PEGASUS Project - WILD Project

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 633814www.pegasus.ieep.eu

@PEGASUS_eu This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 633814www.pegasus.ieep.eu

@PEGASUS_eu

[WATER AND INTEGRATED LOCAL DELIVERY (WILD) PROJECT]

[United Kingdom]

Chris Short, Katarina Kubinakova, Eloise Fresnay, Dan Marsh, Janet Dwyer

09/03/17

PEGASUS Annual Steering Group Meeting – Year 2

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 633814

@PEGASUS_eu

Brief profile of case

• WILD uses local facilitation to develop an inclusive partnership of farmers, local communities, NGOs and private companies, that is able to meet a range of policy priorities, centred around the Water Framework, to improve the water and land environment.

• ESBOs: Water Quality; Flood Protection; Rural Vitality; Soil Protection; Species and Habitats; Landscape Character,

• Funding from Environment Agency to local organisations • Three main Delivery Partners:

– Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (link to farmers), – Gloucestershire Rural Community Council (link to local communities)– Cotswold Water Park Trust (link to Land and Water biodiversity environment)

• Local facilitation to integrated projects& initiatives• 3 year project 2013‐2016 over 26,000 has at source of the Thames • Failing for WFD and priority area for action, good local network • Some private involvement through Thames Water.


@PEGASUS_eu

Brief profile of case


@PEGASUS_eu

Key findings related to SES

• Linking WFD with agri‐environment initiatives and local development infrastructure all relevant in terms of how land (urban & agricultural) and water interact.

• Judgement on levels of ESBO provision and trends (state of the system)– Water Quality – stable but improving especially diffuse pollution; – Flood Protection – lacks resilience to extreme events (including local_– Rural Vitality – evidence of increased social capital as a result of WILD; – Soil Protection – increasingly seen as important, little policy protection– Species and Habitats – variable, most declining; – Landscape Character – locally considered important but gradual decline.

• Judgement on appreciation and demand side– Positive response from local communities and farmers concerning appreciation– Need for clean drinking water is driving Thames Water involvement– Presence of strong local farmer network seen as positive by Env Agency, TW and others

• Main determinants of improvement and limiting factors in ESBO provision– Policy & funding opportunities to combine strategic objectives (WFD with AES and planning)– Connections aiding communication to resolve local issues.


@PEGASUS_eu

Key findings I – Shifting societal norms, collective learning & Organisational capacities, leadership, networking and communication

• Shifting societal norms, collective learning & voluntary action – Evidence of cross‐sectoring thinking and concern– Greater understanding of the system rather than an issue.– Communities and farmers/land managers acting together ‘shared problem solving’

• Organisational capacities, leadership, networking and communication– Public private partnership to collective action– Guides for collective action and improved communication– Locally based organisation using existing structures


@PEGASUS_eu

Key findings II – Governance arrangements and mechanisms supporting ESBO provision & The role and impact of policy in ESBO provision

• Governance arrangements and mechanisms supporting ESBO provision– Shared partnership across government programmes– Integrated activity and reporting across public and private partners– Disseminating and ground truthing new data

• The role and impact of policy in ESBO provision– Water Quality: Stronger impact with some integration– Food protection: localised and little integration– Rural Vitality: very localised and some coordination– Soil protection: increasingly important from a low base– Species and habitats: range of protection and enhancement opportunities but not integrated– Landscape character: guidance but few policies some integration through planning


@PEGASUS_eu

Key findings III – The role of the private sector in ESBO provision and enabling factors & Potential pathways towards an enhanced provision of ESBOs

• The role of the private sector in ESBO provision and enabling factors– Thames Water directly engaged with farmer network, shared problem solving– Development of some Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) options on water quality– Lack of involvement from mineral extraction companies

• Potential pathways towards an enhanced provision of ESBOs – Locally focused facilitation to bring range of partners together to meet strategic objectives– Coordinated action to resolve integrated environmental challenges– Evidence of behaviour change as a result of knowledge exchange and advice