01 Rewilding the LDNP

Rewilding the Lake District:

An Approach to Sustainable Flood Risk Management in Cumbria, England



















Matthew Odell

MSc Risk, Disaster and Environmental Management

University of Huddersfield Business School

Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Matthew Odell



Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852Word Count: 4852

Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016Submitted 11th November 2016

Rewilding the Lake District: An Approach to Long-Term Flood Risk Management in Cumbria, EnglandM. Odell., University of Huddersfield Business School

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents

1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening .................................................................................................................1. Opening ................................................................................................................. 31.1 Flood Risk Management1.1 Flood Risk Management1.1 Flood Risk Management1.1 Flood Risk Management1.1 Flood Risk Management1.1 Flood Risk Management1.1 Flood Risk Management1.1 Flood Risk Management 31.2 Flooding in the LDNP1.2 Flooding in the LDNP1.2 Flooding in the LDNP1.2 Flooding in the LDNP1.2 Flooding in the LDNP1.2 Flooding in the LDNP1.2 Flooding in the LDNP1.2 Flooding in the LDNP 41.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management1.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management1.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management1.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management1.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management1.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management1.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management1.3 Rewilding for Natural Flood Management 5

2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim .........................................................................................................................2. Aim ......................................................................................................................... 72.1 Overview2.1 Overview2.1 Overview2.1 Overview2.1 Overview2.1 Overview2.1 Overview2.1 Overview 72.2 Objectives2.2 Objectives2.2 Objectives2.2 Objectives2.2 Objectives2.2 Objectives2.2 Objectives2.2 Objectives 8

3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ...............................................................................................................3. Rationale ............................................................................................................... 93.1 Impact and Risk Management3.1 Impact and Risk Management3.1 Impact and Risk Management3.1 Impact and Risk Management3.1 Impact and Risk Management3.1 Impact and Risk Management3.1 Impact and Risk Management3.1 Impact and Risk Management 93.2 Rewilding in Action3.2 Rewilding in Action3.2 Rewilding in Action3.2 Rewilding in Action3.2 Rewilding in Action3.2 Rewilding in Action3.2 Rewilding in Action3.2 Rewilding in Action 10

4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................4. Logistics ................................................................................................................ 114.1 Site Specific Information4.1 Site Specific Information4.1 Site Specific Information4.1 Site Specific Information4.1 Site Specific Information4.1 Site Specific Information4.1 Site Specific Information4.1 Site Specific Information 114.2 Funding and Operations4.2 Funding and Operations4.2 Funding and Operations4.2 Funding and Operations4.2 Funding and Operations4.2 Funding and Operations4.2 Funding and Operations4.2 Funding and Operations 124.3 Limitations and Further Considerations4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations 13

5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ......................................................................................5. Sustainability Principles ...................................................................................... 15

6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing ..................................................................................................................6. Closing .................................................................................................................. 17

References .................................................................................................................References .................................................................................................................References .................................................................................................................References .................................................................................................................References .................................................................................................................References .................................................................................................................References .................................................................................................................References .................................................................................................................References ................................................................................................................. 19Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary .....................................................................................................................Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 21Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices .................................................................................................................Appendices ................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix i: Photographs and Site DataAppendix ii: Notes and Additional InformationAppendix ii: Notes and Additional InformationAppendix ii: Notes and Additional InformationAppendix ii: Notes and Additional InformationAppendix ii: Notes and Additional InformationAppendix ii: Notes and Additional InformationAppendix ii: Notes and Additional InformationAppendix ii: Notes and Additional Information

2

Rewilding the Lake District: An Approach to Sustainable Flood Risk Management in Cumbria, EnglandM. Odell., University of Huddersfield Business School

1. OPENING

1.1 Flood Risk Management

Projections of local, regional, national and global climate vary greatly under differing climate change scenarios (e.g., Hibbard, et al., 2010; Parry, et al., 2007) however, sureties do exist. On a global scale, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) gives evidence of increased flood events across all continents stating with “high certainty” that risk of flooding will increase in the future (United Nations, 2005). Furthermore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007 p.8) state that the UK can expect increasingly higher annual temperatures coupled with hotter summers and significantly warmer and wetter winters over the next 30 years and with them, the increasing risk of localised flooding (Parry, et al., 2007).

Flood risk management (FRM) strategies are prepared by authoritative bodies at local, regional and national levels in accordance with a specific community requirement (e.g., DEFRA, 2011; Pitt, 2008) and must prove both financially viable and economically advantageous. Legislation is in place under EU and UK law to address the risk of future flooding in England. Under the EU Floods Directive (2007) authorities within EU Member States are responsible for FRM strategies on all river basins and coastal zones that pose a risk of flooding; they must include measures on probability of flooding, damage prevention, habitat protection and social preparedness (DEFRA, 2014). The Climate Change Act (2008) necessitates adaptation to climate change with a national adaptation programme and a five-yearly risk assessment; this includes the requirement of public bodies and statutory organisations such as water companies to report on climate change adaptation strategies (Environment Agency, 2009b). Furthermore, The Pitt Review (Pitt, 2008), in response to the warning of increased frequency of large scale flood events in the UK, recommends that acting authorities aim to work with “all available resources and natural processes” to alleviate the risk of future flooding (e.g., DEFRA, 2012) claiming vulnerability to climate change can be reduced through sustainable development and that adaptation is the key requirement to address these impacts (Parry, et al., 2007; Pitt, 2008).

Modern defence schemes reduce expected damage by at least £8 for every £1 spent, significantly above the central government target of 5 to 1 (DEFRA, 2016). Yet even with consideration to defence, flooding costs the UK £1.1bn on average annually with one in six properties at risk (DEFRA, 2011); accountancy firm KPMG (2015) report UK damages in excess of £5bn in 2015 alone. Although flood defence improvements have been made in high risk areas, construction and maintenance of these reactive measures of managed river

3


channels, walls and raised embankments, flood barriers and pumps amounts to approximately two thirds of the annual flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) budget for England, currently £735m for the year 2016/17 (DEFRA, 2016; Environment Agency, 2009b). Responsible bodies, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency (EA) claim current funding is insufficient to meet the continued improvement and maintenance of flood defences throughout the UK (DEFRA, 2011). Expenditure is expected to decrease further to 2020/21 (Fig 1.1) (DEFRA, 2016).

Fig 1.1: Graph of total FCERM expenditure in England (£million).Blue data shows current and historical data, red data shows budget forecast.

(Adapted from DEFRA, 2016)

1.2 Flooding in the LDNP

The Lake District National Park (LDNP) is the largest of England’s national parks (Lake District National Park Authority, 2016). At 229,000 hectares, the LDNP in Cumbria houses all of England’s 10 highest peaks and also its deepest and longest lakes (Lake District National Park Authority, 2016; National Geographic, 2016); it also receives more rainfall than any other inhabited area of England (Burt, et al., 2016; Met Office, 2016; National Geographic, 2016). Distinct topography of exposed rocky peaks and wide U-shaped valleys disadvantage historical flood management techniques in a way that has seen flooding become a regular occurrence throughout the 21st century (Environment Agency, 2015; Lake District National Park Authority, 2016a).

Cumbria and the LDNP suffered catastrophic flood events in 2005, 2009 and 2015, some of the most significant UK flooding events in 50 years (Environment Agency, 2006). In 2005, heavy rainfall across the Cumbrian Mountains led to many rivers throughout the LDNP overtopping; 2500 properties were flooded and power and communications were lost to

4


250,000 properties throughout Cumbria and Lancashire (Environment Agency, 2006); total damages exceeded £500m (Environment Agency, 2006). The LDNP suffered further floods in 2009 in the catchment of the northwestern towns of Cockermouth and Keswick where one fifth the annual rainfall fell throughout a 48hr period (see Appendix ii) (Environment Agency, 2009; 2016; Met Office, 2016; Sibley, 2010). More than 1500 properties were flooded, businesses forced closure and infrastructure destroyed leading to loss of human life and grazing stock (Sibley, 2010).

Agricultural land makes up 55% of the LDNP (Lake District National Park Authority, 2016a) with sheep farming the main industry (Harvey, et al., 2013); of the remaining area, approximately 25% is owned by the National Trust, much of which is uncultivated, and woodland makes up just 3% of the total land area (Lake District National Park Authority, 2016). It is widely recognised that the impacts of extreme rainfall are exacerbated through our land management practices (e.g., Environment Agency, 2006, 2009b, 2016; United Nations, 2005), and physical modifications affect 50% of water bodies in the LDNP region (Environment Agency, 2015); overgrazing, deforestation, burning and draining of moorlands and uplands, and channellisation and dredging of our waterways for land management and navigation purposes all act to increase flow rates and the risk of flooding in our downstream towns and cities (DEFRA, 2011; Environment Agency, 2015).

1.3 Rewilding for Sustainable Flood Management

Methods of renaturalisation such as reforestation, peatland and moorland restoration and wet woodland creation can all provide physical remediation from flooding through the storage of excess water (e.g., DEFRA, 2011, 2012, 2015; Rewilding Britain, 2016a). Further methods including river restoration, reinstating ancient land management and farming practices and the reintroduction of lost faunal species can also provide additional benefits to flood risk management through decreased flow rates (Rewilding Britain, 2016a).

As a concept developed throughout the 1990’s, the term rewilding was coined by Foreham (1999) to describe the ecological restoration of ecosystems by returning human-influenced environments to a more natural state (Carey, 2016; Whyte, 2013). The key focus behind the concept is “not...to restore primordial wilderness” (Monbiot, 2014) but more an attempt to “minimise sustained intervention” (Corlett, 2016); “allowing ecological processes to resume” (Monbiot, 2014), returning a managed area to the wild, recoupling society with the natural world, as well as securing clean air and water, increasing carbon storage, and also providing flood control (Rewilding Britain, 2016a). Varying translations of the concept have since been adopted around the world by both advocates (e.g., Carey, 2016; Corlett, 2016;

5


Monbiot, 2013, 2014; Navarro & Pereira, 2012; Prior & Ward, 2016; Sandom, et al., 2013) and critics (e.g., Cloyd, 2016; Hintz, 2007; Jørgensen, 2015).

Critics of the rewilding practise claim that such a divide between culture and nature will likely prove unproductive, even harmful; that some interpretations aim to “erase human history and involvement with the land and flora and fauna” (Jørgensen, 2015), and others (e.g. Cloyd, 2016) suggest that agricultural land and livelihoods may be lost, yet advocates highlight the potential for positive change. Navarro & Pereira (2012) show how traditional agricultural practices may be detrimental to the environment and intensive on human labour with landowners facing increased market competition and pressure to abandon through socio-economic and ecological drivers (Ceaușu, et al., 2015). Strategic and economic alternatives to abandonment of “agricultural intensification or extensification are floored” (Navarro & Pereira, 2012) yet rewilding provides potential benefits to the ecosystem and to biodiversity and also the community. Rewilding Britain (2016a) propose a range of renaturalising strategies to reduce freshwater flooding through reorganised land management practises, restoration of waterways, and the revival of wildlife whilst providing additional benefits to the environment and society.

Land management strategies all work to reduce peak flow downstream. Reforestation of upper catchments allows for a greater uptake of water and creates a more permeable surface layer to aid absorption whilst also increasing carbon capture (Navarro & Pereira, 2012; Rewilding Britain, 2016a); wet woodlands may be created in low level flood plain areas to similar ends (Rewilding Britain, 2016a). Moorland restoration seeks to fill drainage ditches with an aim to reduce drainage and allow for a greater water content in upland peat bogs; reduction in controlled burning for land management can also aid additional uptake (Holden et al., 2011; Rewilding Britain, 2016b). River channels that may have been straightened in past years to aid agricultural drainage and increase flow may be reversed through river restoration whereby tree trunks may be laid in key locations to create artificial meanders and encourage sedimentation alongside the installation of ‘leaky dams’ that act to slow the flow rate yet specifically allow fish migration (Butler & Malanson, 2005; Rewilding Britain, 2016b). Lastly, traditional grazing practises may be altered to avoid soil compaction.

Faunal species reintroduction can also prove beneficial. Natural England (2009) have noted the ability of beavers to naturally regulate river flow and reduce peak flow. Studies note an increase in the interval between major flood events with the reintroduction of beavers to a wild river habitat with high flood risk due to beaver dam construction (e.g., Butler & Malanson, 2003; Nyssen, et al., 2011), whilst habitats can also act as a sediment trap limiting sedimentation downstream (Butler & Malanson, 2003).

6


2. AIM

2.1 Overview

Land management practices play a quantitative role in flood risk management in small catchments of less than 10,000ha (National Trust, 2008). Flood defences have been improved throughout Cumbrian towns since the 2005 floods (Environment Agency, 2009a) and future land management strategies are being discussed however, only very minor additional contributions are due for completion before the year 2021 (Environment Agency, 2015). Little additional defence is planned without substantial government investment and assurance rests on defensive mechanisms constructed in the main towns as barriers for future flooding.

The output of this proposal will aim to address the increasing risk of future flood events throughout Cumbria and the Lake District National Park (LDNP). It will give local authorities, professional bodies, social alliances, private and conservation group landowners, and all other stakeholders access to affordable land management strategies focussed on the restoration of our natural resources inline with the Water Framework Directive (2000), the EU Floods Directive (2007), The Climate Change Act (2008), The Pitt Review (2008) and the Flood and Water Management Act (2010), and also in line with the LIFE (Long-term Initiatives for Flood-risk Environments) principles, in order to increase sustainable flood management (SFM) and resilience to flood events with focus on the catchments of two largely susceptible and vulnerable Cumbrian towns, Keswick and Cockermouth.

This proposal will discuss the implementation of an encompassing rewilding strategy for the LDNP utilising the three pillars to sustainable development; social development, environmental development and economic development; people, planet and profit. Elements discussed will encourage natural processes of flood resilience; allowing high flow rivers to renaturalise, reducing grazing stock and replanting trees, restricting the management of upland moorland and peat bogs, eliminating drainage ditches, and also reintroducing the lost beaver population.

7


2.2 Objectives

In order to achieve this aim, it will be necessary to explore the following objectives;

Objective One:

• Explore variations of successful rewilding programmes from historic global studies and demonstrate their effectiveness at flood risk reduction in these regions.

Objective Two:

• Quantitively and qualitatively examine catchment areas within the Lake District National Park to ascertain suitability of a rewilding programme in response to urban flood risk reduction and sustainable flood risk management.

Objective Three:

• Propose a proactive remedial programme addressing the primary causes of urban flooding through the implementation of varying rewilding strategies throughout the Lake District National Park in order to provide effective sustainable flood risk management.

8


3. RATIONALE

3.1 Impact and Risk Management

The impact of flooding on a community is often great. Flooding can be fatal and the immediate damage to property and agriculture may be severe, but additional long-term physical and psychological impacts also occur. Supplies of fresh water and energy may be disrupted; schools, hospitals and emergency services may cease to function efficiently; infrastructure and transport links may be broken; urban drainage systems often exceed capacity increasing risk of waterborne diseases; exposure to harmful pollutants may increase the risk of environmental degradation, changes in biodiversity and species loss. Prolonged economic impacts include marginalisation of purchasing power and production, and loss of livelihood which, in extreme cases, may lead to population displacement and mass migration. Long-term psychological and psycho-social impacts are also common, especially affecting the younger population. The methods in which a community fully re-establishes itself after a flood event is often overlooked, these socio-economic and environmental impacts are often the largest threat to an affected community (DEFRA, 2011).

Rewilding has the opportunity to play a major proactive role in sustainable flood management (SFM), minimising flood risk and preventing localised flooding throughout the UK, whilst also benefitting the community both directly and indirectly (e.g., Rewilding Britain, 2016a). Utilising local knowledge and skills, and materials and businesses, a sense of ownership and responsibility is given to the community whilst creating employment opportunities, extensive wildlife habitats and more attractive and both recreationally and environmentally beneficial landscapes, all for a fraction of the overall cost of traditional flood defences (e.g., DEFRA, 2016).

Current FRM strategies of constructive flood defences are designed for a single purpose, financially expensive, heavily reactively focussed and do occasionally fail (Environment Agency, 2009b). Contrarily, rewilding is non-binary, it cannot be designed to a specific capacity and cannot fail when capacity is reached (Corlett, 2016); it is holistic and dynamic and the principles are multidimensional and interconnected. The degree of flood reduction efficiency with a rewilding approach is dependant upon the availability of opportunity. Total efficiency is only achieved with full cooperation and is based on the degree of implementation; complete community commitment is vital for success.

9


3.2 Rewilding in Action

Community flood action groups of Gloucestershire’s Stroud Valleys have adopted a proactive approach mimicking renaturalisation of its waters. Landowners in the upper catchments created 40 ‘leaky dam’ structures and laid tree trunks and large branches to rewild the stream channels, slow flow rates and allow sediment to accumulate whilst also specifically designed to allow fish passage underneath. In addition, soils were rehabilitated to store a larger volume of water with excess water storage in fields and plains using ponds, bunds and ditches (Rewilding Britain, 2016b). Resultantly, peak flow was reduced by 66% at an overall cost of £215,000 over two years (Rewilding Britain, 2016b).

In the Sussex Flow Initiative, in addition to the implementation of leaky dams, volunteers with the Woodland Trust and supported by the Environment Agency helped create wet woodlands as short-term water storage areas during heavy rainfall, planting 23,000 trees and 3.5 kilometres of new hedgerow increasing water percolation to the soil, carbon content of the landscape, and also creating new wildlife habitats (Rewilding Britain, 2016b). Reforesting just 5% of a catchment can reduce peak flow volume by 29%; 100% reforestation can have a 50% reduction on flow volume (Rewilding Britain, 2016a).

Moorland regeneration and the restoration of upland peat bogs have raised the water table by an average of 5cm across Exmoor’s Holnicote Estate (Rewilding Britain, 2016a). The elimination of drainage ditches and implementation of offline flood meadows as well as the installation of leaky dams have reduced peak flow by 10% on an already saturated floodplain eliminating flooding in villages that had seen regular flooding in years previous (Rewilding Britain, 2016a). A combination of these small-scale initiatives over a catchment-wide area had significant impact on flow rates and notably had a widespread change to the community perception of FRM and land management (Rewilding Britain, 2016b).

Following successful trials in Belgium and Bavaria, beavers have been reintroduced to Scottish waters as a low-cost flood management strategy (Prior & Ward, 2016), and since to waterways in southwest England also (Rewilding Britain, 2016b). Natural England (2009) found many advantages to reintroduction, that the beavers could regulate river flows with dam construction and beneficially reduce peak flows downstream; but furthermore, aquatic and riparian habitat diversity increased, channel stability increased, the fish population increased, water quality increased and downstream pollution and sedimentation decreased in direct relation to the beaver population (Rewilding Britain, 2016b).

10


4. LOGISTICS

4.1 Site Specific Information

Four initial steps are necessary to launch a rewilding programme:-

“(1) identification of the issue of conservation control (e.g., overgrazing); (2) identification of the missing ecological processes (e.g., predation); (3) identification of the functional characteristics required to restore the missing processes (e.g., large apex consumers); (4) selection and reintroduction of the most suitable species to restore the missing or dysfunctional processes.” (Sandom, et al., 2013)

This proposal seeks to address flood risk through the proactive control of surface water flooding and rural river flooding in order to reduce peak flow in downstream settlements. The LDNP and catchments surrounding Keswick and Cockermouth have been assessed using the four steps above and four specific catchments (Fig 4.1) have been selected for strategic rewilding opportunities for sustainable flood management (SFM) (see Appendix i).

Fig 4.1: Catchment map showing Keswick and Cockermouth, primary watercourses and proposed sites, A-D.

Matterdale Common (Site A) is largely (95%) unkept grassland lowlands featuring minor coniferous forestry (<1%), sparse grazing with an open moorland and rugged rocky uplands (see Appendix ii-b). Trout Beck, the main waterway through Matterdale, is a minor watercourse but receives a large surge of water under heavy rainfall. Trout Beck flows from the headwaters at Matterdale Head to the village of Troutbeck where it joins River

11


Glenderamackin, later River Greta. This proposal suggests a strategy of heavy coniferous reforestation throughout the grasslands in the lowlands and large scale upland restoration of moorland and peat bogs with the removal of drainage ditches at Site A.

St Johns Beck (Site B) is situated in a largely flat agricultural grazing area (75%) of managed grassland, running from Thirlmere to the River Greta. It is a major waterway and suffers large flows through heavy rainfall periods. Deciduous woodland lines the main river which has been previously canalised for drainage purposes. The upland is steep sided with exposed rocky surfaces with occasional sparse heather and open moorland. The proposed rewilding strategy for Site B is river renaturalisation with the installation of leaky dams, placement of tree trunks and branches in key locations in the waterway, and grazing restrictions put in place in close proximity of the watercourse. Farmland lining the watercourse should be transformed into wetlands with drainage removal.

The lowland area around Bassenthwaite Lake on the River Derwent (Site C) is rich in agricultural grazing and managed grassland (85%) with heavy deciduous woodland in the valley. The river flows from Seathwaite through Derwent Water, is joined by the River Greta where it flows through Bassenthwaite Lake and on to the town of Cockermouth. The river is the major outflow from the catchment and would not benefit from soakaway installation. The proposed strategy for Site C is large scale river naturalisation to reduce flow rates and leaky dam installation throughout the watercourse.

The River Cocker (Site D) flows from Buttermere through Crummock Water to the town of Cockermouth. The lowland catchment is largely (75%) open, flat and agricultural with sheep and cattle grazing and sparse deciduous woodland; uplands are rocky and steep-sided. The watercourse is a key output of water from the valley above, is lined with deciduous woodland and suffers very fast flows during heavy rainfall. This proposal suggests a strategy of coniferous reforestation and river restoration in the upper catchment, installation of wet woodlands and floodplains in the lower catchment valleys with restrictions on grazing in place and also the careful reintroduction of beavers into the watercourse as a flood prevention measure.

4.2 Funding and Operations

The proposed rewilding programme for SFM will require collaboration and planning between all stakeholders within the community, especially private and conservation group landowners, as well as professional bodies, governmental organisations, civil social organisations (CSO) and social alliances including members of DEFRA, the Environment

12


Agency, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Lake District National Park Authority, United Utilities, Natural England, the National Trust, Woodland Trust, Canal and River Trust, the RSPCA and the RSPB, and will also require expertise from ecological, horticultural and hydrological professionals.

The cost of implementing these SFM strategies are fractional as compared to the annual flood defence expenditure. Funding should be arranged as part of the government funded FCERM budget from DEFRA to the Environment Agency for direct impact strategies. Another possible source of funding for indirect strategies is that raised through a partnership funding mechanism, which allows community funding to be topped up by government. Where land and waterways are privately owned or operated by utility companies, government support should be made available for remediation. Private landowners would receive government subsidies in exchange for implementing flood control measures that impede on livelihood similarly to subsidies received for accommodating wind turbines in remote locations. Consultations with landowners are to be expected and, in extreme cases, single financial incentives for relocation may be necessary if agreements cannot be met. In turn, stakeholders and local business owners may benefit financially from increased tourism due to increased wildlife habitat and the reintroduction of rare species, and also increased intrinsic valuation of the rewilded catchments.

A rewilding approach will compliment local conservation initiatives including the Carbon Landscapes Initiative and the Bassenthwaite Lake Restoration Programme. Through consultations and working alongside local programmes, vital knowledge and skills can be gained that will prove invaluable in the rewilding process. Community and privately run initiatives are welcomed in addition to the proposed strategies; voluntary action and community support for installation in regards to tree planting and moorland restoration will be encouraged and will provide long-term awareness and appreciation, and also a sense of ownership within the community. Long-term and contract employment opportunities will also be made available for wildlife and land management specialists throughout implementation and ongoing observation and management.

4.3 Limitations and Further Considerations

Policy barriers exist that may hinder implementation. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) must be in place in line with current environmental policies; policies which must be scrutinised, appealed and reformed to incentivise ecosystem restoration. For example, the LDNP is an officially recognised area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), 79% is regarded as an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) (Lake District National Park Authority,

13


2016a), 20% is designated as a site of specific scientific interest (SSSI) (Harvey, 2013), and the area is also classed as an IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Category V protected landscape. In accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), these designations would prohibit many environmental modifications; sites may require downgrading, and species and habitats may require relocation. Additionally, the Land Drainage Act (1991) requires that a watercourse be maintained so that free flow of water is not impeded, leading to issues with the installation of leaky dams and river restoration. Farming subsidies are paid under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which disallows any Permanent Ineligible Feature (PIF) within the farmland; proscribed PIFs include “woods, dense scrubs, wide hedges and ponds” (Kenyon, et al., 2008; Rewilding Britain, 2016a); it is clear that the PIF rule and other incentives that may lead to increased flooding must be abandoned to allow implementation (e.g., Kenyon, et al., 2008).

It will be necessary to observe and quantify impact over time. As future climate change increases the risk of flooding, rewilding decreases risk making quantification difficult. Comparisons to similar flood risk areas in absence of a rewilding programme will need to be drawn. If the strategy is successful further rewilding strategies may be implemented in other high risk areas. With the creation of woodland habitats, additional faunal species e.g., wild boar, red deer, and red squirrels may be reintroduced. Species that have diminished throughout the UK over time may flourish in protected areas bringing with them increased tourism. Trends may also change over time; social, political, economic and cultural trends may all impact the future efficiency of existing and further rewilding programmes. For example, climate change scenarios may be altered, political decisions affected housing, livelihoods or the cost of living may change, environmental appreciation may shift. Changes in socio-political moods or economic shifts that may impact the rewilding programme will need to be addressed by stakeholders, CSOs, and governmental organisations as required.

14


5. SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES

Former trends in environmental deterioration led to the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment which, in turn, led to the formation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the World Conservation Strategy, and subsequently, the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) - the Brundtland Report (1987) - which made links between environmental, social and economic concerns, integrated these three pillars, and popularised the term sustainable development (OECD, 2002; United Nations, 1987). The very essence of rewilding compliments the ideals of sustainable development, the national sustainable development strategy (NSDS), sustainable flood management and core sustainability principles.

With an overall aim to better human well-being and the global environment the UN have established eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (United Nations, 2000, 2015); the LDNP rewilding programme has the opportunity to address many of these goals. The programme take steps to ‘ensure environmental sustainability’ (MDG 7) through effective conservation of woodland and the protection of biodiversity and aims to create a sustainable community action plan for flood resilience (SDG 11); it aims to take ‘action on climate change’ and enhance and protect ‘life below water’ and ‘life on land’ (SDG 13, 14 & 15).

The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) expects all ratified countries to act on pledges to decrease carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration. With a strategic reforestation programme and improved soil structure, carbon sequestration and storage is increased. Additionally, the proactive approach to SFM ensures decreased risk to properties and infrastructure and therefore lower necessity for agro-industrial works in construction of urban flood defences and reconstruction of flood-damaged properties helping to curb carbon emissions further.

A sustainable approach of water harvesting and harnessing in specific storage areas as opposed to a high output of floodwater downstream minimises wastewater and the need for treatment and increased stress on wastewater treatment works; water which may be used within the community. To be fully sustainable, a community must be well designed, well built, well connected and well served. If a community attains an inherent risk of flooding these values do not exist. Flood risk reduction and SFM help a community to meet these needs, and also subscribe to fundamental safety needs of personal security, financial security, and

15


health and well-being, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Allowing the population to develop and prosper, limiting vulnerability and displacement through safety and security is in line with the basic principle of a sustainable community where the interests of future generations are not marginalised for the needs of the present (e.g., United Nations, 1987).

Deforestation and clearances occurred in the LDNP long before current land rights and modern agricultural practices were introduced; dense deciduous woodland once colonised the entirety of valleys (Lake District National Park Authority, 2016a). The alteration of the landscape could be likened to a tragedy of the commons, the term originating from the degradation of open ‘common’ land through overgrazing. In this instance, ancient woodland was decimated for its resources and agricultural merit. We have a duty of care to the environment and need to consider the complexity of this holistic approach; in order to renaturalise the land, the precautionary principle has been applied in establishing trial programmes of a similar nature to great success.

The LDNP has a rare opportunity for adaptive transformation; it may follow suit from successful rewilding initiatives in Scotland, Gloucestershire, Sussex, Exmoor and abroad and act to proactively tackle the effects of climate change that affect us specifically at a local level. Through forest transition, from deforestation to reforestation, and with ecological restoration the LDNP is able to increase the contingent valuation of the environment to the community by using nature for its own personal gain.

16


6. CLOSING

DEFRA, the Environment Agency, the United Nations and the IPCC provide evidence of the increasing occurrence of flood events throughout the UK and the world within our lifetime; flood events that currently cost the UK in excess of £1bn annually in damages. Rewilding programmes have the opportunity to address the risk of flooding at a base level, proactively controlling surface water runoff, water levels and flow rates in our waterways and reducing the necessity for urban flood protection and at a fraction of the cost. By returning a managed area to the wild and allowing ecological processes to resume through remedial strategies of renaturalisation, reforestation and moorland restoration, the reintroduction of native species and the extinction of land management practices such as controlled burning, agricultural drainage and overgrazing, natural flood defences regain strength whilst also benefitting the ecological world and the local community.

Historical studies of a similar nature have been explored in this proposal and programmes have been proven successful. Areas within the Lake District National Park have been investigated and assessed and similar opportunities for rewilding programmes exist that address the core values of sustainable development; social development, environmental development and economic development; people, planet and profit. Barriers to implementation are discussed; current legislation requires reform for transition and to incentivise further ecosystem restoration, and dedication is necessary amongst all stakeholders for greatest efficiency but positive results are achievable.

Should this proposal be successfully implemented, future flood impacts in Keswick and Cockermouth and throughout the Lake District National Park like those seen in 2005, 2009 and 2015 would be dramatically reduced. Reforestation and moorland restoration would provide a carbon sink in steps towards creating a carbon neutral society in line with emissions and climate change ideals; increased woodland and river restoration would see an increase in ecological habitat and improvements to water quality and the reintroduction of native faunal species would provide increased biodiversity.

Socio-economic benefits would also be witnessed. As the recurrence of flood events in the towns of Keswick and Cockermouth decrease in frequency, flood recovery costs decrease and impacts are felt less. Local businesses that no longer have large insurance premiums are allowed to thrive with no limits to growth and tourism is increased leading to further increased income. Stress levels within the communities are decreased as safety is regained and psychological well-being is established. Community inclusion is key, local knowledge

17


and skills, materials and business provide the basis for the programme which, in turn, provides local employment and a sense of ownership and responsibility within the community.

The hope is that the individuals, local authorities, professional bodies, governmental organisations, CSOs and social alliances, and all stakeholders with an interest in the Lake District National Park can collaborate and lead by example by employing an all-encompassing rewilding programme that meets the needs of the environment and the community whilst also addressing the impacts of climate change. The LDNP Rewilding Programme could go on to become the benchmark strategy for sustainable flood risk management throughout the UK and globally.

“Rewilding offers us hope...

just maybe, our Silent Spring can be replaced by a raucous summer.”

- George Monbiot, 2013

18


REFERENCES

Burt, S., McCarthy, M., Kendon, M. and Hannaford, J. (2016) Cumbrian floods, 5/6 December 2015. Weather 71:36-37. doi:10.1002/wea.2704

Butler, D. R., & Malanson, G. P. (2005) The geomorphic influences of beaver dams and failures of beaver dams. Geomorphology 71(1);48-60. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.08.016

Carey, J. (2016) Core Concept: Rewilding. PNAS 113(4):806-808. doi:10.1073/pnas.1522151112

Ceaușu, S., Hofmann, M., Navarro, L. M., Carver, S., Verburg, P. H., & Pereira, H. M. (2015) Mapping opportunities and challenges for rewilding in europe. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1017-1027. doi:10.1111/cobi.12533

Cloyd, A.A. (2016) Reimagining Rewilding: A Response to Jørgensen, Prior, and Ward. Geoforum 76:59-62. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.08.013

Corlett, R. T. (2016) Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31(6);453462. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.017

DEFRA (2011) Flood Risk Management in England. Summary. London: National Audit Office

DEFRA (2012) The Government’s Response to Sir Michael Pitt’s Review of the summer 2007 Floods. Final Progress Report.

DEFRA (2014) Strategic Flood Risk Management. HC 780. London: National Audit Office

DEFRA (2015) Agriculture in the UK, 2014. UK Government Publication.

DEFRA (2016) Central Government Funding for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England. UK Government Publication

Dobson, A.P. (2014) Yellowstone Wolves and the Forces that Structure Natural Systems. PLoS Biol 12(12): e1002025 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002025

Environment Agency (2006) Cumbria Floods Technical Report. Factual Report on Meteorology, Hydrology and Impacts of January 2005 Flooding in Cumbria. UK Government Publication.

Environment Agency (2009a) River Derwent Catchment Flood Management Plan. Summary Report. UK Government Publication

Environment Agency (2009b) Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk. UK Government Publication.

Environment Agency (2015) River Basin Management Plans: 2015. Part 1: North West river basin district river basin management plan. Policy Paper LIT 10314.

Environment Agency (2016) Flood Investigation Report: Kendal (5th-6th December 2015). UK Government Publication.

Foreham, D. (1999) The Wildlands Project and the Rewilding of North America. Denver University Law Review 76(2):535-553

Foreham, D. (2013) Rewilding North America: A Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century. London, Covelo & Washington: Island Press

Forestry Commission (2013) Cumbria and the Lake District Trees, Woodlands and Forestry Strategy and Action Plan. UK Government Publication

Harvey, D., Thompson, N., Scott, C., and Hubbard, C. (2013) Farming and Farm Forestry in the Lake District. Centre fro Rural Economy. Internal Publication

Hibbard, K.A., Riahi, K., Moss, R.H., Emori, S., Carter, T.R., van Vuuren, D.P., Kainuma, M., Wilbanks, T.J., Thomson, A.M., Edmonds, J.A., Mitchell, J.F.B., Weyant, J.P., Rose, S.K., Meehl, G.A., Smith, S.J., Nakicenovic, N., Kram, T., Manning, M.R. & Stouffer, R.J. (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463(7282): 747-756. doi:101038/nature08823

Hintz, J. (2007) Some Political Problems for Rewilding Nature, Ethics, Place & Environment 10(2):177-216 doi: 10.1080/13668790701344774

Holden, J., Wallage, Z. E., Lane, S. N., & McDonald, A. T. (2011) Water table dynamics in undisturbed, drained and restored blanket peat. Journal of Hydrology 402(1):103-114 doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.010

IPCC (2007) Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

Jørgensen, D. (2015). Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum, 65:482-488. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016

Kenyon, W., Hill, G., & Shannon, P. (2008) Scoping the role of agriculture in sustainable flood management. Land use Policy 25(3):351-360. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.09.003

KPMG (2015) Flooding Economic Impact Will Breach £5bn. Press Release. Available from https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/media/press-releases/2015/12/flooding-economic-impact-will-breach-5bn.html [Accessed 18/10/2016]

19


Lake District National Park Authority (2013) State of the Lake District National Park Report. Internal Publication.

Lake District National Park Authority (2016a) State of Farming and Land Management. Internal Publication.

Lake District National Park Authority (2016b) Projects (online). Available from http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/caringfor/projects/ [Accessed 22/10/2016]

Met Office (2016) Ambleside Climate 1981-2010. Online resource. Available from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gctvssktt [Accessed 06/10/2016]

Monbiot, G. (2013) Feral: Rewilding the land, the sea, and human life. London: Penguin Books.

Monbiot, G. (2014) Walk on the wild side. The Architectural Review 235(1403):18-19

National Geographic (2016) Lake District National Park, England. Online. Available from http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/parks/lake-district-england/ [Accessed 11/10/2016]

National Trust (2008) Land Management and Flood Risk. Evidence for the Pitt Review. UK Government Publication

Natural England (2009) The feasibility and acceptability of reintroducing the European beaver to England. NECR002.

Navarro, L. M., & Pereira, H. M. (2012) Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems, 15(6);900-912. doi:10.1007/s1002101295587

Nyssen, J., Pontzeele, J., & Billi, P. (2011) Effect of beaver dams on the hydrology of small mountain streams: Example from the chevral in the ourthe orientale basin, ardennes, belgium. Journal of Hydrology 402(1), 92-102. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.008

OECD (2002) Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book. London & Sterling, VA: Earthscan

Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, and J.P. Palutikof (2007) Technical Summary. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 23-78.

Pitt, M. (2008) The Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods. UK Government Publication.

Prior, J., & Ward, K. J. (2016) Rethinking rewilding: A response to jørgensen. Geoforum, 69:132-135. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.003

Rewilding Britain (2016a) How Rewilding Reduces Flood Risk. Internal publication. Available from http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/assets/uploads/files/publications/Final-flood-report/Rewilding-Britain-Flood-Report-Sep-6-16.pdf [Accessed 05/10/2016]

Rewilding Britain (2016b) Rewilding and Flood Risk Management. Internal publication. Available from http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/assets/uploads/files/publications/Rewilding%20and%20Flood%20Risk%20Management%20briefing.pdf [Accessed 05/10/2016]

Sandom, C.J., Macdonald, D. W., & Willis, K. J. (2013) Rewilding in Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 (pp. 430-451). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Sibley, A. (2010) Analysis of extreme rainfall and flooding in Cumbria 18–20 November 2009. Weather, 65: 287–292. doi:10.1002/wea.672

UK Government (2015) Strategic Flood Risk Management. UK Government Publication. Available from http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/strategic-flood-risk-management-inquiry/ [Accessed 06/10/2016]

United Nations (1987) Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, General Assembly Resolution 42/187. New York, NY: United Nations

United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declararion. New York, NY: United Nations

United Nations (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. New York, NY: United Nations

United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, NY: United Nations

UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement: Conference of Parties 21. UN: New York

Whyte, I. (2013). Environmental History and Global Change: Dictionary of Environmental History. London & US: I.B.Tauris.

20


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gctvssktt




http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/strategic-flood-risk-management-inquiry/






GLOSSARY

AONB - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

BAP - Biodiversity Action Plan

CAP - Common Agricultural Policy

CSO - Civil Society Organisation

DEFRA - Department of Food and Rural Affairs

EA - Environment Agency

EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

ESA - Environmentally Sensitive Area

FCERM - Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management

FRM - Flood Risk Management

IIED - International Institute for Environment and Development

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature

LDNP - Lake District National Park

LIFE - Long-term Initiatives for Flood-risk Environments

MDG - Millennium Development Goal

MEA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

NSDS - National Sustainable Development Strategy

PIF - Permanent Ineligible Feature

SDG - Sustainable Development Goal

SFM - Sustainable Flood Management

SSSI - Site of Specific Scientific Interest

SUDS - Sustainable Urban Drainage System

UNEP - United Nations Environment Program

WCED - World Commission on Environment and Development

WFD - Water Framework Directive

21


APPENDICES

Appendix i: Photographs and Site Data

All photographs taken by the author, 01/11/2016 & 02/11/2016

Site A - Matterdale Common (L) and Trout Beck (width, <2m) (R).Lowland - 95% grassland, unkept, grazing, minor coniferous (<1%)

Upland - Sparse, rocky outcrops, 0% woodland.

Site A - Matterdale Common (L) and Trout Beck (width, <2m) (R).Lowland - 95% grassland, unkept, grazing, minor coniferous (<1%)

Upland - Sparse, rocky outcrops, 0% woodland.

Site B - River Greta (width, 5-10m) (L) and St Johns Beck (width, 2-5m) (R).Lowland - 75% grazing agriculture, flat, 10% mixed woodland, canalised.

Upland - Steep sided, rocky, patchy moorland.

Site B - River Greta (width, 5-10m) (L) and St Johns Beck (width, 2-5m) (R).Lowland - 75% grazing agriculture, flat, 10% mixed woodland, canalised.

Upland - Steep sided, rocky, patchy moorland.

Site C - Bassenthwaite (L) and the River Derwent (width, +10m) (R).80% large scale intensive managed grazing agriculture.

Patchy deciduous woodland in valleys (10%)

Site C - Bassenthwaite (L) and the River Derwent (width, +10m) (R).80% large scale intensive managed grazing agriculture.

Patchy deciduous woodland in valleys (10%)

22


Site D - River Cocker (width, +10m) (L) and Crummock Water catchment (R).Lower catchment - 75% open agriculture, grassland, minor deciduous (5%)

Upper catchment - 75% unmanaged moorland, rocky outcrops.

Site D - River Cocker (width, +10m) (L) and Crummock Water catchment (R).Lower catchment - 75% open agriculture, grassland, minor deciduous (5%)

Upper catchment - 75% unmanaged moorland, rocky outcrops.

Appendix ii: Notes and Additional Information

a) In the 38 hours from 20:00 18/11/2009 to 10:00 20/11/2009, 403.4mm was recorded at Seathwaite; Met Office records show an average annual rainfall of 2005mm for Ambleside, 1981-2010.

b) Percentage land areas are estimated using ordnance survey and online maps and spatial grid referencing techniques.

23


Documents

01 Rewilding the LDNP