemic, there might be an opportunity (that could be lost) to bring 16

the public to look more closely at their freshwaters, given that, as one of the interviewees highlighted, people are on average no further than 2km from a waterbody in the UK. The difference of opinion on over-abstraction of water is likely to be because it currently impacts some regions more than others. Given that current climate predictions for the next decades show a far more generalised risk of drought and water stress, this may indicate how questionnaires of this sort are answered in the here and now.

Questionnaire respondents generally felt there was enough information to assess the relative importance of freshwater issues: “uncertain/not enough information to assess” was often the least frequently selected category (for 10/15 issues). The issue with the highest uncertainty rating was legacy and emerging contaminants (18% of respondents).

Sewage and Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) spills: a contentious subject?

CSOs were raised by many NGOs as a major pressure for freshwater environments, with many highlighting recent media coverage as having raised the profile of CSOs with the public.

Some interviewees raised a question over the balance of media reporting, both by omitting the reason for CSOs (to prevent sewage flooding into homes during high flow events) and the relative impact of CSOs compared to other freshwater pollutants and pressures. Water industry representatives felt that some criticism of the companies fails to recognise the complexity of the problem or that solutions depend on action from others. However, others point to a lack of investment by water companies. This tension is heightened by the profit making of many water companies, however, even where this is not the model (e.g. Dŵr Cymru, Northern Ireland Water and Scottish Water) there is still friction. Publicly available CSO spill data reveal that spills are increasingly frequent, and the sewage system is not fit to accommodate today’s high populations and extreme weather patterns.

Clearly investment is needed at national level, and research is needed to ensure that resources are focused on the interventions that are most urgent. There is a shared desire between eNGOs, regulators and the water industry to use science to inform improvements.

17

Figure 5 The relative importance of freshwater issues from questionnaire responses

4.4.

What has been difficult to progress?

“People’s perceptions: farming is benign and sewage is nasty. There is a social and political mismatch between this and the genuine impact on the environment” Anonymous

Diffuse pollution, both urban and rural, was the issue most frequently cited in the interviews as having been difficult to gain progress on. It was felt that progress had been made on the “low hanging fruit” of point source pollution, with the diffuse issues remaining more difficult to gain any significant traction on. Diffuse issues are difficult to resolve due to the multiple stakeholders involved, the fact that it is so widespread, that it is poorly regulated, there is a paucity of enforcement resources for what regulation does exist and governance is unclear. In comparison point source pollution generally has fewer, and more easily identifiable sources and stakeholders and therefore it has been somewhat easier to regulate.

The impacts of diffuse agricultural pollution (nutrients and sediments) are relatively well known, so standards and targets for their reduction can be set. There is a paucity of evidence on the impacts of other pollutants, principally micropollutants (PFOS, microplastics, metals, herbicides, anti-microbial resistant pathogens etc), which makes them particularly difficult to progress. In fact, one respondent stated it was difficult to accurately assess the relative risk of agricultural nutrient and sediment pollution compared to micropollutants (PFOS, microplastics, metals, herbicides, antimicrobial resistant pathogens etc) because of the lack of evidence of the impact of micropollutants on freshwaters. In the case of chemical pollutants, two respondents (one from a water company and 18

one from a public body) saw poor application of chemicals regulation, in particular REACH, as one of the challenges in addressing these emerging pollutants: “some chemicals are found to be damaging 20-30 years after introduction……this allows full scale application to society and environment to be the test to see if there is an impact. This gives the chemical industry time to develop lots of other chemicals to replace them, which are potentially more harmful. REACH never effectively catches up…… This is a major structural flaw that impacts on freshwaters.” They felt that the precautionary principle has not been applied as required by law.

Multiple other issues were cited as having been difficult to progress: accessing funding, influencing Government prioritisation, tackling habitat destruction, reducing abstraction, regulating chemical pollution, increasing public awareness and valuing of freshwaters, developing good relationships between food producers and conservation organisations, tackling plastic pollution, mitigation/adaptation to climate change, addressing lack of public access, INNS, addressing flooding and morphological alterations. Across these diverse issues identified in the interviews, there was no clear pattern in the responses by type of organisation (NGO, government body, water company).

The two issues most frequently cited as being “very challenging” to gain progress on in the online questionnaire were “the combined impact of multiple stressors” and “securing resources to address freshwater issues” (Figure 6). Several interviewees referred to the “nexus” between water, energy and food. It is this interconnectedness and the difficulty in joining things up that is a recurring theme in the pressures facing freshwaters. Although the aim of this review was to describe the actions and priorities of the freshwater sector, it is not a discrete sector, and it is important to recognise its interconnectedness with other sectors.

Figure 6 Questionnaire responses to issues challenging to progress

19

5. Case studies: examples of innovation and success When asked about case studies of innovation and success, interviewees and questionnaire respondents provided a very large number of examples, far more than it is possible to highlight in this report. It is clear there is a lot of good work going on in the freshwater sector. Indeed, there already exist databases of case studies, for example of river restoration projects or sustainable urban drainage projects. From the examples given by interview and survey participants, three themes were identified of particularly innovative or effective approaches to addressing the wide-ranging freshwater pressures. These are outlined below with some case studies.

“Without effective collaboration and partnerships with local communities, environmental NGOs, regulators, public bodies etc. we would fail to efficiently or effectively deliver against the aspirations and expectations of our customers” Tony Harrington, Director of Environment, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water

5.1.

Innovative collaborations

There is consensus that collaborations and partnerships are vital to tackle the multitude of freshwater pressures. Partnerships come in a variety of forms, from funding arrangements, knowledge exchange and skills sharing. Some coalitions are not formally constituted but nevertheless have been very successful, for example the campaigns to address ecosystem decline in chalk streams have seen a succession of organisations and individuals collectively having success in capturing the attention of policy makers. Two examples are provided here.

WWF and the Rivers Trust working with Coca-Cola WWF partnered with Coca-Cola in 2007 with a global focus on freshwater stewardship. Coca-Cola recognised the importance of freshwater to their business and wanted to integrate sustainability into their operations. Since 2012, WWF UK, The Rivers Trust and Coca-Cola UK have been working together to improve the health of some English freshwaters, starting with those near a bottling plant on the River Nar where Coca-Cola UK gets 80% of the British sugar beet it uses. By 2019 the partnership had expanded into new catchments and directly supported 135 farmers to make landuse changes. Over 4000 acres of land are now being managed through the scheme, which claims to have “replenished” 1.2 billion litres of water back to the environment and local communities.

Farmers have been supported to implement new water sensitive practices, like installing silt traps to reduce sediment running off fields into rivers. The scope of the partnership continues to expand, with a current three-year programme of nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk in London and the Northeast.

The partnership has demonstrated collaborative and innovative water management that has inspired other stakeholders to take action. For example, Tesco has now joined the call for other food and drink businesses who source ingredients from this region to join the voluntary Courtauld 2025 Commitment. This collective action will build on and upscale the success of the region’s Water Sensitive Farming Initiative.

20

Environment Agency trials of Citizen Juries Governments and parliaments around the world are increasingly using citizens’ assemblies and juries in their work. The Climate Assembly UK is an example of a large-scale citizens’ assembly. These are formed from a randomly selected group of people who broadly represent the entire community. The people who attend citizen assemblies or juries learn about specific topics or issues, discuss them with one another, and then make recommendations about what should happen next. The Environment Agency (EA), along with partners have trialled using citizens’ juries to involve local communities in decisions about the future of their rivers. The Environment Agency recognises that listening and working with others to understand their priorities is an essential element of developing their vision for clean and plentiful water for all. Three targeted “Rethinking Water” Citizens’ Juries were held in early 2021 for the River Ouseburn, River Wharfe and Thames Valley. The citizens’ juries considered the question: How do you connect with water in your local environment, and what needs to be changed in the future to benefit people and wildlife? The jurors have made recommendations which will be presented to the EA board and used to prioritise work. The cost of running citizen juries may act as a barrier to their employment in other areas, but collaborations across the sector could facilitate that.

5.2.

Securing investment

There is a gap between the resources needed to tackle freshwater pressures and the funding available from public and philanthropic sources. The scale of the problem requires innovative means of securing investment. This need is recognised across nature conservation, for example the Scottish Wildlife Trust and Scottish Environment Protection Agency recently identified opportunities for innovative investment in their “Route Map to £1 Billion”. The risks from climate change and the need for adaptation is a major factor helping to gain traction in this area.

Wyre NFM Investment Readiness Project Natural flood management interventions can give multiple benefits to the environment; however, interviewees have found that funding is still limited. These types of interventions take time to deliver benefits, and the evidence on which to make decisions is still scarce. New and innovative funding streams are therefore required, but so is the evidence base to be able to engage with buyers. The Rivers Trust and Wyre Rivers Trust are leading a new pioneering project, Wyre NFM Investment Readiness Project, which will investigate innovative funding opportunities for implementing Natural Flood Management (NFM) measures on the River Wyre and its tributaries, to help reduce the risk of flooding in Churchtown downstream. The project will explore the potential for securing green finance from investors, which can be paid back over several years by a range of organisations which will benefit from reduced flood risk and other benefits. This project is being delivered by The Rivers Trust, Wyre Rivers Trust, Environment Agency, United Utilities, Triodos Bank, Co-op Insurance and FloodRE with funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. If successful, the project will serve as an exemplar to demonstrate the commercial viability of such projects to the investment community and to catalyse similar projects across the UK at the scale and pace required.

The IGNITION Project Greater Manchester Combined Authority aims to develop innovative financing solutions for investment in Greater Manchester’s natural environment. This will help to build the city region’s 21

ability to adapt to the increasingly extreme impacts of climate change. Working with nature, solutions such as rain gardens, street trees, green roofs and walls and development of green spaces can help to tackle socio-environmental challenges including an increase in flooding events, water security, air quality, biodiversity and human health and wellbeing. The IGNITION project, backed by €4.5 million from the EU’s Urban Innovation Actions (UIA) initiative, brings together 12 partners from local government, universities, NGOs and business. The aim is to develop the first model of its kind that enables major investment in large-scale environment projects which can increase climate resilience.

5.3.

Evidence as a lever for investment or action

Generating evidence from projects not only allows evaluation of that individual project or programme, it also provides evidence to others of the relative success of different interventions.

Projects that generate evidence in a scientifically sound manner and share it well can act as a springboard for further investment and similar projects in other regions. Evidencing what works underpins further funding particularly of public or water company funds. ‘Before and after monitoring’ is key to evaluating the success of interventions. There are several Natural Environment Research Council programmes that are funded to generate evidence of the effectiveness of natural flood management solutions, (e.g. Q-NFM and Landwise) or to find ways to use existing environmental science more effectively to address challenges that organisations active in catchment management are working on in rural and urban areas (e.g. iCASP).

The Riverfly Partnership The Riverfly Partnership is a dynamic network of organisations, representing anglers, conservationists, entomologists, scientists, water course managers and relevant authorities, working together to: protect the water quality of rivers; further the understanding of river fly populations; and actively conserve river fly habitats. The Riverfly Partnership is hosted by the Freshwater Biological Association and has developed a harmonised, recognised and certified technique for monitoring water quality and freshwater invertebrates (which are often used as biological indicators of ecosystem health given their key position in the aquatic food chain).

The number and diversity of those undertaking the Riverfly training is increasing. Having started with anglers, it now includes more young people, particularly as training has been shifted online. Riverfly training brings people from different backgrounds together. The various Riverfly projects support citizen scientists and were cited by many interviewees as a good case study of innovation and success. One example of the success of the initiative is in South-east Wales where Riverfly monitoring has identified pollution incidents leading to prosecutions. There is a feeling that there is potential for citizen scientists to do more in other areas e.g., Scotland. There is potential for citizen science data to be used more, particularly in the local assessment of waterbodies, to add a weight of evidence needed to drive action.

22

Water company Catchment Management Schemes These schemes were highlighted by many interview respondents and have been used as case studies in various reports in the last couple of decades. Working with farmers and landowners, these aim to reduce diffuse and point source pollution, thus reducing the cost of water treatment (both monetary and environmental) and improving wildlife habitats. For example, United Utilities and partners have worked with farmers on their Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP) to reduce grazing and restore peatlands to reduce soil run-off into water sources. Started in the mid 2000’s they have been important in generating evidence and levering further work. These schemes provided evidence to Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate of the direct benefit to customers of water companies making such investment. For example, Wessex Water estimated as a result of implementing catchment management schemes, it is spending – on average – one-sixth of the cost that would be required for engineered solutions. As a result, catchment management schemes are increasingly employed by water companies. More could be done to improve the evidence base, as is being done by South West Water collaborating with Exeter University to better assess the impact of their Upstream Thinking interventions.

“The greatest successes I have seen are where a problem has been identified well, then the relevant people being brought together to come behind a vision for what it is needed and what success really looks like.” James Robinson, Director of Conservation, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust

23

6. Future priorities 6.1.

Aims and ambitions: is there a common goal?

“Many people are guilty of thinking the environment is nearly a lost cause, that the damage is irreversible and we are fighting a losing battle, but actually when you scratch the surface, there are far more people interested in the environment than you think. It feels like we're all kind of wading around in treacle trying to do our best. If we all pushed in the same direction and had a clear vision of where we wanted to be, we could probably achieve a whole lot more. But we're not lacking in enthusiasm.” Mark Horton, Chief Executive of Ballinderry Rivers Trust and All-Ireland Director at The Rivers Trust

The pressures that prevent freshwaters from being clean and healthy are wide ranging, as are the responses and priorities of the many organisations that interact with or manage freshwaters. Whilst there are many commonalities in what organisations aim for, interviewees advocated for taking a more strategic view across the sector and to examine evidence together on what the priorities should be. It was felt that more could be achieved if the sector pulled in the same direction towards a shared vision of what constitutes clean and healthy freshwaters across the landscape. The vast majority of freshwater projects are examples of good partnership working, but these are still often relatively short-term, localised and ad-hoc.

When asked what a freshwater project should achieve to be considered successful, interviewees spoke about the following themes: • Clear observable and measurable outcomes - in the long-term. For example, a reduction in pollution is not necessarily enough to guarantee ecological outcomes. This involves having the means to monitor before an intervention and for a long time afterwards. Organisations such as Earthwatch and Froglife aim to achieve that through enabling local communities to undertake monitoring beyond the project timescale.

• Increased biodiversity and improved water habitats. A mosaic of habitats and niches are needed to maintain biodiversity. Some organisations focus on particular taxonomic groups, for example fish or invertebrates. Frustration was expressed by some that benefits other than biodiversity were sometimes given greater weighting, or detracted from focus on achieving biodiversity benefits. For example, public involvement in the identification of a rare and very difficult to identity species may not be possible.

• More than WFD standards. Some respondents felt the good ecological status of the WFD sets a good framework for ambition. Conversely, concern was raised that WFD drives focus on individual elements rather than wider ecological recovery and there are some who feel that focus on WFD status alone is not enough to protect and enhance biodiversity.

• Restoration of natural processes. Beyond species and habitats, some interviewees argued that success was only achieved when ecosystem function was restored (e.g., natural water quality regulation, decomposition, nutrient cycling).

• Inclusivity and Sustainability beyond project funding. There was consensus that projects should be developed in a collaborative way: including local communities and stakeholders and addressing social and behavioural barriers. Stable relationships between stakeholders enable 24

a long-term vision, recognising that each project is a small step towards that goal. When delivering projects on the ground many respondents talked about working up solutions collaboratively, ensuring their sustainability.

• Multiple benefits. Catchments are required to deliver multiple benefits, such as producing food, drinking water, mitigating environmental impacts, and protecting homes from flooding.

Successful freshwater projects should try to address a range of environmental issues together, including climate change adaptation and resilience, biodiversity and water quality.

• Exemplars or flagship projects are necessary. These projects should raise the bar of what good looks like. They should disseminate innovation and share lessons learned to facilitate mainstreaming of successful initiatives. Evidence should be gathered and collated on what works and what doesn’t and in what context. Exemplar projects should also record how funding can be levered effectively and knowledge shared. A compelling good news story can gain traction with the public that then demand those sorts of things from decision makers where they live.

There wasn’t always agreement over the points above. Some organisations see social and economic benefits as equal to ecological benefits, whereas others saw economic benefits as secondary. Some organisations focus on water quality improvements without consideration for the biological elements of freshwaters. This survey highlighted the current multiplicity of freshwater actors and priorities, but also some move towards more holistic, integrated visions.

Examples of partnership working towards common goals The Environment Link coalitions are a good example of NGOs working collaboratively on shared goals. Each devolved nation has its own Environment Link bringing together charitable organisations to collectively campaign for the protection of nature. All four Links regularly exchange information and meet to discuss priorities and best practice. The Links also campaign together on issues of common interest as Environment Links UK. Taken together, Environment Links UK members have the support of over eight million people in the UK and manage over 750,000 hectares of land. 18 NGOs in England come together around the Blueprint for Water, seeking to restore the ecology of rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Collectively they campaign, respond to policy consultations and share information about environmental resilience, sustainable abstraction, water quality and agricultural pollution. The Environment Links in Scotland and Northern Ireland also have dedicated Freshwater Groups.

The Catchment Based Approach Partnerships aim to deliver a more integrated and inclusive approach to managing the water environment at catchment scale. CaBA is a civil society-led approach including local authorities, NGOs, policy makers, water companies, academia, businesses and local communities. They are working in over 100 catchments in England and cross-border catchments. CaBA partnerships share evidence and capability about how to use evidence. Many interviewees spoke positively about them, but many also said they were not adequately funded or supported to be as effective as they have the potential to be.

25

6.2.

Priorities in the next 5 years

The priorities of the organisations that were surveyed were wide ranging, demonstrating again that the sector tackles multiple pressures with multiple different interventions.

Interviews highlighted that large or catchment scale demonstration projects, and the gathering of evidence on what interventions worked, were top priorities. Some expressed frustration at case studies and the need to move on with restoration at scale to reap the benefits. While some organisations focus on clean-up activities (e.g. British Canoeing litter collections), most interviewees promoted the need to “go upstream” and tackle pollution problems at source. Those clean-up activities, however, play a big role in raising profile and awareness with the public and politicians.

Questionnaire respondents were asked to select their priorities for the next 5 years from a list of interventions collated during the interviews (Figure 7). Respondents were able to select multiple options. Answers revealed: • “Nature-based solutions (NbS)” was the most frequently selected priority category in the questionnaire responses across different types of organisations and geographic locations.

They were also frequently raised in the interviews as a priority in the next 5 years. There is clear evidence that freshwater ecosystems will be particularly affected by climate change and some evidence that freshwater solutions that entail working with nature could be effective at reducing flood risk, improving water quality or sequestering carbon and also providing a range of co-benefits (e.g. increase biodiversity). There is now a strong recognition and willingness from policy makers that NbS are a way forward, for example in the National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, but there is a reluctance to invest public money without a stronger evidence base for what is going to work where. Besides the clear need for more large-scale empirical research on NbS for freshwaters, highlighted in a recent British Ecological Society review, there is also a growing recognition that the sector needs training and support in order to deliver at scale. Several respondents said solutions for freshwaters are still focused on hard engineering because there is a gap in training practitioners who can plan and design NbS. To this effect, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust have plans to develop a wetlands school to bring people together with training and resources.

However, concern was raised that NbS might be seen as a panacea. Some felt that while helpful, NbS on their own are not enough to address the most common causes of freshwater biodiversity decline in the UK which include development, diffuse pollution and INNS. • Beyond NbS and the classical “local restorations projects”, priorities for the next 5 years also included “Encouraging land management practices that reduce pressures on freshwaters”, “Integrating actions at catchment/landscape scale”, and “sharing best practice, success and failures”. UK wide NGOs were more likely than single nation NGOs to identify “influencing policies that sustain freshwaters” and “more efficient monitoring of freshwaters” as priorities.

It is possible that this represents an area that requires more focus in the freshwater sector, given that the environment is a devolved area of policy, with different models for regulation and delivery of water supply and sewerage services between the devolved nations. The number of responses from NGOs outside of England were low, making meaningful comparisons between the nations difficult.

26

Figure 7 Priorities for the next 5 years of all organisation types. Respondents were able to select multiple priorities.

6.3.

The relative importance of different interventions.

18 actions or interventions were identified during interviews and questionnaire respondents were asked how likely they thought these actions were to make significant improvements to freshwaters.

Almost all interventions received the full range of possible responses from “unlikely” to “very likely” to make significant improvements to freshwaters along with “uncertain/not enough information to assess” (Figure 8). This indicates that there are a variety of views on the relative importance or potential value of interventions. The interventions that were least likely to receive unanimous support were “nutrient offsetting/credits”, “widening access to freshwaters for all” and “water efficiency labelling on products”. The only uncontested intervention was “integrating actions at catchment/landscape scale”. Stronger enforcement of existing legislation or regulations also scored highly suggesting an even stronger lobbying role for NGOs and community groups. As a recurrent theme, place-based “local restoration projects” were highly ranked.

27

Figure 8 Questionnaire results of the relative value of different interventions

“We need science to inform democratic processes.”

Dr Catherine Duigan, Natural Resources Wales, on secondment to JNCC

6.4.

Opportunities “There are massive opportunities. Everywhere I look I see them, therefore I think what we need to do is start to say this is what it all looks like, who wants to play and who can make this happen, around a real vision.” James Robinson, Director of Conservation, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust

Opportunities were identified through the interviews only. Interviewees were asked what they thought were key opportunities for solutions or interventions to address freshwater problems. The responses were often in depth, given with a sense of excitement and with many opportunities identified. Indeed, one interviewee said there was a general sense in the last couple of years that, while nature and biodiversity had been for a long time a secondary issue, they are rising up the agenda, not as high as climate change but rising. Interest and awareness seem to have reached a broad array of actors: public, political and business. Below are summarised the main areas of opportunity identified by the interviewees:

28

Policy and regulation • New agri-environment schemes are being developed by governments, including Environmental Land Management schemes (ELM) in England and Sustainable Agriculture Policy in Wales. Some interviewees were excited about these, others more cautious and questioned if they would be resourced sufficiently to truly deliver. Some felt ELM was not designed to deliver benefits to freshwaters.

• The Environment Act in England, the Environment Act and the Well-being and Future Generations Act in Wales are all key legislation that seek to ensure the environment is considered across all areas of government thinking. This is likely to be positive for freshwaters since these need concerted efforts across landscapes. Other associated environmental legislation is being implemented that is likely to bring freshwater benefits, such as nitrate neutrality and biodiversity net gain schemes for new developments.

• One respondent commented that there is a common policy focus across the UK nations on nature recovery networks. Freshwater ecosystems are therefore well placed to be a prominent feature in those networks. Local nature recovery strategies may also encourage groups of landowners to work together, enhancing the probability of consensus around freshwater management and the restoration of freshwater connectivity across landscapes.

The EU Biodiversity strategy includes the restoration of free-flowing rivers, and it was felt that Scottish Government may align with those plans.

• Carbon reduction policies and plans might also be beneficial for freshwaters. For example, The England Peat Action Plan outlines measures to fund 35,000ha of peatland restoration by 2025 to reduce carbon emissions, which will benefit water quality and water dependent ecosystems too. There are challenges, with some of the most damaged and carbon emitting peatlands in lowland areas that are also some of the most important for food production. The Scottish government is also investing a lot in peatland restoration. Public funds are unlikely to be sufficient however, and private investment will also be needed. Carbon offsets may provide one source of such investment, but questions remain around the balance of offsets and emissions reductions. New markets may also emerge e.g., sphagnum as a growing media to replace peat.

• Green and blue recovery. Following Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic there is some recognition of a unique opportunity to build better ways of working and an openness of governments to significant rather than incremental change.

Public interest • Public valuation of the natural environment seems on the rise, particularly since the Covid pandemic. This could lead to greater willingness to pay for a better environment (for example paying higher water bills to invest in schemes that reduce pollution). It could also push governments to invest in regeneration of urban freshwaters as part of a levelling up agenda.

• The past decade has seen a revival in recreational activities in freshwaters (wild swimming, paddle boarding) leading to more people interested and invested in the health of freshwaters.

• It should be easy for people to get interested in freshwater biota because they come in different sizes, can be found close to home (in Western Europe on average people live 2.6km from surface freshwater, Kummu et al., 2011), making it easy for people to get involved, e.g. digging a garden pond. Increasing contributions to data collection from citizen science reflect this trend.

29

• Public awareness and understanding of the threats to freshwaters has been supported by the now widespread understanding on climatic change • An increasing number of community groups, such as the Ilkley Clean River Group and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, are proving highly effective at campaigning, taking actions, and increasing overall interest in freshwaters.

• It is felt that there is an opportunity to harness public interest and put pressure on water companies, supermarkets and governments to act for freshwaters.

Business interest • Large business, particularly the food and drink industry are recognising the risk of freshwater pressures to their supply chain. This provides opportunities for new partnerships, private financing, and natural capital accounting. There are opportunities to help the corporate sector meet its sustainability goals. Large businesses such as Sainsburys, Tesco and their supply chain, for example, are showing a high level of interest in water sustainability.

• Landowners and the agricultural industry are interested in water sustainability. Many are undertaking projects to store more water or reduce their reliance on abstraction from the environment. The approaches vary from precision agriculture to regenerative farming. Advice schemes such as Farming Connect and Catchment Sensitive Farming are well received by many Country Landowner Association members, but some landowners can struggle to cover the costs of works, for example in meeting new septic tank regulations.

Others • There is a real opportunity to gain investment from other sectors when projects can deliver multiple benefits. For example, projects that address flood risk management can attract investment from local authorities.

• Direct experience of disasters (e.g., a drought or flood) can lead to behaviour changes, for example in water use, and investment from business and governments.

• Freshwaters for physical and mental health. As evidence increases of the benefits of nature on human wellbeing, initiatives such as social prescribing or outdoor classrooms have gained traction, and there is a feeling that this is likely to rise post pandemic. Freshwaters, offer an accessible option across the country.

• Some climate change mitigation and adaptation investments are likely to deliver freshwater co-benefits, for example the use of carbon sinks such as woodlands or wetlands will also contribute to restore hydrological cycles.

• Technological advances such as environmental DNA and remote sensing to monitor freshwater ecosystems could decrease the cost and difficulty of freshwater monitoring, thus facilitating better regulation and evaluation of management options.

6.5.

Limits or risks to progress

Sometimes interviewees identified things that could limit or slow progress in addressing freshwater issues. Some of these were particular to their organisation or their priorities, sometimes they were more general hurdles for the sector.

30

Funding • Almost all interviewees felt there was not enough funding to address the scale of the challenges faced by freshwaters. Complex challenges, such as updating sewage infrastructure, require such significant investment that progress is incremental.

• Some felt the cost/benefit of short-term funding, given the length of application processes, was poor value. They also felt short-term projects diminish their ability to properly engage stakeholders in a meaningful way.

• Conversations in the sector about equality, diversity and inclusion are emerging, but there are still questions about whether some communities are not having their voices heard and are being overlooked for funding and investment.

Governance • Tensions between different freshwater uses and users remain a barrier in achieving an integrated and shared vision for freshwaters. Some see freshwaters as a flood risk, others want to rewild then, or use them for boating and navigation, or manage them for angling. This can make it hard for user groups to achieve their goals and for coordination between various actors.

• To an extent, freshwaters are managed in silos: water utilities, food industry, NGOs, government, local authorities often independently develop their own priorities and interventions. Consequently, not only can interventions overlap or even cancel each other, but some problems are seen as somebody else’s responsibility and not addressed. This approach means that freshwaters are not managed in an integrated way. Many interviewees expressed a need for more coming around a table to make substantial change.

• In urban areas riparian landownership is not always clear, and sometimes even the landowners themselves don’t realise their land extends to the middle of the river. This sometimes prevents the principals of catchment management, which have been successfully implemented in rural settings, from being applied in urban areas.

Sector capability • There is a feeling that freshwater expertise is dwindling, and that consequently the sector might not have capability to deliver on the long term or if large amounts of investment become available. Some eNGOs have difficulties with staff retention, especially when salaries are not commensurate with the skills required.

• It is felt that many local authorities (including local authority employed ecologists) do not have enough knowledge and understanding of freshwaters and therefore do not prioritise them.

• While NbS seem the way forward to address many freshwater issues, there is a feeling that there may not be enough skilled people to deliver such solutions.

Communication • Large businesses are influential actors. Whilst their interest in water sustainability brings opportunity, there is also a risk that business interests do not match ecosystem and social interests. For example, a drink company might be interested in the chemical quality of the waters it abstracts for its production but could be uninterested in the ecological health of those same waters.

• Current affairs can influence the priorities of local communities. For example, in Northern Ireland there is some tension in the community following Brexit, people are becoming more entrenched and less minded to work together. As another example, ecologists are passionate 31

about rivers but communities who recently experienced flooding can feal fear or anger towards their local river. There is agreement that place-based sensitivities are important to take into account in any freshwater endeavour.

• Communication with the agricultural sector is key to improving freshwaters across all UK countries. However, often it is only the CLA and NFU who are invited to discussions, and efforts should be made to include other industry representatives.

• Managing expectation is key to resolving freshwater issues. Improvements to water quality can take time and some habitats will take a long time to recover. This needs to be better communicated. Interim and proxy measures can show landowners and other stakeholders that it is going in the right direction.

• Given the timescales needed for freshwater recovery, there is a real risk to any freshwater project unless meaningful engagement and stable relationships with stakeholders are sought.

32

7. Conclusions and Recommendations There is a lot of work to be done to make progress towards clean and healthy freshwaters in the face of multiple local and global pressures. There is a shortage of resources available to enforce existing legislation, monitor, research and address the challenges. The UK freshwater sector is at a moment in time when there is a ground swell of public, policy and industry interest. It is thus key that those opportunities are seized in order to achieve improvements at the scale required. Projects such as this review initiated by EFF, provide an opportunity for those involved in the freshwater sector to take a step back and reflect on their priorities and pave the way for coordinated actions around a shared vision.

This survey suggests that the following actions would benefit freshwaters: • Recognise and take advantage of the interconnectedness with other sectors, such as the food, leisure and water sectors.

• Develop a shared, multi-sector vision for clean and healthy freshwaters.

• Develop long-term evidence base of what works and what doesn’t. Create a network to share best practice and disseminate evidence across the devolved nations.

• Invest in long term and large-scale commitments.

• Include and inform stakeholders and other freshwater actors in any new initiative.

• Develop training opportunities to retain skills and expertise within the sector.

• Encourage and expand public understanding of freshwaters and our impact on them.

33

Appendix 1. Interview questions 1.

Could you briefly describe the current state and trajectory of freshwaters across the four countries of the UK? a. What evidence do you think best supports your statement? b. How well is the current state and trajectory captured by existing evidence, monitoring and assessment? c. Why do freshwaters matter, and for who (e.g. intrinsic value, key service, future generations, social justice…)?

2.

What are the biggest pressures on freshwaters in the UK (e.g. habitat change, INNS, pollution (including emergent pollutants), climate change, overexploitation), and what are the main sources of these pressures (e.g. sectors, environmental, political)? a. What issues have been most difficult to gain progress on to date and why? b. In general, what type of mechanisms do we need to employ to address these pressures? (policy; regulation; designation; adaptation; mitigation; behaviour change; incentivisation; demonstration projects; valuation; education; communication)

3.

We are looking for case studies of innovation and success. Could you describe successful freshwater projects or interventions, either from your own organisation or those of others that you consider particularly impactful? a. If you described your own project/intervention, when planning those interventions, what evidence did you seek to decide on the best course of action? and on what criteria did you make that decision? b. If you described your own project/intervention, on what evidence did you assess your intervention was a success? c. More generally, what should a freshwater intervention/project achieve to be successful? d. Do you communicate your successes (or failures) to others, and how?

4.

Moving forwards, what do you see as key opportunities for solutions or interventions to address freshwater problems and what are your aspirations/plans in the next five years? a. Is there anything that you anticipate might slow your progress? b. How could further engagement/communication with young people, local communities or other demographic sectors be beneficial to freshwaters? c. How important is partnership working to the restoration of freshwaters? Can you think about new and more ‘unconventional partners’ that would enable/enhance your work? Do you think different water stakeholders work together well?

5.

Do you think there are sufficient resources (for example in terms of funding opportunities) available to support solutions or interventions to address problems in freshwaters? a. Do you think there are sufficient training opportunities for the next generation to acquire the skills necessary to understand freshwaters and implement solutions? b. In terms of sector capability, are there facilities or services that currently do not exist, which could support freshwater interventions or solutions? c. If resource were not constrained, what freshwater projects or interventions would you like to run?

6.

Who do you think are the key organisations in the freshwater sector? Is there anyone else that you think we should talk to?

34

Appendix 2. Interviewees Organisation

Interviewee

Country

Natural England

Rose O’Neill, Principal Specialist for Social Science, R.T and Waterwise trustee

England

Anglian Water

Rob Cunningham, Environment Regulation and Engagement Manager

England

ALGE/Lambeth Council

Iain Boulton, Environmental Compliance Officer and ALGE Vice-Chair

England

Environment Agency

Richard Thompson, Deputy Director, Water, Land and Biodiversity

England

Rivers Trust - All Ireland

Mark Horton, All-Ireland Director

NI

Northern Ireland Environment Agency

Sara McGuckin, Head of Natural Science; Kerry Anderson, Water

NI

Buglife

Craig MacAdam, Conservation Director

Scotland

NatureScot University of Dundee/ Loch Lomond & The Trossachs NP/ BES Nature-based Solutions report Freshwater Author

Iain Sime, Freshwater Lead

Scotland

Chris Spray, Emeritus Professor of Water Science and Policy, Loch Lomond NP Board member

Scotland

Natural Resources Wales

Geraint Weber, Water Resources

Wales

Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water

Tony Harrington, Director Environment

Wales

Afonydd Cymru Country Landowners Association

Gail Davies-Walsh, CEO

Wales Eng. and Wales

British Canoeing

Alice Ritchie, Climate Change and Water Adviser Richard Atkinson, Waterways and Environment Policy Officer; Chantelle Grundy, Access and Environment Officer

Angling Trust

Mark Owen, Head of Freshwater

Eng. and Wales

Waterwise

Nathan Richardson, Head of Policy

Rivers Trust

Rob Collins, Head of Policy and Science

The Wildlife Trusts

Ali Morse, Water Policy Manager

Froglife

Kathy Wormald, CEO

Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust

James Robinson, Director of Conservation

Freshwater Habitats Trust Freshwater Biological Association

Jeremy Biggs, Director

Eng. and Wales

Louise Lavictoire, John Davy-Bowker

Forest Research

Tom Nisbet, Head Physical Environment Research group

Canal and River Trust

Peter Birch, National Environmental Policy Advisor

35

Organisation

Interviewee

Earthwatch

Isabel Bishop, Research manager; Caroline Shepherd, Freshwater and Oceans Conservation Programme Manager

National Trust Institute of Fisheries Management

Country

Stewart Clarke, National Specialist Freshwater & Estuaries Paul Coulson, Director of Operations

CIWEM

Alastair Chisholm, Director of Policy

WWF UK

Dave Tickner, Chief Advisor - Freshwater

JNCC

Catherine Duigan, Biodiversity – Special Projects Manager & Co-lead Nature Conservation policy and Advice Team

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

Jonny Wentworth, Environment Advisor

36

Appendix 3. Questionnaire 1. Are you answering as an individual or on behalf of an organisation?

2. What type of organisation do you work for?

• Environmental NGO • Agriculture industry • Government agency or public body • Local government • Community Group • Academia • Recreation NGO • Water company • CaBA partnership • Other 3. What type of role do you have?

• Director/CEO • Senior staff member • Staff member • Volunteer • Other 4. Where in the UK is your work focused?

• All • England • Northern Ireland • Scotland • Wales • Other 5. Which word best describes the state of freshwaters where your work is focused?

• Excellent • Good • Moderate • Poor 6. How likely do you feel that is to change in the next 5 years?

37

7. How big a problem do you consider the following freshwater issues?

8. Are there any issues that you feel we have missed from the list in the previous question (Qu.6)?

38

9. Which freshwater issues have been challenging to gain progress on?

10. Are there any other issues that are difficult to gain progress on?

39

11. How likely do you think the following actions are to make significant improvements to freshwaters?

40

12. Are there other actions that you would like to see taken in the next 5 years?

13. What are the freshwater priorities for your organisation in the next 5 years? Please select as many as are applicable • More efficient monitoring of freshwaters • Encouraging reduction in use or safe disposal of pollutants • Local freshwater habitat restoration projects • Nature based solutions • Nutrient offsetting/credits • Encouraging land management practices that reduce pressures on freshwaters • Integrating actions at catchment/landscape scale • Testing interventions at catchment scale • Sharing best practice, success and failures • Influencing policies that sustain freshwaters • Increasing public understanding of freshwaters • Widening access to freshwaters for all • Promotion of nature and freshwaters for health and wellbeing • Encouraging individual/household reduction in water consumption • Encouraging business/industry reduction in water consumption • Working with new or 'unconventional' partners • Other 14. To support knowledge sharing across the sector, we would like to share examples of innovation and best practice. Please use the space below to tell us about freshwater success stories with a particular focus on what worked (your own or those of others). Please include a website link if there is one.

41

Appendix 4. Questionnaire respondents

Figure A3.1 Working areas of questionnaire respondents.

Figure A3.2 Organisation types of questionnaire respondents

42