1. River restoration policies and perspectives in the UK and Ireland
Sue Hearn
Rivers Ecologist, Natural Resources Wales
Before I start I’d like to welcome you to Natural Resources Wales’ offices and thank you all for making the journey. Or in Welsh: Croesor I swyddfa Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru a diolch yn fawr iawn i pawb am gwneud i’r taith yma.

2. Overview Background Policy and Strategy Biodiversity as a driver?
Planning
Funding
Implementation
Monitoring and evaluation

3. Background UK projects map (RRC website)
Title- policies and perspectives… start and end with Welsh perspective. To get a quick overview of how much river restoration work is going on a good place to go is the RRC’s UK projects map shown here. Although this isn’t absolutely complete it still gives a good indication.
High number of projects in England
Fewer in N Ireland and Wales, nothing in Ireland although that could be due to a problem with data supply.
Notable projects in Wales inc Afon Ogwen in Nant Ffrancon (very near here) and Afon Eden north of Dolgellau which was part of the PiP.
UK projects map. Accessed 24/10/ River Restoration Centre

4. Policy and Strategy 1
How well is river restoration integrated into national policy and strategy?
‘Very well’
‘Very well in SEPA and SNH’
‘Isn't very good - relies on land owners/RT approaching government with proposals’
‘Restoration not currently strongly integrated into national policy and strategy’
‘Policy needs to be broadened and strengthened’
Integration clearly much better in England and Scotland than Ireland, N Ireland and Wales

5. Policy and Strategy 2
Describe your country’s strategic approach to river restoration
‘SSSI/SAC designated rivers programme - EA/NE partnership
Catchment based approach and catchment partnerships’
‘RBMP core of strategic approach and SEPA co-ordinates throughout catchment’
‘Ad hoc, disjointed and without targeted funding’
‘Not very strategic - disjointed’
‘No overall approach
• Salmon Action Plan
• River Restoration Framework Contract
• catchment-level river restoration plans
• WFD action plan’
England and Scotland again appear to have a stronger approach… England via catchment partnerships and SSSI/SAC rivers programme and Scotland through what was Water Environment Fund (WEF)… now via RBMP. England an Scotland have broadly similar catchment based and process based approaches.

6. Policy and Strategy 3 To what degree is biodiversity an objective?
Not an objective at all
Primary objective
Scotland- key objective for SNH, less so for SEPA
Northern Ireland- considered where works carried out by govt
Same story here
Wales- other drivers greater role in delivery
England- primary driver
Ireland- biodiversity gain assumed

7. Other drivers? NFM Habitats Directive Salmon Action Plan
Agri-environment
River Restoration
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
WFD
England Biodiversity Strategy
broad range of policy and legal obligations provide framework for river restoration. Projects tend to have multiple drivers.
All countries except Scotland listed at least three other drivers for river restoration

8. Reported drivers from previous phase of IUCN project
Eng, Scot and N Ireland- 4 main drivers are fish pop enhancement, hydromorphology, biodiversity and WFD. Wales- Flood management key driver, RoI fish and WFD
Griffin, I., Perfect, C. & Wallace, M River restoration and biodiversity. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 817.

9. Planning England Northern Ireland Ireland Scotland Wales
•Geomorphological appraisal and ecological interpretation • Stakeholder engagement; strategic plans • Combination of measures on protected rivers for people and wildlife • Citizen science
• Ad hoc; disjointed • Driven by angling clubs more than government agencies, with varying aims • Habitat/ biodiversity legislation for designated sites
• Identify significant morphological pressures to identify hydromorphological related WFD POMs • WFD morphology, enhancement and connectivity considered in flood relief projects • Integrated into river maintenance programme • Opportunistic barrier removal
• Broad and broad – co-ordinate measures • Good planning - although projects don’t always reflect this • SEPA - in-house scoping, screening at catchment scale, options verification, design, construction
• National- SAC focused; ad hoc; no consistent approach • Local - some detailed plans; taking opportunities as they arise
Wye and Usk Foundation very active
Really hard to summarise approach to planning- clearly more ad hoc and opportunistic in N Ireland and Wales with no formal delivery mechanism for catchment scale approaches such as the WEF in Scotland, catchment planning in England and EREP (WFD driven) in Ireland

10. Funding England Northern Ireland Ireland Scotland Wales
• Some agri-environment funds • RDP funds; FCRM funds - often in combination • Wider partnership funding • Research councils/ academia • Water companies • RBMP; FRMP • Charitable trusts, private companies, landowners
Lack of funding mechanism for WFD Programmes or Habitats Directive
Central government (allocated via relevant Public Authority) EU funded projects (LIFE projects)
• WFD requirements • SNH designated sites • Events for river managers • Scottish Rural Development Programme funding • Some European funding • Funding awarded annually
• FRM biodiversity funding • Partnership projects led externally • Sustainable Fisheries Programme
What stands out is large variety of funding mechanisms which England and Scotland access

11. Implementation
No formal approach or funding - staff consider work on various areas where possible
Difficult - landowner uncertainty, funding mechanisms lacking
Opportunistic and largely via Sustainable Fisheries Programme and Flood Risk Management biodiversity funding
Restoration as result of enforcement or where no legislative imperative
Rural Development Programme Countryside Stewardship scheme
Reps from all countries felt that implementation lacks organisation although England and Scotland have better ties ins to existing mechanisms including countryside stewardship
Priorities for restoration - catchment implications
SEPA directly working on scoping studies, with partners
Involves Local Authority, OPW, IFI. EU funding (e.g. LIFE projects)
Detailed planning of measures at reach level to secure funding

12. Monitoring
• Under-developed…little/no monitoring strategy… long-term monitoring poor… limited to routine monitoring for WFD and Habitats Directive…
Some monitoring for specific reasons:
pre/post impact data collection on attributes
assess impact/duration of recovery
Links with local universities long-term
Difficult with high staff turnover
National priority
• Quality over quantity
Common theme is that monitoring is known to be important but is limited. Some piggy backing on routine monitoring already in place for other purposes, small amount for specific purposes and some though universities.

13. Evidence gathering and evaluation
No standard approach or tools used (or available?)
Interest in assessing wider ecosystem service benefits (tools not available)
Recent data driven Google Earth method proposed
Collection doesn’t reflect amount of restoration
Data from existing monitoring networks used
Effectiveness of measures begun but much more needed
Similar theme with evidence gathering and evaluation… some but not consistent and need a concerted focus- AS WE WILL FOCUS ON IN THIS WORKSHOP

14. Conclusions
1. Single approach to river restoration across the UK and Ireland is not possible
Policy frameworks
Organisational structure
Funding mechanisms
2. However a common issue is the lack of consistent monitoring and evaluation of the benefits of river restoration
Lack of standard methods/tools
Low priority
3. This project aims to fill this gap by taking an approach across the UK and Ireland to prioritise river restoration techniques and measures for assessment…
due to different policy frameworks, organisational structure and historical legacies