Social, economic and cultural barriers to implementing NFM

accounted for 50% of the benefits. An ecosystems/natural capital approach should increase

the chances of NFM projects getting off the ground as it creates additional motivation.

How effective will NFM be over time at reducing flooding, particularly as we experience to a

greater extent the effects of climate change? Evidence from the UK on the potential reductions in peak flows was applied to UKCP09 climate change projections. It was

concluded that as time progresses NFM measures are less likely to mitigate the effects of

climate change (Kay et al., 2019). This is another reason to factor in wider ecosystem

services into decision making.

Based on the evidence to date, woodlands as an NFM tool and NFM more broadly seem to

be affective on a small scale, but evidence to support them as a large-scale catchment tool

or as a long-term tool is lacking. The results from Pontbren and Pickering show tangible

benefits, but there needs to be a realistic understanding of the limitations of the evidence. If we wait for perfect and conclusive data sets, it will be very hard to get NFM off the

ground. The evidence base has to be built as projects are implemented. Given the time it

takes for trees to grow and for projects to unfurl at a catchment scale, the picture is going

be built up slowly. NFM projects need to be monitored and reviewed over the long term.

Ideally the professionals instigating the projects should be in a position to commit to the

long term and to building the evidence base.

Social, economic and cultural barriers to implementing NFM

The Defra pilot at Pickering highlights some barriers to using woodlands to alleviate flooding (Nisbet et al., 2011). While initial calculations suggested a net gain when offsetting the

costs of the measures and loss of agricultural use against the benefits, these calculations did

not factor in agricultural subsidies. It was concluded that funding policies would mean that

benefits were unlikely to outweigh the costs for private landowners, especially on

floodplains which are more agriculturally productive. Other identified barriers were

landscape designation and the value people attach to cultural landscapes, i.e. public

concerns about reforestation of open moorland, wetlands and sites of archaeological

importance.

Considering barriers such as these, provides insights into the skills and attitudes that are

needed to implement NFM projects. This section considers a range of social, cultural and

economic barriers to NFM, and briefly looks at the roles of public participation and

management structures in overcoming these barriers.

Traditional flood management professionals

NFM may be beyond the comfort zone of those working in traditional flood management

(TFM, engineered physical control of river systems) (Waylen et al., 2018) and there may be a

need for a paradigm shift among traditional flood management professionals (Spray et al.,

2016). Interviews with flood management experts in Scotland revealed tension between

TFM and NFM. Three themes ran through the interview responses:

• NFM was viewed as a good but contested idea. It was liked in principle but there was

hesitancy as it did not match the professionals’ understanding of what flood

management is.

• NFM was seen as a socio-political concept. It was associated with ‘popular’ initiatives

and viewed as an ‘environmental issue’ rather than a scientific one.

• NFM was viewed as scientifically uncertain. It was seen as common sense but lacking the

necessary science. Respondents emphasised its likely inability to limit large-scale flood

events.

Flooding experts were judging NFM ‘using criteria, knowledge and expectations’ derived

from TFM, creating a resistance to NFM that may be a difficult barrier to overcome (Cook et

al., 2016). It underlines that to work with NFM, one needs to be comfortable with

uncertainty and have an experimental mindset. Additionally it could be beneficial for

landscape architects to understand flooding modelling and be able to use the terminology

of flood experts.

Farmers attitudes

Interviews with and a survey of farmers in North East Scotland found multiple reasons for

farmers not to engage with NFM:

• Amongst farmers who had not already adopted NFM, over half thought their land

was too valuable to change its use, with 38% considering current funding schemes

inadequate.

• Over half (58%) would be incentivised by external funding to consider NFM. There

were long-term concerns over land values and the costs of returning the land to its

original state or finding that land use change would be permanent.

• A general lack of knowledge of and advice on NFM - approximately 6 out of 10

farmers knew very little about NFM. Amongst farmers who had not implemented

NFM, two thirds thought they had insufficient advice.

• More than half of farmers who had not installed NFM did not believe that it would

reduce downstream flooding. Possibly this is a reflection of an insufficient evidence

base.

• Concerns about being viewed as ‘slipper farmers’ or ‘subsidy junkies’, i.e. farmers

who collect subsidies without growing crops or rearing animals.

• Tradition and a pride in the drainage and improvement work carried out by previous

generations to increase agricultural intensification.

• A reluctance to move away from food production.

• Wider planning policy, i.e. concern that NFM would be used to allow the

continuation of building downstream on the floodplain. A need for NFM to be an

integrated catchment wide approach was expressed by 38% of respondents.

(Holstead et al., 2017).

Despite these barriers, farmers cited benefits to NFM interventions, including increased

wildlife, less flooding on farms, increased income, and reduced diffuse pollution. It was

concluded that farmers should be given support and advice through a trusted intermediary who is external to government. Interviews conducted with farmers in Nottinghamshire two

years’ previous (Spray et al, 2016) and later PhD research (Wells et al., 2020) drew

conclusions that support the above.

The response of farmers in Pontbren to media coverage of the NFM measures implemented

in that catchment confirms sensitivities around land use change and the relationships

farmers have within their own community (Wynne-Jones, 2016). It has been argued that

media sensationalism using terms such as ‘sheepwrecked’ has undermined the ‘good-will

and engagement’ of participating farmers. It seems that for NFM projects to work at scale, landowners/farmers need to feel that they are in it together.

The success of Pontbren is thought to rest on the early identification of synergies (Wynne-

Jones, 2016). The farmers’ ability to encourage other farmers to adopt NFM measures relies

on them still being productive farmers and NFM contributing to successful farming

outcomes. There is a concern that the success of Pontbren will be translated by others with

a different agenda into a drive for less synergistic reforestation projects. One journalist

whose writing has added to the furore is George Monbiot, who raises concerns over the

effect of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on upland land use (Monbiot, 2014).

Agri-environmental policy and subsidies

At least 70% of land in the UK is currently farmed (Alison & Wentworth). The Total Income

from Farming in 2019 was £5,278 million, with £3,296 million of the total coming from

subsidies (Defra, 2020b). During the UK’s EU membership and in the subsequent Brexit

transition period, farmers in the UK have been receiving payments under the CAP. CAP

payments are made under two pillars. The first is the Basic Payment Scheme (over 80% of

payments), which is conditional on farmers maintaining land in ‘good agricultural condition’, suitable for grazing or cultivation, i.e. free of trees and scrub. This is incompatible with using woodland for NFM. The second pillar covers schemes to promote rural development

and agri-environmental schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship scheme (Defra,

2020b).

The UK’s departure from the EU is an opportunity for the government to rethink agricultural

polices to meet environmental aims set by its 25 Year Environment Plan. A new system of

payments, Environmental Land Management (ELM), will replace the CAP, and is being

consulted on in 2020 to go live in 2024. The system is based on the concept of ‘public

money for public goods’. Three tiers of payments are proposed under ELM. In stream

interventions, such as large woody debris, would be covered by Tier 2 payments and Tier 3

would pay farmers to implement landscape scale land use changes to deliver environmental

outcomes, such as forest and woodland creation. (Defra, 2020a).

A review of UK agri-environmental schemes draws lessons applicable to future subsidy schemes:

• Menu approaches prescribing standard management actions may result in

interventions that are insensitive to local conditions. Variation within landscapes

needs to be recognised by management approaches in order to sustain ecosystem functions.

• Historically agri-environmental schemes have been output focused. A more holistic

approach, which considers how changes cumulatively affect a landscape’s character and quality is more appropriate.

• An audit approach, which limits measures to those that are easily verified, may

prevent farmers from exercising judgement and initiative.

• Recently people, customs and values of ‘agri-cultures’ have not be considered in the

English approach to subsidy.

• If schemes are applied piecemeal, there is a risk of losing spatial coherence at the

landscape scale – this could be detrimental to the landscape’s cultural value. (Dwyer, 2014)

The end of the CAP in the UK means that the financial disincentives to implement NFM cited

by farmers may be removed, particularly for those farmers who have less productive land

which can only be farmed profitably under receipt of the CAP Basic Payment. If landscape

architects are to take a leading role in NFM, they will need to understand the agri-culture

and agri-economic pieces of the puzzle. They will need to use their understanding to help

farmers develop strategies that take advantage of new subsidy policies. With regard to the

risk of piecemeal approaches, landscape architects, who are expected to have an

appreciation of social and spatial aspects of landscape, could coordinate across property

boundaries to achieve spatial coherence across a catchment.

Conservation of cultural landscapes

As experienced at Pickering, ‘cultural landscapes’ can present a challenge in terms of

adapting the landscape to climate change (Nisbet et al., 2011). Cultural landscapes can be

considered to be ‘at the interface between nature and culture, tangible and intangible

heritage, biological and cultural diversity’ and a ‘symbol of the growing recognition of fundamental links between local communities and their heritage, humankind and its natural

environment’ (Rössler, 2006). Cultural landscapes are intertwined with concepts of

statutory protection and in the UK could include National Parks and Areas of Outstanding

Natural Beauty (AONB).

In this dissertation’s context, we consider agricultural landscapes as cultural, since the

hedgerows, field boundaries and land use are the result of economically and culturally

driven farming practices that continue and evolve. They could be described using UNESCO

terminology as ‘organically evolved continuing landscapes’ (Rössler, 2006) ,as could UK moorlands, which were manmade by deforestation and burning to enable pastoral farming.

Many perceive moorlands as ‘natural’ environments, rather than maintained by land

management. However, it could be argued that the state to which we choose to return

moorlands and other cultural landscapes is arbitrary (Holden et al., 2007). An issue is that

these modified landscapes have been adopted by species of conservation concern in their

own right.

The direction of travel for moorlands in the UK is partial reforestation. Woodlands account

for only 13% of land use in the UK, whereas in most European countries it is higher. Most recent reforestation has consisted of commercial conifer plantations, but governmental and

non-governmental initiatives are planting native broadleaf trees. Much of this reforestation is on upland heathland/moorland (Douglas, Groom, & Scridel, 2020). There may be negative

effects to upland reforestation. It was found from early coniferous commercial plantations

on moorlands that reforestation can cause a decomposition of organic soil and the release

of CO2 (Holden et al., 2007)

A study of the benefits and costs of native reforestation for songbirds in temperate forests.

showed that an overall net gain in bird species can result from native reforestation (Douglas,

Groom, & Scridel, 2020). However, some open-ground birds, including those of

conservation concern are disadvantaged by this type of land use change. The needs of

woodland and open ground wildlife have to be considered. Professionals leading on NFM

projects that result in land use change need to understand and communicate the

environmental and biodiversity implications of land use change.

Landscape architects need to be alert to the financial risk of lost tourism revenue when

changing cultural and protected landscapes, and demonstrate how changes can attract

tourists, as in the case of the Devon beavers. Models indicate that globally protected areas

receive approximately 8 billion visits annually , with at least 80% being in Europe and North America. Approximately $600 billion of direct in-country expenditure arises from these visits. However, only $10 billion is spent safeguarding the same protected areas. The value of the recreational/tourism ecosystem service of protected areas outstrips the cost of

maintaining them (Balmford et al., 2015).

Visitors’ idealisation of cultural landscapes could make it difficult to adopt strategies to

adapt to climate change (Grant & Edwards, 2007). A survey of Sheffield residents revealed

evidence of some openness towards land use change for the purposes of mitigating climate

change, such as onshore windfarms. However, there was a level of general antipathy to

rural land use change. After youth, educational attainment was the second likeliest

predictor of openness to landscape change (Jung Jin Park & Selman, 2011). This would

suggest that education could be a used to break down barriers to NFM.

Public participation and management structures

A tool that may overcome social barriers to land use change for NFM is public participation.

The European Landscape Convention expects the tool to be used in landscape planning (von

Haaren et al., 2014). There are mixed conclusions on the efficacy of participation processes.

On one hand there are claims that it leads to legitimate and fair decisions, improves decision

making, and increases trust and acceptance of final decisions. On the other, there are

critics who would say that these claims cannot be backed by evidence and that opposite

outcomes could arise, such as anger, social distrust and reinforced privilege (Rouillard et al.,

2014). A body of evidence on the role of public participation in NFM projects is building.

An intensive public participation process in the Bowmont–Glen catchment between land

managers and government agencies, set up to encourage land use change through a

catchment management plan following a flood event, was observed. The process was found

to improve relationships between land managers and agencies, leading to a collectively

agreed management plan. However, this plan was reached by participants focusing on their compromises, not on new understandings. It is questionable as to whether that is

sustainable outcome (Rouillard et al., 2014).

Community involvement was found to be vital in a nature based solutions project (NBS, of

which NFM is a branch) in the Stroud Frome catchment, however, it did also bring

complexity. Pivotal to the project was the engagement by the local authority of a project

officer (professional background was not explained), who engaged with existing community

flood groups and landowners. Additionally, the experience showed that a clear governance

structure is key and should be communicated from the outset. It is suggested that a

comanagement and adaptive process will lead to solutions that are sympathetic to the local

context and the current state of knowledge, and ultimately will result in the implementation

of agreed interventions (Short et al., 2019). The Stroud Frome catchment was fortunately

within one administrative boundary. Catchments do not necessarily obey administrative

boundaries, and where they do not, responsibility will need to be shared.

A successful catchment management plan requires working across scales and the

reconciliation of national and local priorities (Waylen et al., 2018) To link those governing

the process from above and those pushing from below, there may be a role for a ‘trusted intermediary’ . This could be a local authority or even an individual. (Rouillard & Spray,

2016)

NFM requires the involvement of a wide range of bodies, beyond those immediately

associated with flood management (statutory bodies responsible for flood risk

management, hydrologists and engineers). It could include:

• public sector bodies for water management, biodiversity conservation and regional

government