Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Twenty years of inclusion: the
role of stakeholders as agents
of sustainable river basin
management
type of activities at these times. For example,
drainage of water and the rate of sediment
and pollutant input to rivers have both been
identified as major consequences of activities
such as upland afforestation, urbanization and
agricultural intensification at the catchment scale
(Newson, 2009). Bracken and Croke (2007)
suggested three dimensions of hydrological
connectivity: landscape connectivity, hydrological
connectivity and sedimentological connectivity.
Each has a bearing on runoff, sedimentation
and chemical pollution but their respective roles
are often disguised in the hidden 'plumbing'
of our developed catchments. Paradoxically,
while these three elements of hydrological
connectivity have been artificially increased by
agricultural and urban development, longitudinal
connectivity as measured by fish migration
has been reduced by human interventions in
the river channel. Not surprisingly, therefore,
removal or bypassing of artificial structures to
improve migratory fish passage is dominating the
actions
People are a key element in policy development
and implementation: this is essential in
democracies where they influence policy as
well as operating as law-abiding citizens within
it. Traditionally, river management authorities
generally did not deliberately exclude local people
or their knowledge and opinions. It was simply
assumed that local communities were thankful
for the technological and engineering skills that
provided all aspects of their water security and
protection from flooding. Specialists in pollution
control, water resources and flood management
assumed responsibility for managing risk on
behalf of stakeholders; today, management of
risk and benefits is challenged constantly because
of underlying uncertainties in the supporting
evidence (Newson and Clark, 2008). Local
communities now seek and expect a major
role in decisions about assessing and managing
environmental risks. This is partly because local
knowledge of a river is invaluable and often better
than
during
implementation
of
the
WFD
in
the UK.
Hydrologists have provided convincing evidence
about the influence of land use on runoff volumes
and the timing of peak flows resulting from
changes in connectivity. However, myths about
the effects still survive and there are major gaps
in the supporting evidence in key situations
(Newson, 2010). Meanwhile, cases of novel or
innovative land-management change, encouraged
by market forces and often linked to climate
change policy targets, proceed without any
strategic environmental impact assessment.
Geomorphologists have also improved their
evidence base in the last 20 years and the
discipline is now an important contributor to river
management, having emerged from academic
isolation to become a widely accepted applied
science (Sear
et al.
, 2010). The disappointment that
important gaps remain in catchment-scale scientific
evidence is matched by the slow rate at which
simple, practical tools such as river typologies
have been developed (Orr
et al
., 2008) - perhaps
reflecting the seemingly unique conditions that
apply in every river basin.
the
assumptions
and
modelled
scenarios
that
use
evidence
from
national
databases
for
designing
river
management
projects
(Newson,
2011).
Public participation was already an important
consideration in the minds of those promoting
the case for river restoration in 1990 (Holmes
and Neilsen, 1998). Arguably, river restoration was
already a widespread, if unpublicized, local, low-
level activity carried out by the management action
of anglers and some riparian owners. The 'leitbild'
starting point for river restoration design (Kern,
1992) implied the need for formal engagement to
help assess the benefits and costs of restoration
for a range of interested individuals and local
authorities. The 1990s saw the development and
spread of 'grassroots' eNGOs which took over some
of the lobbying activity on behalf of river 'health'
from national organizations such as the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Eventually they
