Ribble Pilot River Basin · 2015. 5. 11. · Ribble Pilot River Basin Public Participation and River Basin Planning – Early Experiences May 2004. FOX, P., BOND, D., ORR, P., MADEIRA,

Ribble Pilot River BasinPublic Participation and River Basin

Planning – Early Experiences

May 2004

FOX, P., BOND, D., ORR, P., MADEIRA, N., RILEY, C., REES, Y and DAVIS, M. (2004) Public Participation andRiver Basin Planning – Early Experiences

Environment AgencyPO Box 519South PrestonLancashireEnglandPR5 8GD

May 2004

Project ManagerDr Pete Fox

AuthorsDr Pete FoxDan BondPaula OrrNatasha MadeiraCaroline RileyYvonne ReesMiles Davis

ContributorsSarah BlackCarol HoltDonna KiddRob OatesJoanne TippettDr Amanda WrightWeston Herran-Young

ContentsForeword .....................................................................................................................1Executive summary ..................................................................................................31. Background ........................................................................................................8

1.1 THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................81.2 IMPLEMENTATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES......................................................................................81.3 TESTING GUIDANCE AND THE PILOT RIVER BASIN PROCESS.............................................................81.4 RIBBLE PILOT RIVER BASIN PROJECT OBJECTIVES.............................................................................91.5 SCOPE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THIS REPORT ...........................................................................................9

2. Context ................................................................................................................. 102.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................102.2 THE ENVIRONMENT , ECOLOGY AND LAND USE IN THE BASIN.........................................................102.3 PEOPLE AND ECONOMICS IN THE BASIN..............................................................................................132.4 ADMINISTRATIVE LANDSCAPE OF THE BASIN....................................................................................142.5 RELEVANT PLANS AND PROCESSES......................................................................................................16

3. Approach to testing........................................................................................... 184. Review of testing guidance – “encouraging active involvement” ....... 19

4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................194.2 COMMUNICATION PLANNING...............................................................................................................194.3 SELECTING TECHNIQUES TO TEST ........................................................................................................204.4 IDENTIFYING THOSE WE NEEDED TO WORK WITH .............................................................................224.5 SUMMARY OF PLANNED APPROACH....................................................................................................27

5. The tests in detail............................................................................................... 295.1 PROJECT TEAM AND TESTING GROUP ................................................................................................295.2 STAKEHOLDER FORUM .........................................................................................................................295.3 MEETINGS IN PERSON............................................................................................................................315.4 PRESENTATIONS.....................................................................................................................................325.5 VISION BUILDING...................................................................................................................................325.6 EXPERT MEETINGS .................................................................................................................................385.7 WEBSITE .................................................................................................................................................405.8 ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER...................................................................................................................445.9 PERCEPTIONS SURVEY...........................................................................................................................44

6.0 Proposed planning process for the Ribble Prototype River BasinPlan ............................................................................................................................ 49

6.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................496.2 RIVER BASIN PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS................496.3 RIVER BASIN PLANNING ON THE RIBBLE - GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING ANDPARTICIPATION...................................................................................................................................................516.4 SUMMARY OF PLANNING PROCESS AND WAY FORWARD .................................................................55

7. Independent Evaluation and Lessons Learned..................................... 577.1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH .........................................................................................................577.2 EVALUATION..........................................................................................................................................597.3 COSTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................607.4 OUTCOMES..............................................................................................................................................617.5 LESSONS TO BE TAKEN FORWARD.......................................................................................................65

8. Conclusions and way forward ....................................................................... 688.1 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................688.2 LINKAGE TO THE COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY (CIS) GUIDANCE REPORT ................708.3 THE WAY FORWARD..............................................................................................................................70

Appendices

PageAppendix 1 Internal Planning Analysis 1Appendix 2 Current Planning 6Appendix 3 External Planning 9Appendix 4 Project Communications Plan 15Appendix 5 Public Participation Literature & CIS Guidance –

Techniques31

Appendix 6 References for Review of Public Participation Literature 63Appendix 7 Review of Public Participation Literature & CIS Guidance –

Case Study66

Appendix 8 Stakeholder Mapping Questionnaire 82Appendix 9 Ribble Stakeholder Forum Membership, Terms of

Reference and Ways of Working91

Appendix 10 List of Meetings in Person and Presentations(February – October 2003

95

Appendix 11 Ribble Vision 98Appendix 12 Guiding Principles for the Planning Process and Public

Participation153

Appendix 13 Ribble Electronic Newsletter 162Appendix 14 Perceptions Survey 164Appendix 15 Evaluation Report 207

- 1 -

Foreword

I am pleased to present this report of our work on public participation and theplanning process for the Water Framework Directive. The report is submittedto the EC as our contribution to the testing of the Common ImplementationStrategy.

It represents a lot of hard work and demonstrates the considerable successwe have achieved working with our community. Many people have contributedto its production and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all fortheir support and help.

I am proud of this report and believe it will make a significant contribution tothe further development of European and UK best practice in River BasinPlanning and public involvement.

Bernie CarrRibble Pilot Project Executive

- 2 -

- 3 -

Executive summary

IntroductionThe Environment Agency (the Agency)has established a national WaterFramework Directive (WFD) Programmeto work with the European Commission(EC) and UK Government to interpret andimplement the requirements of theDirective. To guide and support MemberStates interpreting the Directive the ECare co-ordinating work to trial CommonImplementation Strategy (CIS) guidancedocuments in 15 Pilot River Basins(PRBs), including the River Ribble. TheUK has agreed to test parts of CommonImplementation Strategy guidance onPublic Participation and Planning Process,relevant to the UK national situation. TheRibble Pilot River Basin Project wasestablished in spring 2003.

This report represents a full review of thetesting of selected parts of CommonImplementation Strategy documents,Public Participation and the PlanningProcess, between March 2003 and May2004. It contains contributions from theAgency and independent organisationswho were members of the Testing Groupto advise on the planning andimplementation of the Ribble Pilot Project.The Agency would like to take thisopportunity to thank those organisations.

This report provides the source documentreviewing the work on testing the CommonImplementation Strategy guidance. Whilstsection 8.2 contains explicit discussion ofthe value of Common ImplementationStrategy, this report does not review itsvalue “line-by-line”. Instead, it introducesthe work done on the Ribble Pilot Projectand offers these experiences as a seriesof case studies for consideration by otherriver basin managers.

The timing of the production of the RiverBasin Management Plan had a significantimpact on the ability of the project to testfully Planning Process CommonImplementation Strategy guidance. TheAgency has set out the proposed planningprocess for the Ribble but did not proceedto detailed planning. This will follow the

production of the River BasinCharacterisation Report.

The Ribble Pilot Project will continue workbeyond the PRB timetable to use theexperience of testing to prepare for realimplementation. The eventual outcome ofthe project will be a “prototype” RiverBasin Management Plan, by 2007. Thisprototype plan will be finalised as part ofthe North West England River BasinDistrict Plan and Programme of Measures.

The River Ribble – selected for inclusion inthis pilot project in line with the 15 PilotRiver Basin – has a diverse landscape andsocial diversity. The river’s tributaries drainsome 1,800 square kilometres, from highmoorland to lowland plains, and smallvillages to large industrial towns, with apopulation of 1.25 million people living inthe basin.

Methods testedPublic participation is a core requirementof the WFD. Three forms of “stakeholderengagement” are referred to in Article 14of the Directive:

• public access to backgroundinformation;

• consultation in three steps of theplanning process;

• active involvement of interestedparties in all aspects of theimplementation of the Directive,especially – but not limited to – theplanning process.

The first two forms of engagement shouldbe ensured and the latter encouraged forthe purpose of supporting the effectiveimplementation of the WFD.

The Common Implementation StrategyGuidance on Public participation aims atassisting competent authorities in theMember States with the implementation ofArticle 14. The Ribble Pilot Projectprovides a test for the delivery of therequirements of Article 14.

- 4 -

A series of methods were trialled tosupport the promotion of the project in itsearly river basin planning. These are setout in the Table i. A communication plan

was also developed to underpin this work,setting out key messages for the RibblePilot Project.

The River Ribble

Results of Public ParticipationThe techniques tested all appear in theCommon Implementation Strategyguidance, these support and confirm thevalue of these approaches during earlyriver basin planning. The techniquesselected were based on their suitability atthis early stage of river basin planning andthe local situation.

The Stakeholder Forum established itselfas the central plank for communicationswith key stakeholders. The Forumcontributed significantly to thedevelopment of their local “vision” forenvironmental protection and improvementand this will continue and be used as away of linking the objectives of theDirective to local aspirations. The creationof the vision also served to engage a widerrange of stakeholders in early river basinplanning. During 2004 and 2005 theForum will also be asked to help qualityreview the River Basin CharacterisationReport, identify other stakeholders who

can help develop options to solveproblems, and potentially assist by“owning” some problems where they mayhave a close involvement in delivery ofsolutions.

The use of expert meetings provedenjoyable, provided real energy andenthusiasm to the process, and will becontinued as a core component ofplanning. Representation on small workinggroups will be determined by the issues tobe addressed. Such groups are likely to bevaried in size, composition, membershipand length of working. However, it shouldbe remembered that building joint workingarrangements takes time and that some ofthe issues to be addressed are likely togenerate strong feelings and opposingviews. This will make management of thegroups more challenging and the Agencywill need to invest time and resources toensure it has the skills to successfullymanage them.

- 5 -

Table i Techniques of engagement

Activity Summary of activity application Type ofinvolvement

Project Teamand TestingGroup

An Agency Project Team, with a team leader, was establishedto co-ordinate the work. A working group (including externalpartners) was brought together by the Project Manager tosupport and advise on the testing work.

ActiveinvolvementListeningLearning

StakeholderMapping

A survey of 370 identified relevant stakeholders were sentbackground information with 120 questionnaires completed

LearningConsultingInforming

StakeholderForum

A group of key stakeholders were brought together into aforum to follow the policy and process closely, to advise theAgency regularly about decisions to be taken, and to learnabout the Directive and support decision making.

ActiveinvolvementInformingListeningConsulting

Meetings inperson

The Project Team conducted a number of meetings withindividual key stakeholders, especially during the first monthsof testing. This gave people the feeling that someone waslistening, and provided direct input during project planning. Anin-depth conversation was considered a valuable investment.


Presentations A series of presentations for formal committees and othergroups were undertaken to communicate the key messages,raise awareness of the project and increase the chance thatkey stakeholders took note of it.

Informing

Scenario/visionbuilding

Facilitated meetings were conducted with small numbers ofparticipants to deepen the insight in perceptions andchallenges and to map possible solutions.


Expert meetingsand workshops

Meetings were held with groups of experts to provide anopportunity for specialist input to assist with developingsolutions to technical problems. For example, a series of fourmeetings were conducted to support the development of theproposed planning process (see Section 5.6).

ActiveinvolvementInformingListening

Website Project pages were established within the Environment AgencyWebsite to focus initial enquiries for advice and to support theprovision of basic understanding of the work. It developed anadditional role as the primary route for dissemination ofinformation about forum meetings.

Informing

Electronicnewsletter

Summary information of key milestones provided onapproximately two sides of A4, updated every 8 weeks. It wasdirected at Agency staff, those people more deeply involved inthe subject or the project (co-operators/workers and co-thinkers, sometimes co-knowers) and organisationscontributing to the Stakeholder Map that expressed an interestin knowing more. The newsletter was posted on the Websiteand recipients were sent an email containing the web-link.

Informing

Perceptionsstudy –questionnairesurvey

A survey of random selection of 1,001 households in the basinwas conducted to identify citizens’ values, perceptions andinterests in becoming involved in river basin planning.

LearningListening

- 6 -

The website was launched in November2003 and has received over 6,000 “hits” inthe first 4 months, proving the success ofusing this mechanism for masscommunication. The Internet has formedand will continue to provide a primaryroute for information provision for theRibble pilot. While it should not be the solesource of information provision andcommunication, it does provide a low costand efficient information provision tool.Content and style is controlled by theAgency, thus ensuring direct linkage to theproject communication plan. Linked withthis the electronic newsletter has proved afast, efficient and low cost communicationmechanism, providing information atregular milestones and in bite-size pieces.Email notification ensures thatstakeholders are directed to the websiteregularly, which breeds familiarity with thistoo. The Agency will continue to producethe newsletter and extend the number ofpeople it is sent out to.

Whilst direct contact with the generalpublic living in the Basin was not a targetaudience for early active involvement, itseems likely that wide support for someactions will require sections of the public tobe encouraged to participate directly inwaterbody management. For example,issues of urban diffuse pollution mayrequire local campaigns to encouragewider care for waterbodies. Here, greateremphasis may need to be placed on localactivities and the help and support of localaction groups, some of whom are alreadyrepresented on the Stakeholder Forum,will become critical.

The general success of early worksuggests that there is little need to makeradical changes to the approach andtechniques that have been developed andapplied. In many respects, the techniquestested represent different “tools” that canbe applied to different engagementsituations. This approach providesflexibility and experience in the use ofdifferent tools. However, modifications tothe mix and emphasis in applicationshould be expected as the Agency movesfurther into river basin planning. Forexample, the publication of the River BasinCharacterisation Report (for Article 5 ofthe Directive) will require significantparticipation. The identification of

waterbodies at risk of failure to meet WFDobjectives will necessarily lead to morefocused debate over local protection andimprovement work. This will lead to thedevelopment of options for management,as part of the planning process.

Planning ProcessEstablishment of a proposed process forthe development of the Ribble River BasinManagement Plan sets out some guidingprincipals. The proposed planningprocess was explored throughconsiderable stakeholder engagement.The outline planning framework comprisesthree phases:

• Identifying issues to be addressed• Option definition and appraisal• Preparation of the River Basin

Management Plan and Programme ofMeasures

The Directive’s requirements andcontinued stakeholder engagementunderpin this framework. Furtherrecommendations point towards Basinlevel management planing, supported bystrategic level River Basin DistrictPlanning.

ConclusionsThe following summary conclusions havebeen drawn:

• The experience of testing anddeveloping public participationmethods and tools for early riverbasin planning broadly supportsmany of the principles of theCommon Implementation Strategy.

• The project has clearly demonstratedthat public participation is vital inplanning and engaging the public atan early stage of the process and isimportant in gaining their confidenceand trust to complete the project.

• So far the process has achieved anincreased motivation and desirewithin stakeholders to be moreinvolved in the River Basinmanagement planning process.

• Against the Common ImplementationStrategy context criteria it hasestablished a good basis from which

- 7 -

to develop a good process, using thelessons learned from the initial stagewill develop the process in a positive

way to achieve a widely acceptedRiver Basin Management Plan.

• The project has provided some initialindications to the level and nature ‘allinterested parties’ outlined in Article14. Fourteen percent of the generalpublic expressed an interest forinvolvement. Interestingly, themajority of these were existingmembers or supporters oforganisations presented by currentstakeholders (such as RSPB, WWF).This gives some indication to thevalue of stakeholder representativesand level of involvement of ‘interestedparties’ within the Ribble Basin.

• Future participation will be “issuedriven”. The planning process andneed to derive solutions to protectionand improvement issues willdetermine the right technique to applyand determine the people andorganisations that will need to beinvolved.

• The Project has highlighted thatIntegrated River Basin Managementgoes beyond the aims of the WFD,illustrated through public participationand the planning process within theRibble Pilot Project.

Next StepsThe work presented in this report willinform the development of nationalguidance on public participation and futurework will be reviewed when this guidanceis finalised. This will ensure that theexperience of the Ribble Pilot Project isused to influence approaches throughoutEngland and Wales and that its ongoingdevelopment is integral to work elsewhere.

The Ribble Pilot Project will continue toprovide a test basin for the Agency forelements of technical and proceduralguidance as they develop. The ProjectTeam will continue to work closely withkey partners and stakeholders to exploremethods and techniques for engagingregional and local stakeholders in the riverbasin planning process. The project willalso provide stakeholders with animproved understanding of how theDirective will impact upon their activities.

As part of final preparations forimplementation, a “prototype” River BasinManagement Plan will be prepared by2006/7 and finalised as part of the NorthWest’s River Basin District Draft RiverBasin Management Plan and Programmeof Measures.

- 8 -

1. Background

1.1 The Water FrameworkDirective

The Water Framework Directive (WFD)2000/60/EC – “Establishing a framework forCommunity action in the field of water policy”was published in the European Union (EU)Official Journal in December 2000. TheDirective is the most significant piece ofEuropean water legislation for over 20 years.The aim of the Directive is to take a holisticapproach to water management. It updatesexisting EU Water legislation through theintroduction of a statutory system of analysisand planning based upon the river basin. In2003 the United Kingdom (UK) Governmenttransposed the Directive into UK legislation,identifying the Environment Agency as the solecompetent authority charged with theDirective’s implementation in England andWales.

1.2 Implementation in Englandand Wales

The Environment Agency (the Agency) hasestablished a national WFD Programme towork with the European Commission (EC) andUK Government to interpret and implementingthe requirements of the Directive. It isproducing generic guidance as well as co-ordinating and delivering the technicalcapability within the Agency. The programmeincludes a number of projects as well asvarious programme level activities and isoverseen by a Programme Board. The projectswithin the programme are:• River Basin Characterisation;• River Basin Planning;• Programme of Measures;• Priority and other Specific Polluting

Substances;• Environmental Monitoring, Classification,

Assessment and Reporting;• Ribble Pilot River Basin;• Data and Information Systems;• Business Implementation.

1.3 Testing guidance and thePilot River Basin Process

To guide and support Member Statesinterpreting the Directive, pilots have beenestablished where Member States havecommitted to undertake trials of Common

Implementation Strategy documents. The trialshave taken place in 15 Pilot River Basins(PRBs) that have been nominated by MemberStates. The River Ribble is one of the PilotRiver Basin network. The UK agreed to testparts of Common Implementation Strategy onPublic Participation and the Planning Process,relevant to the UK national situation.

The Ribble Pilot Project, along with at leastthree other PRB projects, will continue workbeyond the initial PRB timetable to use theexperience of testing to prepare for fullimplementation. The eventual outcome of theRibble project will be a “prototype” River BasinManagement Plan. This prototype plan will befinalised as part of the North West EnglandRiver Basin District Plan and Programme ofMeasures.

With this background, the Ribble Pilot RiverBasin Project was established in spring 2003.As well as testing Common ImplementationStrategy, the Ribble Pilot Project forms anintegral part of the Agency’s Programme ofWorks, with the other projects in theprogramme using the pilot basin to test anddevelop national guidance for England andWales.

The River Ribble was chosen as the pilot basinpartly because of its landscape and socialdiversity. The river’s tributaries drain some2,125 square kilometres (820 square miles),from high moorland to lowland plains and smallvillages to large industrial towns, with justunder 1.25 million people living in the basin.(More information is provided in Section 2.)

The fifteen Pilot River Basins

- 9 -

1.4 Ribble Pilot River BasinProject objectives

The Ribble Pilot Project has two principalobjectives.

The first project objective is to contribute tothe official Common ImplementationStrategy testing process and to report to theEC, as described in this report. Within this theRibble PRB Project will:

• take a systematic approach to designingengagement methods and testing the draftguidance;

• involve stakeholders in all steps of thework so as to demonstrate “activeinvolvement”.

This report represents the formaldocumentation of the testing process.

The second project objective is thepreparation of a prototype River BasinManagement Plan and Programme ofMeasures for the Ribble basin, by May 2007.As part of this process, the project will:

• add value to the development activities ofthe projects within the Agency’s WFDProgramme by testing and applying draftEC and Agency guidance, methodologies,tools and policies;

• work with locally based Agency staff andstakeholders to prepare the prototypeRiver Basin Management Plan andProgramme of Measures. Any minormodification required prior to application atthe appropriate time (will not form part ofthis project);

• work with basin and district Agency staff(Regional Strategy Team) to examine howstakeholder engagement at the basin(local) and district (regional) level isfunctioning and provide feedback to theRiver Basin Planning Project;

• through application of specific technicaland framework guidance, examine theperformance of the guidance as anintegrated whole and provide feedback tothe Programme and River Basin PlanningProject;

• test the impact of the Directive onEnvironment Agency operationalresources and advise the WFD

Programme and Agency of implementationissues;

• contribute to the understanding of theenvironmental protection and improvementpriorities provided by the WFD on theRibble;

• work with stakeholders to develop theirunderstanding of how the WFD will impacton their activities and seek their input topossible solutions and Programmes ofMeasures.

1.5 Scope and authorship of thisreport

This report represents a full review of thetesting of selected parts of CommonImplementation Strategy documents, PublicParticipation and the Planning Process,between March 2003 and May 2004. Itprovides the source document, reviewing thework on testing the Common ImplementationStrategy guidance. Whilst section 8.2 containsexplicit discussion of the value of CommonImplementation Strategy this report does notreview its value “line-by-line”. Instead, itintroduces the work done on the Ribble PilotProject and offers these experiences as aseries of case studies for consideration byother river basin managers.

The report contains contributions from Agencyand independent organisations who weremembers of a Testing Group established toadvise on the planning and implementation ofthe Ribble Pilot Project (details in Section 3).Pete Fox (Environment Agency Ribble PRBManager) had overall editorial control, withresponsibility for drawing the individualsubmissions into the single document.

- 10 -

2. Context

2.1 IntroductionTo set the public participation and planningwork in context it is important to describebriefly the environment of the basin, its landuse, its people and their economic activity, andthe political landscape of the region. Thisinformation will be covered in greater detail inthe River Basin Characterisation Report thatwill emerge later in 2004 as part of the “Article5” report for the European Commission.

2.2 The environment, ecologyand land use in the basin

The Ribble basin (Figure 2.1) forms one of thelargest basins in the North West River BasinDistrict of England (District 7, Figure 2.2). It

comprises five principal rivers: the Ribble,Hodder, Calder, Darwen and Douglas and asmaller catchment called Crossens.

The main stem, the River Ribble, rises in thePennines and initially runs south and then westout into the Irish Sea. Through a majority of itscourse, the landscape of rolling hills and wideglacial valleys provides fertile floodplains uponwhich dairy farming is the prevalent land use.The river meanders for much of its course withtrees growing on long lengths of the banks.Gravels and cobbles form the dominant bedmaterial with fast-flowing water, especiallyriffles, running over them. Together theseprovide common in-stream habitat features.

Figure 2.1 The Ribble river basin

The Pennine hills extend into the fells of theForest of Bowland in the west, drained by theRiver Hodder and its tributaries. Here, thelandscape comprises sheep-grazed fells

incised by steep-sided valleys, drained by aseries of small, steep streams running overboulders and bedrock.

- 11 -

Figure 2.2 River Basin Districts (RBDs) in England and Wales

To the south of the Ribble flow the RiversCalder and Darwen. Both are similar inlandscape to the Ribble but for much of theirlength they run through towns and villages thathave used the river as a source of washingand power for large textile mills. Long lengthsof these tributaries are managed to reduceflood risk and continue to provide water forpublic use and receive discharges fromwastewater treatment works with consequentimpacts on the wetland ecology.

The Douglas and Crossens both rise atrelatively low altitude, and they have slowerflows, draining extensive areas of flat land.Parts of the Crossens lies below high tidelevels where intensive agriculture andhorticulture dominates land use. Here, likemuch of the basin, impacts resulting fromdiffuse pollution

from agriculture are evident. Watercourses arepumped and heavily modified to improve flooddefence and land drainage. As a result ofthese modifications the watercourses havelimited physical features and very little flowvariation. The bed substrate is predominantlysilt and sand and the banks tend to bemaintained as uniform trapezoidal channels,with intensive agriculture to the bank top. Suchphysical limitations, combined with poor (butimproving) water quality, limit the flora andfauna. Watercourses are typified by a wetlandflora including common reed (Phragmitesaustralis) and iris (Iris pseudoacurus). Thesewatercourses provide an undisturbed corridorfor a variety of wildlife through the intensiveagricultural land. However, there are problemswith alien species such as Japanese knotweed(Reynoutria japonica) and Himalayan Balsam(Impatiens glandulifers).

- 12 -

Typical landuse in the upper Ribble Valley

The tidal stretch of the Ribble starts in the cityof Preston and over its 18 km (11 miles) opensout into a wide estuary with extensive sandand mud flats with a salt-marsh fringe. Theestuary is designated as a Special Area forConservation (SAC) and Special ProtectionArea (SPA) because it supports internationallysignificant numbers of migrating and winterwildfowl and waders, including knot (Calidriscanutus), dunlin (Calidris alpina), oystercatcher(Haemotopus ostralegus) and widgeon (Anaspenelope).

As well as the fluvial network there are anumber of important wetland habitats thatsupport a diverse flora and fauna, includingseveral areas of high conservation value.European-designated sites within the basininclude the Bowland Fells and the SouthPennines SPAs, and the Sefton Coast SPAand SAC. In addition there are also numerousSites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs),including Long Preston Deeps and MartinMere, which support key species such as thenatterjack toad (Bufo calamita).

The Ribble basin provides a valuable habitatfor a variety of important species includingotters (Lutra lutra), water voles (Arvicolaterrestris) and white clawed crayfish

(Austropotamobius pallipes), as well as a widevariety of bird life and other important wetlandfeatures.

The Ribble also supports important coarse andgame fish populations. It is regarded as one ofthe most important salmonid rivers in Englandand Wales. The highest populations of salmonand sea trout are found in the Rivers Ribbleand Hodder, where water quality and habitatare suitable for spawning.

Elsewhere, coarse fish predominate, althoughimprovements in water quality have led to anincrease in salmonids, in particular in theRivers Calder and Douglas. However, as inmany rivers in the basin, migration ofsalmonids is impacted by physical obstructionsand channel modification from the industrialpast. In many of the tributaries the upperreaches have good spawning gravels and in-river habitat but the physical barriers preventmigration.

The River Douglas supports a number ofcoarse fish, including chub, dace and perch,although water quality and physical channelstructure limit fish populations. Thewatercourses in the Crossens area arepopulated by coarse fish, including bream,roach, tench, perch and pike.

- 13 -

2.3 People and economics in thebasin

The interests and values of the people living inthe basin will have a profound impact on howthe WFD is viewed and the challenges theAgency is likely to face in generating widesupport for the Directive’s implementation.

According to the 2001 national census,provided by the Office of National Statistics,just under 1.25 million people live in the Ribblebasin. Table 2.1, showing a breakdown of

residents, indicates that the population isapproximately equally aged, from young to old,with a slightly higher proportion of women inthe population.

During the 1990s, the resident population ofLancashire as a whole grew. However, thesituation in East Lancashire is contrary to thisgeneral picture. Here, a decline has beenevident, mostly due to economic out-migration,with the districts of Burnley and Pendle beingthe worst affected in the basin.

Table 2.1 Details of ages and sex of people living in the Ribble basinAge breakdown in years Numbers Average number per

year of ageUnder 10 157,040 17,44810 to 19 166,884 18,54220 to 29 142,977 15,88630 to 59 514,912 17,75560 to 89 257,135 8,866

90 + years 8,407 -(Unaccounted) 10 -

Total population in Ribble basin 1,247,365

Males 606,296Females 641,069

The success of delivering the Directive will relyon effectively involving, and communicatingwith, the full representative range of theRibble’s ethnic society. The Ribble Basin ischaracterised by areas of diverse ethniccommunities, such as in Blackburn andPendle. As shown by the census data (in Table

2.2), the white British ethnic populationpredominates, comprising 91% of the peopleliving in the Basin. The majority of theremaining ethnic groups (6 percent) are ofdiverse Asian extractions, but a smallernumber of other ethnic communities are alsorepresented.

Table 2.2 Ethnicity of residentsEthnicity Number of

peopleWhite British 1,137,580

White Irish 10,387Other White 10,787

Mixed White and Black Caribbean 2,936Mixed White and Black African 802

Mixed White and Asian 3,387Other Mixed 1,609

Asian/Asian British - Indian 29,023Asian/Asian British - Pakistani 37,747

Asian/Asian British – Bangladeshi 2,892Asian/Asian British – Other Asian 2,884

Black/Black British - Black Caribbean 1,750Black/Black British – Black African 1,072

Black/Black British – Other Black 315Chinese 2,875

Other Ethnic Group 1,441Unaccounted 10

Total 1,247,497

- 14 -

The basin comprises approximately 575,000properties (see Table 2.4), with the highestdensities in towns and Boroughs includingPreston, Blackburn, Wigan, and Burnley, in theDouglas, Calder and Darwen sub-basins (seeFigure 2.1).

There are approximately 890,000 adults ofworking age living in the Ribble basin (see

Table 2.5). Historically, many of these peoplewould have worked in manufacturing industry,with textile manufacture being a keyemployment sector in the major centres ofpopulation. Although almost all of the millshave now closed, over 30% of jobs are at anequivalent level.

Table 2.4 Private and commercial properties in the Ribble basin

Property type NumberPrivate properties 540,282

Commercial/public properties 35,526Total number of properties in Ribble basin 575,808

Table 2.5 The socio-economic classification of 16–74 year old residents of the Ribble basin

Socio-economic breakdown Number ofpeople

Large employers and higher managerial and professional occupations 59,595

Lower managerial and professional occupations 147,579Intermediate occupations 80,556

Small employers and own account workers 63,512

Lower supervisory and technical occupations and semi-routine orroutine occupations

278,051

Never worked or long-term unemployed 34,480 Full-time students 54,126

Not classifiable for other reasons 173,070Total 890,969

The overall picture provided by the figuressuggests the Ribble basin is dominated by alow skilled, ethnically diverse series of urbancommunities. This summary is supported bygovernment statistics. The Indices ofDeprivation for 2000 reveal that the EastLancashire area, and Burnley in particular, hassignificant concentrations of deprivation.

These figures indicate that the Agency needsto listen to the views and concerns of a widerange of communities and people (includingmany who have traditionally not been closelyinvolved in environmental planning andmanagement) in undertaking river basinplanning. Communications will need to uselanguage and terms that are familiar with

people in order to generate interest andsupport for the WFD in the basin. Whilst initialtesting (covered by this report) did not focus onattempting to engage directly with the generalpublic in the basin, some work was done.Section 5.9 includes the results of aperceptions survey, undertaken to listen to andlearn those issues and attitudes held by across-section of people living in the basin. Theresults of this work will be used in on-goingcommunication planning.

2.4 Administrative landscape ofthe basin

In the UK, local authorities are responsible fora wide range of public services including, land

- 15 -

use planning and development control(including spatial, waste and transportplanning). The Ribble basin is covered by atotal of 23 local authorities, in two principlelayers. Figure 2.3 shows one layer and alongwith the North West Regional Assembly,

Lancashire County Council and the YorkshireDales National Park, these authorities havecontrol over much of the land use planning inthe basin. As such they are considered keypartners in the delivery of the Directive.

Figure 2.3 Local authority boundary map

The local authorities set out in Table 2.6,especially those shown coloured red, are goingto be critical to engage in the process of

preparing the River Basin Management Planfor the Ribble basin and are a key componentof the public participation work as well.

- 16 -

Table 2.6 Local authorities in the Ribble basin (those with 75% or more of their land area in the basin are shown in red)

Local authority Hectares of land inRibble basin

Percentage of localauthority area in

Ribble basinBlackburn with Darwen UA 8,181.66 59.71

Blackpool UA 2,596.40 60.13Bolton MBC 1,189.88 8.51

Bradford District 0.37 0.00Burnley District 9,595.68 86.68

Calderdale District 36.49 0.10Chorley District 20,289.50 99.99Craven District 24,557.57 20.83

Fylde District 12,203.90 66.82Hyndburn District 7,296.62 99.96Lancaster District 58.12 0.09

Pendle District 13,740.72 81.13Preston District 6,794.97 47.54

Ribble Valley District 58,251.89 99.67Richmondshire District 35.10 0.03

Rossendale District 550.00 3.98Sefton MBC 7,448.22 36.37

South Lakeland District 44.09 0.03South Ribble BC 11,461.50 100.00

St Helens MBC 72.66 0.53West Lancashire District Council 28,986.39 76.06

Wigan MBC 7,692.28 40.87Wyre District 55.81 0.17

2.5 Relevant plans and processesA large number of land and water use plansand processes are already operating in theRibble basin. It will be important to integratewith and take account of a number of these inthe development of the prototype plan.Identifying current planning activities in theRibble basin helps to outline the context ofpublic participation within the Ribble.

Stakeholder engagement is common to mostAgency and external planning initiatives.However, for Agency planning engagementtakes place within clearly defined boundariesand plans are rarely integrated. For example,there are separate plans for water resources,flood defence, fisheries etc., althoughreference is made to other pertinent plans.

The nature of stakeholder engagement variesacross planning initiatives; only CatchmentAbstraction Management Strategies (CAMS)have a set engagement strategy (the RibbleCAMS will be initiated in 2004). There iscurrently no co-ordinated approach tostakeholder engagement in the Ribble basinwith respect to environmental issues.

A full set of Agency plans covering the Ribblebasin area is set out in Appendix 1. Some ofthe more important plans are listed below.

• Ribble Catchment Flood ManagementPlan (in prep.)

• Flood Defence Medium and Long TermPlan

• Flood Defence Asset Management Plan• Water Level Management Plans (various,

site specific)• Ribble Estuary Study• Shoreline Management Plan• Douglas Catchment Abstraction

Management Strategy• Ribble Catchment Abstraction

Management Strategy (in prep.)• United Utilities Water Resources Strategy

Some of the methods used for stakeholderengagement in the preparation of some ofthese plans are summarised in Appendix 2.

A full set of non-Agency environmental planscovering the Ribble basin area is set out inAppendix 3. Some of the more important non-Agency plans are listed below.

- 17 -

• Yorkshire Water Business Plan 2005–2010• United Utilities Water Business Plan 2005–

2010• Yorkshire and Humberside Biodiversity

Action Plan• North West Biodiversity Audit• Yorkshire Dales Biodiversity Action Plan• Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan

• Regional Planning Guidance (soon to beRegional Spatial Strategy)

• Regional Sustainability Plan (Action forSustainability)

• Local Authority Local Plans (various)• County Authority Plans (including minerals

and waste)

Pendle, East Lancashire

- 18 -

3. Approach to testing

Work on “active involvement” started at theinception of the Project. Early meetings withkey stakeholder groups in the basin identified anumber of specialists that could offer supportand advice to the testing process. As a result aTesting Group was created, under the chair ofthe Agency Project Manager, to manage andco-ordinate the work. This group provedinstrumental in delivering the tests that formthe core component of this report. The role ofthe group was to:

• co-ordinate the testing work for the project;• provide technical input and resource to the

testing and help deliver individual andspecific work items (including this plan);

• quality-assure the final report.

The Testing Group comprised:

Pete Fox – Agency (chair)Carol Holt – AgencyDan Bond – AgencyPaula Orr – AgencyAmanda Wright – Mersey BasinCampaignCaroline Riley – Mersey Basin CampaignRob Oates/Sarah Black – WWFYvonne Rees – HarmoniCOPNatasha Madeira – University ofStrathclyde/EnviroCentre Ltd

Mersey Basin Campaign were invited to jointhe group to deliver the stakeholder map, andbecause of their role in co-ordinating theRibble River Valley Initiative network in theRibble catchment and their expertise in localstakeholder engagement.

WWF were invited to join because of theirexperience in managing public engagementprojects on wetlands and because of their

contribution to the delivery of the visionbuilding work.

The Ribble Pilot Project also became a casestudy for the European HarmoniCOP projectand the UK representative, Yvonne Rees,provided independent monitoring of thesuccess of the work for both HarmoniCOP andthe Ribble PRB Project.

Natasha Madeira was invited to join the group.She is currently working as an EnvironmentalEducation Consultant for StrathclydeUniversity in partnership with EnviroCentre Ltd.Natasha is undertaking MPhil research into thepublic participation process for theimplementation of River Basin ManagementPlans. Subsequent to the initial invitation,Natasha was part of the EnviroCentre teamsuccessful in securing the contract to developa “vision” for the basin (see Section 5.5).

The creation of this multi-organisation groupcould be considered a demonstration of activeinvolvement, encouraging a range of academicand voluntary sector groups to join in theplanning, execution and evaluation of thetesting and early implementation of the project.

A work plan for testing was prepared by theAgency Project Manager and agreed by theTesting Group. This set out the proposed testsand clearly identified individual responsibilityfor the management and reporting of individualelements. Regular meetings of the TestingGroup were held during the testing,supplemented by expert meetings withindividual members (during the tests) tosupport and develop ideas.

The Testing Group met regularly throughoutthe testing phase of the Ribble Pilot Project todiscuss, recommend and co-ordinate thepublic participation work.

- 19 -

4. Review of testingguidance – “encouragingactive involvement”

4.1 IntroductionPublic participation is a core requirementof the Water Framework Directive (WFD).Three forms of “stakeholder engagement”are referred to in Article 14 of theDirective:

• public access to backgroundinformation;

• consultation in three steps of theplanning process;

• active involvement of all interestedparties in the implementation of theDirective, especially – but not limitedto – the planning process.

The first two forms should be ensured andthe latter encouraged for the purpose ofsupporting the effective implementation ofthe WFD. Hence, the competent authority(the Environment Agency in England andWales) will need to devise an approach to“WFD public participation” that has“consultation” and “access to information”at its core, but that also includes wider“active involvement” to help meet therequirements of the WFD.

The Common Implementation Strategy(CIS) Guidance on public participation,accompanying and expanding on therequirements set out in Article 14, guardsagainst “do nothing till 2006” and statesthat early involvement is likely to help thecompetent authority to produce a RiverBasin Management Plan on whichconsensus can be achieved by 2009. Theguidance also recommends thatcompetent authorities explore with otherstakeholders how best to proceed withpublic participation. Engaging people at anearly stage can help to:

• share experience and develop co-ownership of the process;

• develop best practice;• provide support and advice to those

whom the Directive may affect;• deliver a targeted approach to public

participation.

These principles were promoted in thetesting that was undertaken on the Ribblewhere the production of a communicationplan was seen as an early priority.

4.2 Communication planningA communication plan was preparedduring the early stages of the Ribble PilotProject in order to develop key messagesand set out our communication strategy inan open and transparent way. Itencouraged early active involvement in theRibble Pilot Project, with planned deliveryof ongoing communications helping toinform, engage or involve the targetaudiences (those we need to inform anddiscuss the Directive with, and those thatare interested in learning about it) at themost crucial time. The communication planensured a co-ordinated approach forspecific communications.

The communication plan aimed to:

• generate and maintain awareness,interest and enthusiasm in the RibblePilot Project;

• build support among the targetaudiences;

• ensure the delivery of the projectthrough effective proactive dialoguebetween interested parties.

The principles used in the development ofthe plan were:

• non-technical language was used toensure messages were easilyunderstood by all;

• appropriate routes of communicationwere devised to encouragecommunication with different anddiverse audiences (e.g. the websiteexcludes those without access butprovides a fast, effective and efficientcommunication route to a wideaudience);

• key audiences were invited to edit andcomment on the plan, to ensure thatthe messages were understood;

- 20 -

• the key messages were used as acore reference for all communicationmaterial, to ensure consistent delivery.

Key messages (see below), particularlysupporting the structure and objectives forthe project, formed the central plank of theplan. For each key message key Agencyand external audiences were identified,thus providing a focus for earlyinvolvement in the work. The plan drovethe delivery of early communications,ensuring the right messages werecommunicated throughout the CIS testingphase of the project. The plan will bereviewed on an annual basis during the lifeof the project.

Key messages (for year one) were:

• the WFD is a major opportunity toimprove the whole water environmentand promote the sustainable use ofwater for the benefit of people andwildlife;

• the Environment Agency is carryingout a pilot in the Ribble area which willhelp define how the Agency willimplement the WFD;

• the Ribble Pilot Project gives you theopportunity to influence the futuremanagement of the water environmentof the Ribble area;

• we will be working hard to ensure thateveryone’s views are considered andthat they have the opportunity to getinvolved.

A copy of the complete communicationplan is included as Appendix 4.

Lessons learned: Communication PlanCommunication planning at the process start up helps to ensure clear and consistentmessages are used throughout the project generating awareness and reducing confusion. Itprovides a way of reducing confusion amongst audiences by clearly linking communicationsbetween similar projects. It is an important early task that can be delivered through co-operation. Working with key stakeholders in communication planning helps to identify thecorrect language to communicate with them and demonstrates open communication withstakeholders. The Communication Plan for the Ribble Pilot Project promotes flexiblecommunication for different audiences ensuring messages are specific to certain audiencesand stakeholders are not missed.

4.3 Selecting techniques totest

A review of available literature surroundingpublic participation was prepared (byNatasha Madeira, Strathclyde University,and Jo Tippett, Manchester University)and used to identify suitable techniques totest. A full review of activities is provided inAppendix 5. Allied to this was a review ofreferences, included as Appendix 6, along

with a review of relevant case studies,included as Appendix 7.

Ten techniques were chosen, these wereconsidered appropriate to support theencouragement of active involvement inearly planning. They were selected by theAgency and/or the Testing Group as theproject developed. These are presented insummary form in Table 4.1 and covered ingreater detail in Section 5.

- 21 -

Table 4.1 Summary of techniques of engagement applied during testing

Activity (seeAppendix 5)

Summary of how the activity was applied Type ofinvolvementProject Teamsought

Project Team andTesting Group

An Agency Project Team, with a team leader, was establishedto co-ordinate the work. A working group (including externalpartners) was brought together by the Project Manager tosupport and advise on the testing work.

Active involvementListeningLearning

StakeholderMapping

A survey of 370 identified relevant stakeholders were sentbackground information with 120 questionnaires completed

LearningConsultingInforming

Stakeholder Forum A group of key stakeholders were brought together into aforum to follow the policy and process closely, to advise theAgency regularly about decisions to be taken, and to learnabout the Directive and support decision making.

Active involvementInformingListeningConsulting

Meetings in person The Project Team conducted a number of meetings withindividual key stakeholders, especially during the first monthsof testing. This gave people the feeling that someone waslistening, and provided direct input during project planning. Anin-depth conversation was considered a valuable investment.


Presentations A series of presentations for formal committees and othergroups were undertaken to communicate the key messages,raise awareness of the project and increase the chance thatkey stakeholders took note of it.

Informing

Scenario/visionbuilding

Facilitated meetings were conducted with small numbers ofparticipants to deepen the insight in perceptions andchallenges and to map possible solutions.


Expert meetingsand workshops

Meetings were held with groups of experts to provide anopportunity for specialist input to assist with developingsolutions to technical problems. For example, a series of fourmeetings were conducted to support the development of theproposed planning process (see Section 5.6).

Active involvementInformingListening

Website Project pages were established within the Environment AgencyWebsite to focus initial enquiries for advice and to support theprovision of basic understanding of the work. It developed anadditional role as the primary route for dissemination ofinformation about forum meetings.

Informing

Electronicnewsletter

Summary information of key milestones provided onapproximately two sides of A4, updated every 8 weeks. It wasdirected at Agency staff, those people more deeply involved inthe subject or the project (co-operators/workers and co-thinkers, sometimes co-knowers) and organisationscontributing to the Stakeholder Map that expressed an interestin knowing more. The newsletter was posted on the Websiteand recipients were sent an email containing the web-link.

Informing

Perceptions study –questionnairesurvey

A survey of random selection of 1,001 households in the basinwas conducted to identify citizens’ values, perceptions andinterests in becoming involved in river basin planning.

LearningListening

- 22 -

4.4 Identifying those weneeded to work with

The Common Implementation StrategyGuidance provides a guide to who shouldbe encouraged to participate in planningand at what stage. Application at the basinlevel provides a list of those organisationsand individuals that can help, includingthose that:

• contribute directly to causing impact(s)on the water environment of the basin(e.g. industry), or represent them;

• have responsibility for managing andreducing impact(s) on the waterenvironment of the basin (e.g. localauthorities), or represent them;

• contribute indirectly to causing animpact on the water environment ofthe basin (e.g. water users) orrepresent them;

• have an interest in protecting andimproving the water environment ofthe basin (e.g. conservation groups).

In order to help identify the people fallinginto these categories, two pieces of workwere undertaken. Firstly, a stakeholdermap was constructed, representing a“long-list” of all the groups andorganisations that could be relevant.Secondly, the Stakeholder Forum (seebelow) helped develop a priority list oforganisations to work with and agreedsome testing assumptions, togetherhelping to focus communications to keygroups. These processes are described inthe following sections.

4.4.1 Stakeholder mapping – identifyingcontacts and categorising stakeholdersThe Mersey Basin Campaign (a locallybased non-governmental organisation)identified early on in the testing processthe value of identifying stakeholders in theRibble basin to support the pilot testingand volunteered to undertake this work onbehalf of the Testing Group. The UnitedUtilities’ (local water company) method ofstakeholder mapping was modified anddeveloped into a consultation by CarolineRiley (member of the Testing Group), onsecondment from United Utilities. Theapproach was developed specifically tomeet the needs of the pilot but theprinciples could easily be appliedelsewhere.

Mapping stakeholders had two primarypurposes. Firstly, to supply information on

local groups, organisations and initiativesthat will and may have involvement in thedevelopment of the River BasinManagement Plan. This is then used toidentify those groups and individuals thatwill need to be involved through theplanning process. Secondly, to explorehow those groups and individuals wouldwish to participate in the managementprocess as it develops.

The initial list of stakeholders was drawnfrom the Mersey Basin Campaign’s Ribblebasin contacts list. For this they drewextensively from their associated RiverValley Initiatives (local partnerships foraction to protect and improve the waterenvironment, bringing togetherrepresentatives from the public, privateand voluntary sectors). Other contactnames were gathered from sourcesincluding the Environment Agency, variouspublications and the Internet. Partnerorganisations were also asked to provideinformation. For example, the Chamber ofCommerce East Lancashire contributed alist of over 100 businesses each with morethan 200 employees. Some stakeholderscame forward and offered their contactdetails when they heard about the RibblePilot Project by word of mouth. Once theprocess of contacting stakeholders began,some stakeholders referred details ofother contacts to be included in thestakeholder map. Identification of contactshas been spreading in this way ever since,and the map will need regular review toadd new contacts.

A questionnaire was developed to facilitatethe collection of information. As of the endof February 2004, 370 copies had beensent out along with an explanatory letterand an information leaflet (see Appendix8). They were sent jointly from the MerseyBasin Campaign and the EnvironmentAgency. In order to comply with the DataProtection Act 1998 a confidentialityclause was included. This ensured thatcontacts were happy to share their detailsand responses with the Mersey BasinCampaign and the Environment Agencyfor the purposes of the project.

The questions are designed to determinethe stakeholders:

§ geographical area of interest, interms of river, tributary, coastalwater or waterbody

- 23 -

§ size of group§ interests§ desired level of involvement§ preferred method of

communication (website, post,etc)

The questionnaire lists 31 specific issuesrelated to water and land managementand asks which of these the person isinterested in. They were then asked toselect the three that are of greatestinterest. Finally, they were asked to selecttheir preferred communication route andthe level of involvement they were seekingin the planning process.

If a respondent belonged to more than onestakeholder group, they were asked tocomplete a questionnaire for each one.The questionnaire also asked for details of

any other stakeholders who may beinterested.

A database was developed so that theresults can be stored and analysed at anytime for any required information.

Up to the end of February 2004, when theanalyses for this report were conducted,370 questionnaires had been sent out and128 (35%) responses received. Of these,27 were from people who had not beencontacted directly.

Respondents were grouped or “mapped”at several levels, shown in Table 4.2. Thisallows interrogation of the map to exploresector membership or identify individualmembers.

Table 4.2 Examples of how stakeholders were categorised

Category Example 1 Example 2Sector Local government Community groupsSub-sector Local authorities FisheriesOrganisation Ribble Valley Borough

CouncilRibble fisheries

Key contact or initiative Department of Planning Ribble Fisheries Action Plan

Respondents were asked the geographicalarea they were interested in, as describedby four categories, national through tolocal. Results, shown in Table 4.3, indicatethat over half were only interested in local

(basin or smaller) issues. Somerespondents indicated their interest inmore than one scale. For example, 5respondents were interested in nationaland regional issues. This information isalso shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Geographic interest of respondents

ScaleNational Regional Sub-regional Local

Number 41 49 43 81Percentage 32 38 34 63

133

45

1

Number ofrespondentsinterested inmore than onegeographicalarea 13

- 24 -

To supplement this result respondentswere also asked to name the rivers andwater bodies that most interested them.The breakdown of responses is shown in

Table 4.4. The percentages ofrespondents interested in each river in thebasin is approximately proportional to thesize of each individual catchment

.Table 4.4 Areas of interest to respondents

Area of interest No. %River Ribble 90 70River Hodder 57 45River Darwen 57 45Crossens 34 27River Calder 53 41River Douglas 57 45Water catchment area 56 44Lakes/reservoirs 54 42Canals 66 52Coastal waters 46 36

In order to assess and recordrespondents’ interests, they were asked toidentify any/all interests and to select threethat they considered their “favourites”.Results of this work (shown in Table 4.5)indicate that the most popular issues werethose related to nature conservation,protected conservation sites and

landscape (shown red in Table 4.5). Thoseissues polling over 50% interest (shown inyellow in Table 4.5) indicated a moremixed response with interests rangingfrom environmental quality and protectionto involving people and recreation. The topten recorded issues and interests are alsodisplayed in Figure 4.1.

Angling on the River Lostock

- 25 -

Table 4.5 Categories of issues/interests of respondents

Category Interests Favourites No. % No. %Surface or groundwater quality 70 55 15 12Chemical status – hazardoussubstances 50 39 9 7Biological status 73 57 17 13Diffuse pollution 60 47 14 11Drinking water quality 30 23 2 2Water resource 50 39 6 5Climate change 63 49 7 5Flooding 71 55 11 9Drought – low flows 39 30 4 3Groundwater 46 36 3 2Biodiversity/nature conservation 102 80 51 40Landscape 80 63 14 11Protected areas (e.g. SSSIs) 79 62 9 7Land quality 50 39 3 2Contaminated land 43 34 2 2Local environmental quality 77 60 19 15Visual impact/image 75 59 12 9Regeneration 71 55 17 13Heritage 63 49 3 2Recreational activities 76 59 15 12Tourism 62 48 10 8Angling 41 32 10 8Compliance with environmentallegislation 71 55 16 13River basin administration and planning 51 40 11 9Rural economy 61 48 10 8Health/social Inclusion 45 35 1 1Economic development 45 35 3 2Job creation/unemployment 39 30 2 2Water costs 28 22 8 6Statutory planning 48 38 10 8Involving people 68 53 23 18

Respondents were asked for theirpreferred contact route; results are showntabulated and schematically in Figure 4.2.Email communication was indicated as the

preferred option, but post was alsofavoured. This result was used to supportthe decision to develop the electronicnewsletter (see section 5.8).

- 26 -

Figure 4.1 Histogram of top ten recorded interests and favourite issues

Figure 4.2 Preferred communication methods

Respondents were also asked howinvolved they wished to be in the planningprocess. Results, shown in Figure 4.3,suggest that the preferred level of

involvement was consultation, withinformation provision also very popular. Anumber of respondents indicated that theywished to be involved at different levels.

Involvement Level No. %Involved 63 49Consulted 90 70Informed 82 64

Figure 4.3 Desired involvement level

Communication No. %Post preference 71 55Telephone preference 23 18Email preference 83 65

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

Biodiversity/ Nature Conservation

Landscape

Local Environmental quality

Recreational activities

Biological status

Regeneration

Compliance with Environmental Legislation

Surface or groundwater quality

Involving people

Diffuse Pollution

%

I n t e r e s t s

F a v o u r i t e s

- 27 -

The stakeholder map provides a singlesource of information on the groups andorganisations, based in the basin, thatmay have an interest in river basinplanning, their areas of interest and theirdesired involvement levels and preferred

communication routes. This informationwill be used throughout the life of theproject and has already been used toselect and invite attendees for the visionbuilding workshops (see below).

Lessons learned: Stakeholder MappingStakeholder mapping was carried out at the start of the project to help identify relevantstakeholders. Lessons learned included:• Stakeholder mapping identifies who to involve in river basin planning and how they want

to be involved, to help define stakeholders as co-decision makers, co-knowers, co-thinkers or co-operators.

• Refinement and iteration throughout the process is essential to capture the relevantstakeholders at the relevant times.

• Contact information is critical for collecting information for the map.• Self-selection and dominance by one interest or issue can easily occur• The use of a questionnaire approach to compiling the map is more “transparent” than

mapping undertaken by a small group.• The stakeholder mapping process is a continuous activity throughout river basin

planning.

4.4.2 Prioritising stakeholders andagreeing testing assumptionsAt the second meeting of the project’sStakeholder Forum (see section 5.2),members were asked to contribute to areview of membership and terms ofreference. Details of this work are includedin Section 5.2 and it was considered as animportant step in helping the Project Teamidentify key stakeholders for river basinplanning. Also, at that meeting a series oftesting assumptions were agreed toensure clear communications over theframework for testing.

These were:• forum members were the key primary

source of contacts and used torepresent views of wider groups;

• testing did not attempt to engageevery individual in the basin;

• work concentrated on engaginglocal/basin stakeholderrepresentatives rather than nationalrepresentatives;

• priority was given to working “through”existing external participationchannels;

• involvement was sought fromrepresentatives of all majorcommunities and geographic areas inthe basin.

4.5 Summary of plannedapproach

The selected methods were then used toencourage involvement of the selectedaudiences.

Figure 4.4 is provided to help explain howthe methods and audiences fit together. Itshows a conceptual image of the people ofthe Ribble basin; the proportion of peoplein each basic category is shown by thearea occupied by that section of thetriangle. At the base sits the generalpublic, the 1.25 million residents of thebasin with the social structure as set out inSection 2.3. Above this sits those groupsand organisations that can be assumed torepresent the general public, or sections ofit. Together these contain those peoplethat can be considered to:

• contribute indirectly to causing animpact on the water environment ofthe basin (e.g. water users) orrepresent them;

• have an interest in protecting andimproving the water environment ofthe basin (e.g. conservation groups).

Smaller still, and with a closer relativeposition to the Project Team, are the keystakeholders; those people that:

- 28 -

• contribute directly to causing impact(s)on the water environment of the basin(e.g. industry), or represent them;

• have responsibility for managing andreducing impact(s) on the waterenvironment of the basin (e.g. localauthorities), or represent them.

Key Yellow = informing, listening and actively involving Green = listening and learning Blue = informing

Figure 4.4 Summary of planned approach to stakeholder engagement

At the top of the triangle sits the ProjectTeam, comprising the EnvironmentAgency staff and those members of theCIS Testing Group.

The colours of the attendant boxesrepresent the types of involvementachieved by the techniques listed withineach. This shows that more effort wasexpended working with key stakeholdersand local community representatives, inline with the assumptions set out inSection 4.4.2. Together these representeda cohesive package of works that bothtrialled nine techniques set out in the CISguidance and made a real contribution tothe foundation of the river basin planningwork.

The methods used to construct thestakeholder map, and the provisionalresults of this work, have already beenexplained. The other techniques areintroduced in greater detail in the followingsection.

Ribblehead Viaduct

- 29 -

5. The tests in detail

The individual tests outlined in Section 4.3are reviewed in greater detail below.

5.1 Project Team and TestingGroup

The Environment Agency funded thecreation of a core Project Team to co-ordinate the testing work. Early meetingswith key stakeholder groups in the basinidentified a number of specialists whocould offer support and advice to thetesting process. As a result, a Testing

Group was created, comprising the coreProject Team, representing the competentauthority, supplemented by a smallnumber of external partners. This group,under the direction of the Agency ProjectManager, managed and co-ordinated thetesting.

The creation of this multi-organisationgroup could be considered ademonstration of active involvement,encouraging a range of academic andvoluntary sector groups to join in theplanning, execution and evaluation of thetesting and early implementation of theproject.

Lessons learned: Project Team & Technical Working GroupsThe Ribble Pilot Project has developed a process built on co-operation with severalorganisations to help bring together new ideas and stimulate discussion. At the centre of theproject the Environment Agency has worked closely with a several key stakeholders. This co-operative approach demonstrated the following lessons:• Extending membership of project teams through the creation of working groups proved

an effective way of making people feel involved.• Reliance on contributions of work from third-party organisations requires trust and

understanding.• It was the catalyst for other collaboration, for example in running a workshop to Review

Public Participation Methodologies with the Mersey Basin Campaign (October 2003).• It provided members with an excellent opportunity to exchange views and develop

common understandings with a range of actors in the Ribble.• Building joint working arrangements takes time and terms of reference may aid this

process.

5.2 Stakeholder ForumThe Stakeholder Forum sits at the core ofstakeholder participation. It comprisesrepresentatives of all major local andregional stakeholder sectors/groups,brought together to support andencourage the active involvement ofstakeholders in the Ribble Pilot RiverBasin Project. It was established inembryonic form at a project inceptionmeeting on 7 March 2003. The project waslaunched officially at the first fullStakeholder Forum meeting on 10 June2003.

Documents detailing forum terms ofreference, ways of working andmembership were all developed inconsultation with the members. Involvingkey stakeholders in this work was

considered an important way to build trustand establish dialogue between differentinterest groups from the outset. The waysof working were agreed to help forummembers understand their role and what isexpected from them. These areconsidered “living” documents and anannual review is built into them.

The terms of reference identified that theStakeholder Forum will:

• provide the primary source of help,support and advice for local/regionalstakeholder engagement in theproject;

• provide support and advice onproposals that affect the whole basin;

- 30 -

• provide knowledge on the Ribblebasin to ensure issues of localsignificance are identified;

• assist and guide the resolution ofconflict that may be generated in theriver basin management planningprocess.

• The Stakeholder Forum has amembership of approximately 50organisations with an emphasis onlocal/regional representation (e.g. the localrepresentative of RSPB attended ratherthan their national counterpart). Nationalrepresentatives were given observerstatus, the main point of contact being thelocal/regional representatives. TheStakeholder Forum provides an essentialplatform to help deliver more effectivecommunication of the Directive and theproject objectives, including helping todefine language or words to bestcommunicate technical elements of theDirective. The Forum Advisory Group wasestablished advise the EnvironmentAgency of how to manage the forum andconsists of representatives from theLancashire Wildlife Trust, Mersey Basin

Campaign, United Utilities and theAgency.

The documents detailing full terms ofreference, membership and ways ofworking are set out in Appendix 9.

A variety of techniques of engagementwere applied at Stakeholder Forummeetings to engage members over avariety of issues. Table 5.1 presents themain techniques used and an analysis ofthe costs and benefits of each.

The value of the Stakeholder Forum, asthe principal source of advice and supportfrom external stakeholders, has grown asthe project has developed. It does notrepresent the only form of communicationbut it is where some of the more complexand sensitive information is first discussed.Members have contributed to developmentof technical and sometimes complex workoutside forum meetings where the ProjectTeam rely on an understanding of thebackground for this work in order to makespeedy progress.

Lessons learned: Ribble Stakeholder ForumThe Ribble Stakeholder forum was established at the process outset as the centrepiece forcommunication with key stakeholders. The forum played an integral role in the ‘process setup’ helping to discuss the objectives, process, terms of reference and communications plan.The role of the forum will change with time and the river basin planning process evolves. Keylessons from the forum included:• The Stakeholder Forum provided a means of demonstrating from the early stages to

stakeholders the proposed approach to public participation.• The Stakeholder Forum provides a link to the wider basin. Encouraging members to talk

to peers outside the forum about the WFD is an effective way of communicatingmessages.

• While the Stakeholder Forum represents interests within the basin, it also representscross-basin and cross-district interests.

• The Stakeholder Forum provides an early indication as to what are the main issues andwhat are the key questions stakeholders want answering.

• Terms of reference should be produced early in the process and the Stakeholder Forumcan help define the role and membership of the group; this provides a focus for theirinvolvement.

• Adequate resources are required to run and facilitate the Stakeholder Forum effectively.• Identification of key stakeholders requires careful planning including for example,

stakeholder mapping and analysis.• Representation from business and industry was low, although level of interest from the

business and industry community has grown since the project started.

- 31 -

Table 5.1 Analysis of forum meetings

Purpose Techniquesused

Responses Costs/benefits

Introduction to theWater FrameworkDirective (WFD) andRibble Pilot Project

What dostakeholders want toget out of theproject?

How do stakeholderswant to be involved?

Presentations

Facilitated (byAgency )discussiongroups

• Offers of help to Agencywere made

• The project should bereal and lead to long-term environmentalimprovements

• Integration should beessential with existingplans and initiatives

• Forum needs terms ofreference

• Communication advice• Idea of creating a

“vision” was proposed• Stakeholders were keen

to learn more anddevelop best practice

Costs:PreparationAgency staff (5 man-days)Stakeholders’ time

Benefits:Informed stakeholdersOffers of resource(time/financial)

Discuss role andmembership offorum

Produce priority listof stakeholders

Introduce publicparticipationactivities

Presentations

Facilitated (bynon-Agencystaff)discussiongroups

• Stakeholder ForumTerms of referencerevised and updated

• Priority list ofstakeholders produced

• Membership of grouprevised

• Testing assumptionsagreed

Costs:PreparationAgency staff (5 man-days)Venue (£1,000/€1,400)Stakeholders’ time(included facilitation)

Benefits:Informed stakeholdersRole of group establishedPriority stakeholder listproduced to help identifystakeholders we need toinvolve in River BasinManagement Plan

5.3 Meetings in personThe objective of meetings in person (bi-lateral meetings between Agency ProjectTeam members and one otherorganisation or individual) was to provideand share information, seek advice andsupport, encourage others to offer supportand resources, and build and improvepartnerships. This technique was usedextensively during the early months of theproject, especially during project planning.The value of such personal meetings isrecognised in the CommonImplementation Strategy (CIS) guidance.This states that “the process of co-development and co-ownership is likely to

build trust, attract greater support fromstakeholders and create mutualwillingness to make the process asuccess.”

Project Team members had a number oforganised and ad hoc meetings. A full listof engagements (between February andOctober 2003) is included within Appendix10, and includes both external and internalaudiences.

The communication plan provided a keysource of information for effective projectcommunications.

- 32 -

Lessons learned: meetings in person• One-to-one meetings proved successful to communicate the project effectively and

enabled good two-way communication.• There are a finite number of meetings that can be undertaken and they can be

demanding on resources. Through providing information to key representatives, weencouraged the cascading of information through their organisation (this snowball effectoccurred in a number of organisations, such as local angling associations and industryorganisations).

• Meetings helped the understanding of how the WFD may affect organisations. Forexample, they helped to identify the links between the WFD and planning.

• Use language stakeholders are comfortable with. The Directive is complicated andtechnical; explaining in plain English and communicating simple messages is moreeffective. The use of case studies to explain the Directive’s objectives enablesstakeholders to fully and clearly understand the implications.

5.4 PresentationsPresentations were used to explain thepurpose of the Directive and the Ribbleproject to a number of different local,national and international meetings duringthe testing work. These gave theopportunity to communicate the keymessages of the communication plan, andother complex messages (with the aid ofPowerPoint graphics) to specificaudiences including the Environment

Agency’s statutory committees and localenvironmental partnerships. These eventswere used to inform audiences andencourage stakeholders to be involved inthe project. The presentations includedrequests for people to join the StakeholderForum and to ask for further information.An indicative list of presentations (betweenFebruary and October 2003) is included inAppendix 10.

Lessons learned: PresentationsA series of presentations were undertaken to communicate key messages and raiseawareness. Presentations help to increase the profile of the Ribble Pilot Project and providea platform to exchange best practice. They are particularly successful to inform specialistgroups or organisations, such as business or industry groups.

5.5 Vision buildingRiver basin management planning willlead to the development of a series ofDirective lead goals for the protection andimprovement of water bodies in the Ribblebasin. The extent to which these goalsmatch local aspirations are important indetermining whether local people will wantto help deliver them. If Directive goals forma discrete set of objectives then theAgency will have few partners in their workto deliver them.

In order to compare and assess theoverlap between local and Directive goalsand as a way of engendering local supportfor environmental protection andimprovement, a vision building exercisewas undertaken.

To help during the design phase of thevision building, the extensive literature onthis subject was reviewed and leadingpractitioners were consulted (Appendices5-7). The main body of this reviewincorporates a summary of the CommonImplementation Strategy guidance ontechniques for ease of reference, and an

- 33 -

overview of practitioners, projects and ICTtools. Key reference material andcomponents of the literature reviewincluded:

• the proceedings of a researchworkshop for leading practitioners onPublic Participation in the WFDorganised by the Mersey BasinCampaign;

• the EU Life-Environment Project WiseUse of Floodplains guide onparticipatory processes;

• an overview of IC-tools from theHarmoniCOP project;

• a summary of innovative tools fromPhD research on public participationmethods by Joanne Tippett.

Envisioning activities can be divided intovisions and vision building. A vision maymerely be an intangible ideal. However,vision building leads to the development ofsomething more realistic, oftenunderpinned by a plan of action to achievea tangible common goal. This can evolvewith time, continually being modified asawareness and understanding of issuesrelating to the vision are changed orenhanced.

The functions of vision building within thecontext of the Ribble Pilot Project were to:• create the overall direction of an

organisation/effort against whichprogress can be measured;

• encourage active involvement ofstakeholders in river basinmanagement planning;

• change people’s views as the key steptowards changing the environment.Desirable social outcomes arerelationship building, social learningand a framework for identifyingactions.

• Help to manage expectation of whatthe WFD can and cannot deliver.

5.5.1 Approach to the vision buildingprocessThe approach taken to the vision buildingprocess was to address the need forpublic participation on two general levels:

1. The requirements to develop and testapproaches and methodologies for thepublic participation and planningprocess for river basin management

within the Ribble Pilot Project (visionbuilding tests one approach/method).

2. To provide an opportunity forinterested parties to contribute to thedevelopment of a River BasinManagement Plan for the Ribble.

During the vision building process theobjective was to ensure that allstakeholders, including the Agency, had aclear understanding of their role inengagement activities and within theoverall process. This was especiallyimportant in the case of engagement ofmembers of the public (generally unawareof the Directive), where the language andapproach taken was appropriate to theirexperience and set in contexts and termsfamiliar to them.

Throughout the engagement process, theaim was to facilitate stakeholders’identification of their desired outcomeswithin their own (and neighbouring)basins, for themes including the following:

• integrated water and land useplanning

• biodiversity• heritage• landscape• the rural economy• water quality• flood management• tourism and leisure

The first stage is to work towards theestablishment of the ideal future state forthe basin from each organisation’s orgroup’s perspective, followed byexploration of benefits and disadvantagesof particular outcomes of actions toachieve the ideal state. This can then leadto a balancing process to achieve the bestoption tempered by constraints such as:

• natural processes• global processes (e.g. climate

change)• social/cultural considerations• economic considerations• political and institutional

considerations

The objective was to allow stakeholders tocome to independent decisions on realisticconstraints, through informed dialogue andcareful presentations of facts and differingperspectives. The process led to the

- 34 -

identification of a range of uncertainties,areas where more information is required

and issues for further exploration orresearch.

Black Moss Reservoirs, Barley

The process produced vision buildinginformation to be used for the continueddevelopment of a vision for the Ribblebasin that will be amalgamated with theresults of the WFD characterisationprocess and used as a framework forfuture action. The record of vision buildingevents was documented in a visionbuilding report (Appendix 11). Theresulting information, gained from furtherdevelopment of the vision should enablethe stakeholders to highlight commongoals that will lead to the identificationamongst other things of those actions that:

• could be addressed/deliveredwithin the WFD (i.e. matchedArticle 5 results);

• could be delivered by theEnvironment Agency in otherways;

• were the responsibility of otherparties (e.g. local authorities);

• could be delivered throughpartnership projects;

• would require additional powersor funding from centralgovernment;

• could not be delivered at all.

Taking into account some or all of theabove would help the Agency and otherinvolved stakeholders to develop anddeliver the prototype River BasinManagement Plan.

5.5.2 Approach to vision buildingmethodsThe vision building events were tailored tofit limitations on time, resources and scope

of the Ribble Pilot Project. Although thekey objectives for the Ribble Pilot Projectcould be met within the events describedbelow, more comprehensive coverage ofthese objectives may be achieved by thestakeholders involved through medium tolong-term continuation of this process.

The methodology was based on aniterative approach to determine the natureand content of the events and thestakeholders and locations. Throughdiscussions with the Testing Group, aseries of events were planned and heldbetween January and March 2004. Detailsof the design and planning of the visionbuilding events were clarified throughdiscussions with the Testing Group and byreference to literature.

The chosen methodology adoptedelements of a soft systems analysisapproach including, where relevant, rapidappraisal and stakeholder analysis (furtherdetails in Appendix 5). The methodologyexplores role of social learning with“platforms” of stakeholders who play a partin resolving catchment managementproblems.

Stakeholder selectionThe events aimed to engage a reasonablybroad range of stakeholders from thewhole of the catchment, while acceptingthat, at this initial stage, it may not bepossible to include some areas andstakeholder groups. Where possible, thestakeholders engaged should provide agood representative sample of the basin.

- 35 -

The Stakeholder Map and the StakeholderForum were used to determine who toinvite to specific workshops and establisha more defined target audience in thechosen area. The assumptions in Section4.4.2 defined stakeholder engagementdecisions.

Evaluation and monitoringEvaluation and monitoring techniqueswere incorporated in the planning processfor events. The assessment had threefunctions:

• to measure progress;• to enable learning;• to understand change.

Generally, only intangible assessmentswere possible, covering the developmentof a group identity between stakeholdersor enhanced commitment. What was beingassessed was the movement ofstakeholders along the gradient of:

Awareness Ü Insight Ü Competence

When assessing the intangibles, it wasimportant to have assessment done by adiversity of parties. Among those parties,the key persons involved in assessmentare the stakeholders, who should also beassessing themselves. Further details ofevaluation can be found in Section 7.

Vision workshop held at Wigan

Design and management of eventsThrough consultation and reference toliterature, various participation methods forthe events were adapted and designedspecifically for the Ribble Pilot Project. Theevents were designed to start the visionbuilding process, with a view to enablingstakeholders to develop a vision

document. This document wouldsummarise stakeholders future views onwater and land management in the riverbasin.

The workshop events commenced with abackground presentation prepared anddelivered by the Agency to provideinformation on the Ribble Pilot Project, theRibble basin and the WFD.

Then the vision building events werestructured to incorporate elements of thefollowing stepwise procedure:

1. The first stage of the processconsisted of participatorydiscussions in whichrepresentatives of differentinterests would be encouraged toshare their experiences of howcurrent water and landmanagement practices affect theirinterests.

2. Participants were encouraged toidentify the contexts that need tobe considered in relation to thechanges they seek: climatechange, economic constraints,etc.

3. Participants were encouraged toidentify the assets (environmental,social, economic and ways ofworking) they value and howcurrent water and landmanagement practices affect thempositively or negatively.

4. Participants were encouraged todefine the outcomes they seek inthe short to long term.

5. Participants were encouraged toidentify which practices they valuebecause they contribute to thedelivery of outcomes, and whatthey would like to change.

6. Participants were thenencouraged to flag up a range ofsolutions to potentially deliver thechanges they seek, and whichcould be delivered through theWFD and Integrated River BasinManagement.

7. Participants were encouraged toidentify barriers that couldpotentially block solutions and

- 36 -

opportunities that could catalysetheir implementation.

5.5.3 Application of chosenmethodologyFigure 5.1 provides an overview of theevents undertaken in the vision buildingprocess. The community event allowed thepublic to give their views on a localisedarea, which fed into the final workshop.Local (sub-basin) workshops were highlystructured half day session events whichdepended strongly on facilitator guidance,whereas the Ribble basin two-day

workshop was less structured and allowedfacilitators to respond and adapt todelegates’ needs and requests. The finalhalf day workshop brought together andconsolidated the main results of the visionbuilding events, in preparation for drawingtogether the vision summary report.

Appendix 11 summarises the activities andtechniques used within the events. Thevision building report (Appendix 11)provides a detailed record of the results ofthe events.

Figure 5.1 Overview of events

5.5.4 Results of the vision buildingprocessThe vision building process involved ananalysis of the past and present waterenvironment. The process definedstakeholder perceptions of the current

state of the water environment and theiraspirations for a sustainable waterenvironment. They also considered themechanism and challenges to achievingthese goals (example provided in Table5.2).

Ribble Basin WorkshopPreston16th&17th February

EnvironmentAgency Stand at

Community EventBurnley

15th

February

Vision to inform thedevelopment of the

Ribble BasinManagement Plan

Presentation of VisionRibble Pilot Stakeholder Forum

Preston1

st April

Local WorkshopWigan

19th

February

Final WorkshopCombining theVision building

workshopsPreston

15th

March

Local WorkshopClitheroe1

st March

Local WorkshopBurnley

29th

FebruaryCANCELLED

- 37 -

Table 5.2 Illustration of goals, benefits and challenges

Goal Benefits ChallengesImproved water quality • Enhance and stimulate

tourism, increase investmentin recreational facilities andamenities

• Improve opportunities foreducation and quality of life

• Diversification of habitats

• Runoff from urban andrural areas

• Point source pollution bysewage

• Physical structure inwatercourse

• Population increasesImproved partnerships • Sharing knowledge,

experience and best practice• Reduction in conflict• Involvement of different social

groups

• Time, resources andfunding

• Facilitation ofpartnerships

• Finding relevantexpertise

• Ensuring partnershipsare not just talking shops

The process indicated that stakeholdersvalued the ownership of the goals.Furthermore, they were keen to identifythe mechanism, benefits and challenges,demonstrating a sense of ownership over

the vision. Comparison from the differentworkshops also highlighted the synergybetween the perceived issues andstakeholder goals across the basin (Table5.3).

Table 5.3 Illustration of common goals identified

Illustration of goalsImprove and safeguard recreation opportunities and the quality of the waterside environmentImprove habitats for specific dwelling animals (e.g. such as otters in the River Hodder)Enhance and strengthen partnerships working towards reducing levels of diffuse pollutionImprove water quality by reduction of nutrient and chemical levelsImprove sustainable drainageEncourage development of sustainable farmingImprove habitats of migratory fish through Ribble basin

From the workshop outputs, three types ofreport of the vision building events wereproduced:

1. Individual event reports – brief factualreports of theevents for delegates and otherinterested parties.

2. Full vision building events report –summarising the information from allindividual reports.

3. Presentation of the executivesummary of the full vision buildingevents report to Stakeholder Forum.

The reports will be used to communicatethe initial goals and challenges identifiedfor the vision so far. The proposed nextsteps should incorporate the following:

• establishment of a vision sub-group tohelp finalise and clarify the vision;

• development of a simple and clearcommon vision statement approved bythe stakeholder forum;

• use identified key goals and values toclarify the details of the vision for theRibble basin;

• use the details of the vision to identifyclear short, medium and long-termgoals and actions required.

These will be considered and used toinform the river basin managementplanning process.

Of equal importance throughout a visionbuilding process were:

- 38 -

• the development, by stakeholders, ofa common set of goals andapproaches towards achieving them;

• the establishment of a sense ofownership, strong partnership workingnetworks and good dynamics betweenall stakeholders.

Within the Ribble Pilot Project visionbuilding process, encouraging results inboth areas were seen (see Section 7),along with strong evidence of theassociated social learning betweenstakeholders. Considering the smallnumber of events, the participantsproduced a wealth of useful material and

information that will provide an excellentbase for further vision development. Thereare clearly high levels of motivation fromthe stakeholders already involved in thevision building events to continueparticipating in the river basinmanagement planning and vision buildingprocesses, within a partnershipframework. The main challenge now forthe Agency and the Ribble StakeholderForum will be to maintain, increase andeffectively channel efforts into the mostappropriate areas of the river basinmanagement planning process.

Lessons Learned: Vision BuildingThe creation of a local vision for environmental protection and improvement served to engagea wide range of stakeholders in early river basin planning. The vision building aimed topromote active involvement in the early stages of the river basin management planningprocess. The vision building process demonstrated:• This is a powerful way of encouraging active involvement in identifying issues for river

basin planning.• It was expensive, relative to the number of people involved, but this was partly due to the

short time scale. Longer planning and operating time in future situations could make itmore economical (including longer notice for participants).

• Amalgamation with the Directive-driven goals needs to be managed carefully to ensureexpectations are met.

• Vision building takes time and should be started early in the planning process.• Vision building workshops did not encourage hard to reach groups and other more

proactive techniques may be more successful. Inviting people does not always lead toinvolvement.

• The Community event demonstrated the value of ‘piggy-backing’ other events, to reachwider and more diverse sections of the community.

5.6 Expert meetingsMeetings were held with groups of expertsto test this as a mechanism for activeinvolvement and to provide an opportunityfor specialist input to assist withdeveloping solutions to technicalproblems.

Meetings were organised to undertake twopieces of work during the testing period.Firstly, to support the Ribble Project Teamand national Agency colleagues in testingthe development of national Agencyguidance of public participation. Secondly,to support the Ribble Project Team toprepare a proposed approach to riverbasin planning for the Ribble Pilot Project.This development work is described in

detail to demonstrate how expert meetingscan actively involve interested parties. Thefull results of this work are in Appendix 12,a proposed planning process for theRibble Pilot Project.

5.6.1 Expert meetings on publicparticipationThe Environment Agency’s national WFDProgramme is responsible for developinga strategy for public participation for riverbasin planning that will ensure that theDirective’s requirements are met and thatthere is consistency between the levels atwhich participation occurs.

The Ribble project provided theopportunity to involve stakeholders in

- 39 -

thinking about how they could mosteffectively contribute to river basinplanning. Selected members of the forumand others were invited to participate attwo stages in the development of publicparticipation options:• review and refinement of four models

for involving stakeholders andmembers of the public

• testing one option for participation.

For this work, two workshops were held inDecember 2003. About 20 peopleattended (most attending both sessions).Participants represented a range ofstakeholder interests (including regionaland local authorities, business, farming,nature conservation and environmentalNGOs).

The first workshop was a one-day session.A background paper “Models for PublicParticipation” was circulated to participantsin advance. The workshop started with twopresentations, one explaining therelationship between the national publicparticipation strategy and the Ribble PilotProject, and the other outlining fouroptions for public participation.Participants were then divided into groups,and asked a series of technical questions,including:

• are the options workable?• are the options appropriate to different

scales of participation, such asdensely populated urban areas,remote rural areas, etc?

• which option(s) would be mostappropriate for each geographicalscale defined in the WFD (i.e.national, river basin district, riverbasin, sub-basin, waterbody)?

The feedback received from participantsindicated that they were comfortable withthe style of questioning and were able toprovide answers valuable to the strategydevelopment process.

At the second workshop the same groupsstudied the options in more depth, buildingon the outcome of the earlier workshopand on input from a workshop withnational stakeholders. There were twointroductory presentations followed by twobreak-out sessions, which focused on thefollowing questions:

• what is your preferred hybrid model?• who should be involved at each

stage?

Again, the participants’ comments werevaluable to both the Agency Ribble PilotProject Team and colleagues developingthe national Agency guidance.

Public participation workshop at Blackburn Cathedral,March 2004

5.6.2 Expert meetings to define theplanning processA further two workshops were held inMarch 2004 to establish a series ofguiding principles for river basin planningon the Ribble. These events included:

• key representatives of the RibbleStakeholder Forum;

• local Agency officers managingAgency planning (including;Catchment Abstraction ManagementPlans, Fisheries/Salmon Action Plans,Catchment Flood Management Plans);

• representatives of key externalpartners also involved in activitiesclosely related to river planning(including local authorities, regionalassembly, English Nature).

The aim of these events was to exploreand recommend processes and productsto deliver the requirements for river basinplanning, related to the preferences forpublic participation set out at theworkshops in December 2003.

The events used a series of presentationsto “set the scene”, joint working betweenparticipants to derive options for planning,voting by all participants to selectpreferred options, and, finally, somescenario planning to test the emerging

- 40 -

planning model. Consultants alsoconducted work between the meetings tohelp ensure progress was made.

Results of all this work, presented using“why, when, what, who and how” prompts,

were used to develop a series of “guidingprinciples” the Agency proposes to applyduring preparation of the prototype RiverBasin Management Plan for the Ribble(Appendix 12).

Lessons learned: Expert MeetingsMeetings were held with experts to provide an opportunity for specialist input to assist withdeveloping solutions to technical problems. The stakeholder forum facilitated the easyselection of participants and ensured they understood the directive and how it fitted in.Lessons learned from expert meetings were:• Participants shared knowledge about the river environment.• Participants gained insights into the concerns and perspectives of others.• Participants were able to look at the different measures that could be taken to deal with

pollution.• Participants provided real energy and enthusiasm to the process.• Participants felt that their opinions were important.• A number of stakeholder interests were absent (e.g. community groups, businesses and

farming). It was recognised that these stakeholders often did not have the resources (timeand personnel) to participate in this kind of activity.

• The process might have been easier if the participants had been provided with moreinformation.

• Professional facilitation of the group discussions would have increased effectiveness byclarifying what was required.

5.7 WebsiteThe Ribble Pilot Project, along with allother Pilot River Basins, has developed itsown website to support communications.The Internet provides one of the mostimportant forms of communication acrossEurope, for a number of reasons including:

• low cost of entry• accessibility• speed and fluidity• multiple modes of communication• breaks down geographic barriers• information dissemination

The Internet will be a valuable tool inhelping to meet requirements of Article 14for information provision. It provides alibrary facility, to supply basic information,although its capabilities go further.Through use of online questionnaires,email correspondence, consultationexercises and discussion forums it can bean important tool for participation. TheInternet also supports the Directive’sconcept of an integrated and consistentapproach across Europe, where MemberStates can share and learn from each

other. Members of the public are able toshare in this information acrossgeographical and political barriers.

Growth in access to the Internet adds to itsattraction as a communication tool. BySeptember 2002 it was estimated thatapproximately 57% of the population in theUnited Kingdom were online.

The Ribble Pilot River Basin Website sitswithin the Environment Agency’s centralWebsite at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ribblewfd. The Ribble PilotProject site sits within the North WestEnvironment section on the Agency’sstructured site.

5.7.1 Provision of informationThe Internet provides a key tool withrespect to the requirement in Article 14 ofaccess to information. The Ribble PilotProject Website provides information on:• project objectives;• background on the character of the

basin;• the work on public participation and

promoting “active involvement”;

- 41 -

• minutes and records of publicmeetings held for the Ribble PilotProject;

• electronic newsletter;• other key documents, such as the

terms of reference for the StakeholderForum.

These sections provide information forpublic access and are updated monthly.The site provides the opportunity forlimited dialogue through email; the Agencyreceives responses from the public. Thenature of this mechanism is singular, witheach response between the Agency and

the individual. Emails have tended to berequests for further information rather thanengaging in public debate. As aninformation tool the Internet is fast efficientand has a wide, although unverifiableaudience. However, caution should benoted, as using the Internet alone can leadto increased inequity unless other forms ofcommunication can supplement it.

Figure 5.2 Example of web page from Environment Agency site

5.7.2 ConsultationThe Internet provided the platform for earlyconsultation on the Ribble Pilot Project(Figure 5.2). The perceptions surveyquestionnaire (see Section 5.9) wasadapted for application on the web andopinions were sought to learn frompeople’s knowledge, perceptions,experience and ideas on the waterenvironment and management.Questionnaires are easily presented on

the Internet (Figure 5.3). Thequestionnaire enables the user to makeselections from specific answers (tickboxes, menu items, ranking) as well asrequiring the user to type their owncomments or specific details (text boxes).Responses are submitted and gatheredautomatically into data analysis software.Results of this work were not available atthe time of writing this report.

- 42 -

Figure 5.3 Example page showing the questionnaire on the Ribble Website

5.7.3 Active involvementThe Internet provides limited capability foractive involvement. Although not used forthis Ribble Pilot Project the Internet can beused for online discussion and debate.During later phases in the river basinmanagement process the Internet couldprovide a useful resource for informingstakeholders. It could also provide a usefultool for discussion groups prior to publicmeetings. However, this mode of

communication excludes those with noaccess to the Internet.

5.7.4 ResultsThe visitor data for the Ribble Pilot ProjectWebsite has been logged since the sitewent live on 25 November 2003. The totalnumber of ‘hits’ since the site went live inNovember is 5,958, an average of 48 hitsper day.

Figure 5.4 Histogram showing monthly hits on Ribble Pilot Project Website, 2004

0

500

1000

1500

2000

November December January February March

Hits

- 43 -

Site visitors have increased sinceNovember, and this is expected tocontinue as the project progresses and thesite address becomes more publicised(Figure 5.4).

The site’s home page is the most visitedpage. Table 5.4 indicates the most popularpages on the site from January to March2004.

Table 5.4 Number of ‘hits’ for each page between January and March 2004

Web page January February March TotalHome page 567 401 602 1,570Latest Information 316 175 246 737Newsletter 172 90 209 471Project Aims 178 118 165 461Basin Area 152 93 159 404Minutes and Notes 143 76 131 350Get Involved 113 62 150 325Contact information 103 56 106 265

Increases in numbers of site visitors havecoincided with the release of the electronicnewsletter (see Section 5.8), which islocated on the site and provides referenceto the site’s contents. The release of thefirst Ribble newsletter coincided with thehighest recorded hits for the North Westsite. A similar peak was also recorded withthe release of the second newsletter,demonstrating the value of using emailnotification for project updates. There hasalso been an increase in “Ribble” searcheson the site. During the last 2 weeks inMarch 2004 the top searches on the sitewere related to the project, including thetop searchable phrase (Ribble WFD). InJanuary, “Water Framework Directive” wasthe sixth most popular search on the site,

by mid March it became the top searchphrase.

Tracking of “domains” of visitors, such as.uk or .es, gives an idea of where sitevisitors. Indications have shown visitorsfrom across Europe (e.g. Spain,Netherlands, France) as well as furtherafield (USA, Thailand), demonstrating thevalue of the web breaking geographicalbarriers.

Current limitations to the site include thesmall number of sites that link to theRibble Website. Additional links to the sitewould no doubt increase the number ofvisitors to the site.

Lessons learned: WebsiteThe internet formed a primary route for information provision for the Ribble Pilot Project, thekey lessons learned included:• The Internet has formed a primary route for information provision for the Ribble Pilot

Project.• The Internet should not be the sole source of information provision and communication.• The Internet has a low cost and resource requirement for its use as an information

provision tool.• The Internet provides the most effective and fluid form of information provision, spanning

both geographic and political boundaries.• The potential audience is great and has no geographic barriers, although the target group

is unverifiable.• Information and data can be uploaded and downloaded quickly and efficiently;• The media and nature of the information can be diverse, including maps, GIS, documents

etc.• It provides multiple modes of communication.• It can be used to demonstrate the requirements of Article 14, not only information

provision.

- 44 -

• If used alone for information provision the internet could increase social inequalities, asUK access to the internet is only 57% (September 2002), and is limited by computerinfrastructure.

• Information must be updated regularly, to ensure that new material will stimulatecommunication through email notification (e.g. through using a newsletter to provide aregular need to access the website).

• The Internet can be used to raise awareness throughout the process, in particular duringphases of minimal consultation or active involvement.

• It enables audiences not to be limited to those who can attend meetings.• There is a need for web-links demonstrating co-ownership between organisations and co-

learning between different sectors and stakeholders.

5.8 Electronic newsletterTo support the communications of theproject an electronic newsletter wasdeveloped. This was directed at Agencystaff and those people more deeplyinvolved in the project. The newsletter isproduced once every 2 months and isposted on the project Website (seeAppendix 13). Distribution of thenewsletter is through an electronic mailinglist of approximately 200 external

stakeholders plus several hundred Agencystaff.

The newsletter indicates the mostsignificant issues and progress and is anefficient route of communication. The useof the internet ensures this method is costeffective and can reach a wide range ofstakeholders.

Lessons learned: Electronic newsletter• An electronic newsletter is a fast and efficient communication mechanism to keep

stakeholders informed.• It provides a communication tool at regular milestones and in bite-size pieces to ensure

main issues are communicated in simple language (plain english).• Email notification ensures that stakeholders are directed to the Website regularly, which

breeds familiarity with the Ribble Pilot Project’s Website.• There is a need to ensure that the newsletter is also published as hard copy to reduce the

potential for social inequality of communication.

5.9 Perceptions surveyWhile one of the testing assumptions wasthat we were not going to attempt to speakto individual members of the public in thebasin, it was felt valuable to undertake asurvey of a sample of residents to betterunderstand their:

• views on the environment and theimportance of water protection andmanagement;

• knowledge and use of their local waterenvironment;

• knowledge and understanding of theEnvironment Agency and its planning;

• knowledge of the WFD and how theyfind out about environmental issues;

• their views on how they would like tobe involved with planning in the future.

In order to access people’s views,knowledge, understanding, perceptionsand opinions a market research company(QCL) was commissioned to poll a smallcross-section of 1,001 householders livingin the Ribble basin. The research wascarried out by means of a telephonesurvey using randomly generatedtelephone numbers to ensure thatinterviews were carried out with arepresentative group of respondentsthroughout the area. This selectionmethod ensured that all households with atelephone had an equal chance of beingasked to contribute. Subsequent

- 45 -

comparison of the socio-economic datacollected from respondents confirmed thatthe sample closely represented the profileof the area as a whole.

During March 2004, trained interviewerscarried out a total of 1,001 telephoneinterviews with the chief wage earner ortheir partner within each household. Eachinterview lasted approximately 20 minutes,and consisted of the interviewer posing aseries of standard questions. A copy of thequestionnaire and the full report of thefindings is included in Appendix 14.

5.9.1 Importance of the environmentRespondents were asked to consider theimportance of environmental protectionalongside other important social andeconomic issues. Protecting theenvironment was ranked fourth, behindhealth care, reduction in crime and a goodeducation (see Figure 5.5). This said, 47%

of respondents scored protection of theenvironment as 10 (highest) on a scale of1 to 10. This maximum score proved not tobe biased towards any particular locationwithin the basin or socio-economicgroup(s).

Respondents were then asked whichindividual environmental issues they feltwere most important. For this, they weregiven a list and asked to rank each on a 1to 10 scale, where 10 was the highest.Maintaining water quality was the highestpriority issue, with 90% of householdersscoring it 8 or more out of 10. Three moreissues (ensuring clean air, keeping thearea free of litter and dealing with waste)were scored 8 to 10 by more than 80% ofrespondents.

Q. Thinking about living in your area; please tell me how important eachof the following issues are to you personally, on a scale of 1 to 10 where10 is very important and 1 is “of no importance”

Figure 5.5 Histogram showing the importance of the environment ranked alongside other issues

5.9.2 Water, its importance and useA series of questions then focusedhouseholders onto water management, tofind out more about why water wasimportant to them. Respondents wereasked to spontaneously list up to fourreasons why water was important to thempersonally. Two principal reasons weregiven: personal hygiene and for drinking.Both these were mentioned by over 70%of respondents. Overall, water for personalhygiene was mentioned most frequently

but water for drinking was mentioned firstthe greatest number of times (47%).

When provided with a list of issues(around cleanliness and ecological value)and asked their perceptions of themagnitude of any problems associatedwith their management in the local area,overwhelmingly respondents felt that mostissues were small in nature. Results areshown in Figure 5.6. There were onlythree water-related issues that were

12%

9%

14%

16%

15%

16%

15%

15%

12%

14%

14%

12%

13%

12%

65%

64%

51%

47%

38%

36%

33%

Good health care

Reduction of crime

High standard of education

Protecting the environment

High levels of employment

Provision of housing

Improved transport

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Importance scoreScore 8 Score 9 Score 10

Base: All Respondents (1001)

- 46 -

considered to be a major problem by 20%or more of respondents. These were:• rubbish in waterways• pollution of the sea• cleanliness of beaches•

Water also plays a significant part in theleisure activities of those in the area, witha large proportion visiting seaside towns orbeaches, walking by rivers, canals orlakes, or visiting nearby waterside beauty

spots. Among the three most popularactivities, walking beside waterways wasthe most often undertaken, with 71% doingso at least monthly. Between 40 and 50%visit waterside beauty spots or the seasidewith a similar frequency

.

Q. Thinking about your local area again, to what extent would yousay each of the following issues is a problem? For each one tell mewhether you think it is a major problem, a minor problem or not aproblem in your area.

Figure 5.6 Histogram showing perceptions of water-related environmental issues

Respondents were asked tospontaneously name any waterways,waterside beauty spots or seaside resortsin the North West Region. A total of 225different answers were provided with only14 mentioned by at least 5%. Threelocations were mentioned by at least 40%of respondents:

Blackpool 73%Southport 50%River Ribble/Ribble Valley 40%

When prompted with the names of somepopular rivers, canals and watersideplaces within the area awarenessincreases dramatically. When prompted,95% of those surveyed had heard of theRiver Ribble. Awareness was alsoobserved to be high for a significant

number of other rivers and watersideplaces. For example, around 65% areaware of the rivers Darwen and Calderand Rivington Reservoirs.

5.9.3 Environmental awareness and thework of the Environment AgencyWhen asked to name organisations theyconsidered were concerned with theenvironment in the local area less thanhalf (43%) were able to do so. The mostoften mentioned were the local council,followed by the Environment Agency.United Utilities, often in the guise of NorthWest Water, was mentioned by 6%.The spontaneous level of awareness ofthe Environment Agency varies acrossdifferent socio-economic groups (from 3 to13% with an average of 9%). A further

26%

28%

22%

13%

15%

7%

7%

5%

4%

34%

23%

26%

33%

23%

22%

20%

22%

13%

30%

39%

44%

40%

45%

65%

60%

62%

77%

10%

10%

8%

14%

17%

6%

13%

11%

6%

Rubbish in rivers, lakes, streams, and canals

Pollution of the sea

Cleanliness of beaches

Pollution of rivers and streams

Maintaining wildlife in and beside rivers, lakes,

Flooding from rivers

Rivers and streams running dry

Access to rivers/lakes/streams/canals for leisure

Flooding from the sea

Major problem Minor problemNo problem Don't know

Base: All Respondents (1001)

- 47 -

64% were aware of the Agency whenprompted with the name, bringing totalawareness up to 73%.

Among those aware of the Agency 5%claim to know a lot about them with afurther 34% knowing a little. Just over afifth of those who are aware claim to knownothing about the Agency.

In terms of water use and managementnearly half had not seen or heard anythingabout the topic in the media. The twomajor sources of information for those whowere aware of seeing information werelocal newspapers and regional television,being remembered by 36 and 33%respectively. As yet the internet has notmade an impact as a source of informationin this area, being mentioned by only 2%.

Nearly 90% were able to mention at leastone aspect of the environment that theywould expect the Environment Agency tobe involved with. The most oftenmentioned aspect was “cleanliness ofwaterways” (30%), followed by “pollution”in general (27%). The next most oftenmentioned was “the countryside”, at aconsiderably lower level (16%).

The names of a number ofplans/strategies prepared by theEnvironment Agency were read out andsome 30% had heard of at least one ofthem. In three cases more than 10% wereaware of them with a further two beingrecognised by 9%. Awareness of theseplans is highest among men, those of ABsocial grade and those aged 35 to 74. Thegreat majority of those aware of the “WaterLevel Management Plans” claimed to haveread some or all of it (12% heard of 10%read). In the case of other plans a muchlower proportion has actually read any ofthem, typically between a quarter and athird.

The most important source of initialawareness of these plans derives fromnewspapers, accounting for 28% of allresponses. Television accounted for 19%with a range of other sources eachaccounting for 8% or less of all mentions.5.9.4 Knowledge of the WaterFramework Directive

Overall, 3% (35 respondents) claimed tohave heard of the WFD, with awarenesshighest among men (6%), AB social group(7%) and city dwellers (7%). This grouphad become aware of the WFD from avariety of sources, the most important ofwhich was “local newspapers” (mentionedby 8 respondents).

5.9.5 The involvement of the publicFinally, householders were asked a seriesof questions relating to past and futureinvolvement in planning initiatives.

Firstly, they were asked whether they hadresponded to Agency consultations in thepast. Only 1% of the overall sample (11people) had responded to one or more ofthe environment plans or been involved inthe consultation process. Among the 11people who had responded, half had doneso as part of their work and half as part ofpersonal voluntary action. These 11people had on average done so in threedifferent ways. The majority had attendedmeetings or discussion groups.

Secondly, householders were asked howthey would like to be involved in the future.A total of 14% said they would like to findout more or become involved in planningwork needed to improve rivers, lakes,coasts and the sea. The groups most likelyto want to become involved are:

• aged under 35• AB social grade• city dwellers• existing supporter/member of

environmental, wildlife or conservationorganisation

Preferences for how to be involved variedamong this group. Most would like to beinvolved by reading about the topic, whilearound half would like to be involved in anumber of other ways, each of whichwould involve positive actions on theirpart. To give an overall measure ofinterest, those respondents were asked toapproximate the time they might be willingto contribute to this work. Results areshown in Figure 5.7.

- 48 -

Q. About how much time do you think you might be willing tospend on your involvement with these aspects of the environmenteither on a regular basis or as one off event?

Figure 5.7 Histogram showing time commitment offered by those willing to get more involved in planning (number ofrespondents shown)

This indicates that a small group would bewilling to commit a significant amount oftime. However, less than 4% of all

respondents would be willing to spendmore than an occasional day or eveningfollowing up their interest.

Lessons learned: meetings in person• It is a quick and easy way of canvassing opinion, providing measurable results.• The communication is largely one way and cannot be considered “involvement”.• The survey has yielded some very important messages that can be woven into future

management of the project, especially communication planning.

These important messages include:• there is a high level of awareness of the basin, and 95% of people living in the area have

heard of the River Ribble;• environmental protection is a high priority for most people and within this water protection

and management is their greatest concern;• people living in the Ribble basin do not believe there are many major issues with water

protection and management.

6

8

13

10

9

29

27

30

7

A day a week

A couple of days a month

A day a month

Half a day or an evening a month

An occasional weekend

An occasional day

An occasional half day or evening

Less

Don't know

Base: Like to be involved number of mentions (139)

- 49 -

6.0 Proposed planningprocess for the RibblePrototype River Basin Plan

6.1 BackgroundThe Water Framework Directive (WFD)introduces an integrated and co-ordinatedapproach to, and represents an importantstep forward for, water management inEurope. It rationalises and updatesexisting water legislation by settingcommon EU wide objectives for waterprotection and management.

It’s key objectives, as set out in Article 1are to:

• prevent further deterioration andprotect and enhance the status ofaquatic ecosystems and associatedwetlands;

• promote sustainable waterconsumption;

• contribute to mitigating the effects offloods and droughts.

The aim of the Directive is to take aholistic approach to water management, inboth qualitative and quantitative terms, aswater flows through a catchment fromlakes, rivers and groundwaters towardsestuaries and the sea.

The Directive takes a planned approach todelivering objectives and requires this tobe set out in River Basin ManagementPlans (RBMPs), one plan produced foreach River Basin District. By 2009, alongwith the rest of Europe, a North WestRiver Basin District Management Plan willneed to be produced (approximatelyequivalent to the Government Officeboundary for North West England). As theCompetent Authority for the Directive, theAgency is responsible for co-ordinating theproduction of RBMPs in England andWales.

In order to develop and disseminate bestpractice for the implementation of thewhole Directive the Agency has set up anational programme of work. This includesa specific project dealing with planningand public participation. The Ribble PilotProject was set up as part of this

programme, to develop and test methodsfor the implementation of the Directive andoffer local experience to assist indevelopment of national and Europeanbest practice and guidance.

The main output for the Ribble PilotProject will be a “prototype River BasinManagement Plan for the Ribble in 2007,as a contribution to the North WestDistrict’s plan.”

This section sets out the proposedprocess for development of the Ribblebasin plan, including proposals forstakeholder engagement. It represents theviews of both Agency planners and keyexternal partners in the Ribble Basin,having been drawn together followingconsiderable stakeholder engagement. Itis offered as the proposed planningprocess for the production of the Ribbleprototype plan, to guide the StakeholderForum on how it will be engaged duringthe preparation of the prototype plan andas our local contribution to thedevelopment of national best practice.

6.2 River Basin Planning andPublic Participation –Directive requirements

River Basin Management Plans are themain mechanism of reporting andrecording the Directive’s environmentalobjectives within a River Basin District.The requirement for planning is set out inArticle 13 of the Directive and detailed inAnnex VII, where the content of RiverBasin Management Plan is set out,including:

• The characteristics of the River BasinDistrict;

• Environmental monitoring data;• Details of the impacts of human

activity (e.g. point / diffuse pollution,abstractions, flood defence works);

• An analysis of the economic usage ofwater;

- 50 -

• A strategic plan for the achievement of“good status” – the Programme ofMeasures.

The main elements of the planning cycle,along with key dates for deliverables, areshown in Figure 6.1, drawn from CommonImplementation Strategy (CIS) guidanceon the planning process (an abstract of themost important points is included inAppendix 12).

The process follows the familiar “plan, do,check, correct” cycle and should not be asurprise to planners in the UK. TheAgency (or its predecessors) have appliedthis process to river basin planning forover 20 years. During this time a numberof different types of water managementplans have been, and continue to be,

developed. One main difference betweenRBMPs and many existing plans is thatthat RBMPs (and the programme ofmeasures within them) will be statutory. Inimplementing the WFD, the relationshipbetween existing water management plansand the RBMPs required by the Directivewill need careful analysis to preventduplication and to preserve elements ofexisting plans which are not required bythe Directive. This is being undertakenahead of the production of guidance onhow key Agency plans can be moreeffectively integrated. In the meantime,closer but still informal working betweenAgency water planners is proposed in theRibble process in readiness of furtherguidance.

Assess currentstatus,analyse

preliminarygaps(Art. 5-8)

Gap analysis

Set up theprogrammeofmeasuresfor RDB

(Art. 11)

Develo River BasinManagement Plan(RBMP) (Art.13-25,

App.VII)

Set upenvironmenta

objectives (Art. 4)

2006

2009

Establishmonitoringprogrammes

(Art. 8)Implement theprogrammeofmeasuresfor

RBD

Submit report onthe implementationto the

EC (Art. 15)Revised

overview ofsignificant water

issues

UpdateRBMP

2004Evaluatethe first andpreparethe second

period.

(Art. 14)

PublicParticipation

2012

2013 2015

Assess currentstatus,analyse

preliminary gaps(Art. 5-8)

Gap analysisGap analysis

Set up the programmeofmeasuresfor RDB

(Art. 11)

Develop River BasinManagement Plan(RBMP) (Art.13- 25,

Annex VII)

Set upenvironmental

objectives (Art. 4)

20062006

2009

Establishmonitoringprogrammes

(Art. 8)Implement theprogramme ofmeasures for

RBD

Submit report onthe implementation to the

EC (Art. 15)Revised

overview ofsignificant water

issues

UpdateRBMP

20042004Evaluate the first andprepare the second

period.

(Art. 14)

PublicParticipation

(Art. 14)

PublicParticipation

(Art. 14)

PublicParticipation

20122012

20132013 20152015

Figure 6.1. A schematic of the process and key dates for River Basin Planning.

The requirements for public participationare an integral component of implementingthe Directive (as shown in Figure 6.1) andare set out in Article 14. These are:

• Public access to backgroundinformation;

• Formal consultation on three stages ofriver basin planning;

• Encouragement of active involvement.

The provision of background informationand the management of consultations atthree key stages will be straightforward.The “encouragement” of active

involvement of all interested parties isexercising more attention. This has beensubject of considerable effort and testing,not least on the Ribble.

The successful implementation of theDirective relies on effective publicparticipation to bring together keypartners, develop understanding ofecological objectives, find innovative waysof solving complex “puzzles” and gain buy-in from a wide public to support delivery.

To meet these objectives, the Agency isseeking to develop a flexible approach

- 51 -

with structures that are not institutionalisedbut can form and dissolve as necessary,providing opportunities for engagement

that focus on the decisions, issues andareas where engagement is most needed.

A strategic approach to engagement willbe needed, ensuring clear linkagebetween decisions taken at the local, riverbasin, national and European levels.

This section sets out the key stages atwhich public participation will be crucial tothe development of the prototype plan.

6.3 River Basin Planning onthe Ribble - guidingprinciples for planningand participation

A series of four expert meetings wereheld, between December 2003 and March2004 to establish a series of guidingprinciples for River Basin Planning on theRibble. These events included:

• key representatives of the RibbleStakeholder Forum;

• local Agency officers managingAgency plan (including; CatchmentAbstraction Management Plans,Fisheries/Salmon Action Plans,Catchment Flood Management Plans);

• representatives of key externalpartners also involved in activitiesclosely related to river planning(including Local Authorities, RegionalAssembly, English Nature).

The aim of these events was to exploreand recommend processes and productsto deliver the requirements for River BasinPlanning. Results of all this work,presented using “why, when, what, whoand how” prompts, set out the following“guiding principles” the Agency proposes

to apply during preparation of theprototype River Basin Plan for the Ribble.Why are we undertaking the work?To improve the environment by deliveringthe basin contribution to the North WestRiver Basin Management Plan, pursuantto the Water Framework Directive. The“prototype River Basin Management Planfor the Ribble” will be the major output ofthe Ribble Pilot Project.

When will we be doing this work?Member States are required to prepareRiver Basin Management Plans by 2009(see Figure 6.1 and Appendix 12 forgreater detail). The Ribble Pilot Project isdue to complete and deliver its plan by mid2007, running a little ahead of the officialtimetable to facilitate testing.

What will a Basin Plan look like?Considerable effort was expended intowhat a Basin level output would look like.Three suggested approaches wereexplored. These were:

1. Detailed basin operational plans withminimal District Plan comprising asimple reporting tool;

2. Detailed District Plan with localdelivery without a local plan;

3. Strategic District Plan guiding andsupporting development of detailedBasin Plans.

The positives and negatives associatedwith the three broad options wereconsidered and results are summarised inTable 6.1.

Flooding of agricultural land in Ribble Valley

- 52 -

Table 6.1. A review of the positives and negatives of three planning approaches

1 Detailed basin operational planswith minimal District Plancomprising a simple reporting tool

2. Detailed District Plan with localdelivery without a local plan

3. Strategic District Plan guidingand supporting development ofdetailed Basin Plans

+ - + - + -

Strong local links

Risk of missingdirectiverequirements as“top down” co-ordination isreduced

Cheaper toprepare

Lots ofcommunicationneeded to “sell”the plan

Strong local links Risk of confusingboundaries

Encouragessmall/localstakeholders inparticipation anddelivery

Risk of missinglinkage toimportantregional issues(eg RegionalSpatial Strategy)

Nationalconsistencyeasier to ensurewith smallernumber of plans

More difficult toestablish locallink/involvement

Can matchpolicies in theProgrammes ofMeasures to rightscale (local andregional plans/structures)

Possible conflictsbetweenobjectives

Helps ensurelocal delivery

Danger of notgetting localdelivery

Encouragessmall/localstakeholders inparticipation anddelivery

Easily capturesexisting Agencyplans

Morecumbersome,quickly out ofdate

Helps ensurelocal delivery

Match’s scale ofmajority ofexisting plans

Easily capturesexisting Agencyplans

Match’s scale ofmajority ofexisting plans

This analysis suggested that option 3, aStrategic District Plan guiding andsupporting development of detailed BasinPlans, delivered the greatest number ofbenefits. This option was furtherdeveloped.

Under this option, the Basin Plan will bethe major building block of a District Planwith 80 – 90% of the total planning effortexpended at the Basin or sub-basin levels.This builds on the fact that almost all oflocal Agency water planning is currentlymanaged at the basin or sub-basin level.

The District “statutory” Plans will containappropriate strategic WFD Objectives tocover issues with wider than single basinimportance and steer the production ofbasin level planning. District plans willcomprise a summary of constituent BasinPlans. It will include links to Agencyobjectives and would be used for

influencing regional bodies (eg RegionalAssemblies) and reporting to Defra andthe European Commission.

In addition to preparing District Plans,planners at the regional scale also have arole to help identify the technical coverageof individual Basin Plans, to ensure localplanning delivers necessary waterbodyspecific objectives.

A Basin Plan will contain the majorrequirements of a District Plan (as set outin Annex VII of the Directive) and would bean operational tool, identifying and locatingactions in a Programme of Measures. Itwill contain all relevant statutory actions(work required for the delivery of theDirective, including licensing, regulation,enforcing, monitoring). In addition, itshould contain information on aspirationalwork (including supplementary actions andthose actions desired by local

- 53 -

stakeholders in support of protecting andimproving the water environment).Who will be involved in preparing andquality-assuring the Basin Plan?Two distinct groups were identified at theworkshops; those who will be responsiblefor writing and editing the plan andpreparing the options, and those who willcomment on and assure the quality of theproduct.

Writing and editing will be undertaken by asmall Basin Planning Team, comprisingthe Agency officers responsible for localwater resources, flood risk and fisheriesplanning (all these identified as havingsignificant technical overlap with RiverBasin Planning). The production of theRiver Basin Plan will be co-ordinated by alead WFD planner with overallresponsibility for preparing the Plan.

Quality assurance will comprise a muchwider group, with constituents determinedby and covering all the issues addressedwithin the plan, most importantly, thosethat can affect the delivery of the actions.To help determine the preferred ways ofincluding partners in quality assurance onthe Ribble, four options for engagementwere considered.

Option 1: Existing Agency structuresand processesThis option provides for a partnership atthe district level between agencies andinstitutions with statutory responsibilitiesfor the main measures to be included inRiver Basin Management Plans. Thepartnership would take evidence and alsofacilitate meetings between stakeholdersto promote collective approaches toresolve shared problems. This providesbenefits in terms of collective working andcatchment consciousness, but is not seenas transparent. I its inclusiveness andeffectiveness in taking account ofstakeholder perspectives, and contributionto social capital would depend on theBasin Facilitation Team and itsrelationships with the Liaison Panel andwith stakeholders.

Option 2: Administrative organisationsOptions 2 and 3 propose having a Sub-committee at the district level, which ispart of the Agency’s existing regionaladvisory committee structure withmembers drawn from the three existingcommittees (possibly from more than one

region where districts cross regionalboundaries). The membership of the Sub-committee, like that of Agency advisorycommittees, would include members fromdifferent sectors (e.g. industry, nongovernmental organisations, localauthorities, etc) and would have an activerole both in channelling information toother stakeholders and in feeding backtheir input to the Agency’s river basinplanning process. Option 2 hasStakeholder Forums at River Basin level,(as established in the Ribble Pilot Project)providing an opportunity for a wider groupof stakeholders to meet, share informationand input to river basin planning. TheForum would provide transparency,promote collective action and enhancenetworks and trust.

Option 3: Stakeholder ForumIn Option 3 the emphasis would be onworking with existing stakeholdernetworks. This is likely to strengthen thesenetworks and enhance their capacity foraction; where networks do not exist or arein conflict, there is a risk that not allstakeholder interests will be included ortaken into consideration.

Option 4: Stakeholder Working GroupThis option has a similar structure toOption 1, with a small group of experts atthe district level who take evidence fromstakeholders at all levels. Because theexpert group is independent it is seen asmore transparent and potentially inclusivethan option 1. However, unless it weregiven some powers or significantresources, it is unlikely to be effective inpromoting collective action or buildingsocial capital, and it is uncertain to whatextent stakeholder views would be takeninto account in decisions.

Table 6.2 provides further detail on thefour different options for publicparticipation.

The workshop concluded that option 2offered the greatest value for the Ribbleand built on the success of the basin levelforum. Given the preferred option,including a planning capability at theDistrict level, the Ribble Pilot Project willbe working under the assumption thatsome sort of District Planning Team will becreated.

- 54 -

Table 6.2. Possible options for public participation in the WFDOPTION/LEVEL OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4RIVER BASINDISTRICT

Regional Liaison Panel:5-7 representatives ofinstitutions with statutoryresponsibility for implementingWFD measures (EnvironmentAgency, Regional Assembly,English Nature, CountyCouncil, etc)

EA Regional CommitteesJoint Water Sub-Committee:9 – 12 members selected fromAgency regional committees torepresent range of stakeholderinterests.

EA Regional CommitteesJoint Water Sub-Committee:9 – 12 members selected fromAgency3 regional committees torepresent range of stakeholderinterests.

Independent Commission of“the great and the good”:5 – 7 appointed membersmeeting to provide input tothree river basin planningtasks: definition of river basinplanning work programme &timetable; identification of keyissues; development of draftRBMP

Role: Collate input from river basinlevelReceive and considerfeedback from river basindistrict-level stakeholdersShared decision-making onhigh level issuesContribute to draft RBMPApprove final RBMPJoint implementation

Agree issues to be covered inRBMPCo-ordination between mainstakeholder interestsRecommend draft and finalRBMP to AgencyAudit work of the StakeholderForum

Agree issues to be covered inRBMP

Co-ordination between mainstakeholder interestsRecommend draft and finalRBMP to Agency

Seek and receive informationAnalyse comments andrepresentationsprovide input to three riverbasin planning tasks (seeabove)

RIVER BASIN Joint Facilitation Team:Specialist resource made up ofstaff seconded from membersof Regional Liaison Panel,serviced by the Agency

Stakeholder Forum made up of30 – 60 s/h representativesmeeting 2/3 times p.a.

Proactive engagement byAgency and support forstakeholder networks

Proactive engagement byCommission and support forstakeholder networks.

Role: Information provision,consultation & activeinvolvementPromote catchmentconsciousnessFacilitate stakeholder input atriver basin levelSupport facilitation at sub-basin/waterbody level

Input to main stages of riverbasin planning (identification ofpressures & impacts, optionsidentification etcInformation channel (to/fromriver basin district & sub-basin)

Information provision &consultationPromote collective problemsolving through existingnetworks.Collation of input from differentnetworks

Information provision &consultationPromote collective problemsolving through existingnetworks.Collation of input from differentnetworks

- 55 -

How will the Basin Plan be developed?The principles developed so far indicatethe major outputs of planning as:

• Dates by which products will berequired;

• The production of Basin and DistrictPlans;

• The creation of District and BasinPlanning Teams;

• The creation of a Basin StakeholderForum.

The processes these groups will use towork together in undertaking River BasinPlanning was also discussed at theworkshops. And a series of 3 majorphases in planning were proposed.

Phase 1 – Identifying the issues to beaddressedThe major output of this initial stage will bethe determination of a list of issues to beaddressed in the River Basin Plan. It islikely that there will be two major sourcesof issues to be addressed; potentialstatutory requirements to deliver theobjectives of the Directive; and anyadditional objectives determined by localstakeholders (in the form of a stakeholdervision for the Basin). A process to sift outthose that can be best delivered outsidethe Directive will be required and aproactive, Agency driven approach wasconsidered important at this stage.

The membership of the Basin Forum willbe reviewed towards the end of this phaseand a seat offered to those that can effectmost the outcome of each of the majorimpacts.

Phase 2 – Option definition andappraisalThis stage will involve more detailed workto generate options for a solution to eachissue and consideration of the merits ofeach in determining a preferred option.This is considered the most importantphase and will involve more stakeholdersin more detailed work than for phase 1.Involvement and guidance from thenational level will also be important at thisstage.

Considering potential options will requiremore detailed technical work (for example,cost effectiveness analysis will be neededat this stage) and closer involvement ofstakeholders who will have a direct impacton solving any problems. Thesestakeholders will include those offering adifferent perspective, perhaps members ofpressure groups, as well as those whocould help achieve goals. The involvementof technical specialists was seen as a keyelement of this stage.

At sub basin level and waterbody level itwill be important to ensure that individualstakeholders will be consulted. Specificissues will need to drive the consultation atthis level.

Phase 3 – Preparation of the RiverBasin Management Plans andProgramme of MeasuresThis represents the plan production phase,where all outputs will be drawn togetherinto the final product. The StakeholderForum will be used as primary process ofengagement. It will recommend (orotherwise) to the Agency the inclusion ofthe proposals in the draft District Plan.

At all phases the ways of engagementshould ensure:

• Directive requirements met;• Existing partnerships and groups are

used as much as possible;• A wide circulation of information is

maintained to ensure all issues andviews are captured;

• There is an effective, two way, flow ofinformation and opinions.

6.4 Summary of planningprocess and way forward

The guiding principles developed in thispaper are presented in summary form inTable 6.3.

This proposal will be reviewed andsubmitted to Agency River Basin PlanningProject for consideration in development ofnational best practice. The process willthen be reviewed in the light of this work,probably in early 2005.

- 56 -

Table 6.3. Summarising the outputs and processes for planning and participation in the production of the Ribble River Basin Plan (Stakeholder Forum involvement shown in red)

OUTPUTS PROCESSESPhase 1 – Identifying the issues to be addressed Ribble = mid 2004 – mid 20051. A District Planning Team2. A Basin Stakeholder Forum3. A Basin Planning Team4. A Basin level Issue Log – created by amalgamating local (bottom-up) and

Directive driven (top-down) issues from the Vision and the River BasinCharacterisation Report respectively. Each Issue will have the followinginformation:

• Description of the Issue (including extent in the basin)• Desired outcome/status objectives (quality measure)• Policy/regulatory framework for management• Issue owner (may or may not be Agency)• Monitoring information and requirements to support

management

1. A District Planning Team (managed by the Agency’s Regional Strategic Unit) isestablished. It reviews the River Basin Characterisation Report and determines thoseapplicable to the Basin.

2. The Basin Stakeholder Forum creates a Vision (locally derived list of Basin issues)they would like to see addressed.

3. A Basin Planning Team is established (comprising local Agency planners). It receivesthe District team’s outputs and combines it with the Forum’s output and constructs theIssue Log.

4. The Basin Planning Team filters the Log to remove those that can/should be achievedoutside the Water Framework Directive.

5. The Basin Team constructs a log for each Issue and submits this to the Forum fordiscussion.

6. Monitoring networks are constructed to support definition of Issues, led by the Agency.7. Forum membership is reviewed to include any/all “significant” (Basin wide) Issue

Owners (the Key Stakeholders).8. The Basin Team, together with the Forum promotes the issues to encourage active

involvement for phase 2 of planning.Phase 2 – Option definition and appraisal Ribble = mid 2005 – mid 20061. For each Issue, the Log is extended and a range of options are

presented outlining societal, economic and environmental costs andbenefits for each and the preferred option.

2. Consultation report on the issues to be addressed and the planningprocess – to meet Directive requirements.

1. Issue owners co-ordinate collection of detailed and likely technical work to support thederivation and appraisal of options. Allied to this proactive programmes of “issuedriven” local engagement is started, with those that can affect the outcome ofproposed work.

2. The Forum meets to discuss and comment on official consultation document,comprising the Issue Log and Planning Process (modified to fit Agency NationalGuidance as required).

3. The Forum meets regularly to review progress with Issue management and supportderivation of preferred options (as required).

Phase 3 – Preparation of the River Basin Management Plans and Programme of Measures Ribble Plan mid 2006 – mid 20071. Basin Plan and Programme of Measures.2. District Plan and Programme of Measures

1. Basin Planning Teams bring the Issue Logs together into a Basin Management Planand the proposed actions into a Basin Programme of Measures.

2. This is sent out to the Forum for final quality review.3. The Basin Planning Team incorporates comments and sends plan on to District

Planning Team.4. The District Planning Team draws together the Basin outputs into the District’s River

Basin Management Plan and provide the necessary report for formal consultation

- 57 -

7. Independent Evaluationand Lessons Learned

7.1 Introduction and ApproachThis section presents a summary of theindependent evaluation of the CommonImplementation Strategy (CIS) testing bythe Ribble Pilot Project, prepared by WRc.The Ribble Pilot Project became a casestudy for the European HarmoniCOPproject and UK representatives, YvonneRees and colleague Miles Davis, providedindependent monitoring of the success ofthe work for both HarmoniCOP and theRibble Pilot Project.

The Agency has contributed to itsproduction through answering evaluationquestionnaires, but has not written thissection. Pete Fox has edited the full report(reproduced in Appendix 15) to providethis summary. Hence, the views andopinions expressed in this section can beconsidered those of the WRc authors.

The evaluation took place during theperiod November 2003 to April 2004. Theaim was to evaluate the success of thewhole process and all activitiesundertaken by the Agency to encouragepublic participation, as outlined in section5. In addition, event specific evaluationwas undertaken for the planning and

vision building events and for the lastStakeholder Forum meeting.

The evaluation methods used were:1. Interviews with stakeholders from the

Stakeholder Forum, at the beginningand end of this stage of the process,to obtain views about the way in whichthe Agency lead the process,relationships developed and the extentto which objectives were achieved;

2. Real time observation carried outduring planning and vision buildingevents and the April 2004 StakeholderForum meeting to explore the successof these approaches in engaging thepublic;

3. Event specific questionnairescirculated at planning and visionbuilding events;

4. Questionnaires completed by theTesting Group to obtain views on thesuccess of the process from a rangeof external organisations workingalongside the Agency in developingthe process;

5. A comparison of the process adoptedwith the guidance given in theCommon Implementation Strategydocument.

Table 7.1 summarises the methods usedand their purpose.

Helwith Bridge, River Ribble

- 58 -

Table 7.1 Elements of the Evaluation and Reporting Process used in the Ribble pilot

When What Why Who with HowSet out objectives for publicparticipation

To be clear about what weare trying to achieve fromthe start

In discussion between WRc, andthe Agency at national and locallevels

Email and telephoneexchanges

Set out success measureslinked to objectives

To measure progress Identified from the CommonImplementation Strategy

Internal discussion

Pre-processJan/Feb2004

Undertake pre-processsurvey of key stakeholdersfrom the Stakeholder Forumeither by interview orquestionnaire

As a benchmark formeasuring progress, toidentify public participationissues that may needaddressing by specialmeasures

15 stakeholders selected from theStakeholder Forum to reflectsectoral interests + 5 key policyimplementers from Defra and theAgency

Face-to-face interviewsbased on questionnaire(some by telephone forpolicy implementers)

Seek event-specific feedbackthrough questionnairescirculated at vision buildingand planning events

To identify any mid-processrefocusing needed andintroduce changes whereappropriate

All stakeholders attending 7 localand regional events

(88 circulated 72 returned)

Paper questionnaire forcompletion on the day

DuringFeb/Mar2004

Observation during visionbuilding and planning events toidentify approaches whichwork and those which do not

To identify any mid-processrefocusing needed andintroduce changes whereappropriate

Independent evaluators fromWRc, Mersey Basin Campaignand WWF at 7 local and regionalevents

Observation using achecklist of issues

Oct-Apr 2004 Register of publicparticipation activities

To contribute to evaluationand also to report to theCommission

Agency staff recorded keyinformation for the entire period ofthe pilot

Excel spreadsheets

Undertake post-processsurvey of key stakeholdersfrom the Stakeholder Forum byinterview and/or questionnaire

To measure successagainst objectives

15 stakeholders who underwentthe pre-process survey

Testing Group

Telephone interviewsbased on questionnaire(email for Testing Group)

AfterApr 2004

Evaluate and feedback To identify the most cost-effective measures, lessonsto learn etc

WRc with feedback from TestingGroup

Review of all elementslisted above supported bystakeholder analysis

- 59 -

7.2 EvaluationObjectives for the Ribble pilot as a wholeare described earlier in the report. (section1.4). Objectives specifically for publicparticipation were not set at the start of theprocess but were developed as the projectprogressed by WRc in discussion with theAgency, nationally and locally. Success

measures linked to each objective werethen derived.

A summary of the objectives set for publicparticipation in the Ribble Pilot Project isprovided in Table 7.2. along withassociated success measures and theelements of evaluation used to determinethe degree to which objectives were met.

Table 7.2 Summary of objectives and success measures

Objective By when Success measure Reporting tool usedTo seek involvement of allmajor sectors, interests andgeographic areas in thebasin.

By start ofprocess

Type and numbers ofstakeholders reached by publicparticipation activitiesType and number ofstakeholders involved in publicparticipation activities

• Stakeholderanalysis

• Register of publicparticipationactivities

• Observation• Event-specific

questionnaires• Post-process

questionnaires andinterviews

To effectively communicatethe process and role ofstakeholders in that processso that stakeholdersunderstand their role andwhat is expected of them

End oftesting

Number of stakeholdersreached with information aboutprocess and roleNumber of stakeholdersunderstanding the process andtheir role in that process


• Event-specificquestionnaires

• Post-processinterviews

To test a range of publicparticipation methods so asto identify those whichprovide stakeholders and theAgency with effectiveparticipation at an acceptablecost to all parties.

End oftesting

Number of stakeholdersreached with information onprocess and roleNumber of stakeholdersunderstanding the process andtheir role in that processFeedback on lessons andsuggestions for improvements


• Event-specificquestionnaires

• Observation• Post-process

interviewsTo improve the capacity ofthe Agency and otherstakeholders in the basin tomake joint decisions oncomplex issues in thedevelopment of River BasinManagement Plans

End oftesting

No. of stakeholders thinkingthe process worthwhileNo. of stakeholders believingcontribution made a differenceNo. of stakeholders showingwillingness to be involved insubsequent stages


questionnaires• Pre- and post-

process interviews

To increase the desire ofstakeholder to take action toimplement River BasinManagement Plans.

End oftesting

No. of stakeholders showingwillingness to take action toimplement


questionnaires• Pre- and post-

process interviewsTo enhance the mutualunderstanding of the viewsand stances of stakeholdersin the basin.

End oftesting

Level of understanding ofother’s viewpointsWay in which conflicts arereported

• Observation• Pre- and post-

process interviews

- 60 -

7.3 Costs of publicparticipation

An attempt was made to estimate thecosts of each of the activities and todetermine their success and importance.From this analysis, some tentativeconclusions were drawn, bearing in mindthat:

• No allowance for help-in-kind wasmade e.g. the Testing Group for anyof these activities.

• No allowance was made for travelcosts – as above.

• Costs to stakeholders involved in theactivities were not included.

• There were big assumptions about thecosts of the Agency staff involved.

• The degree of stakeholderinvolvement varied greatly dependingon the methods used to involve them,for example the degree of involvementfor a visit to a web site is very differentfrom engaging someone in aworkshop for a whole day.

• Costs were also estimated for theevaluation process.

7.3.1 Relative costs and importance ofthe different methods• The web-site was the least costly

method of engaging the public at anaverage cost of 90 pence (€1.26) perstakeholder visiting the site. Around6000 visits to the site were made.

• The vision building events were seento be the most effective way ofengaging the public. Most events wereorganised specifically for the visionbuilding process and cost from £48-96(€67-134) per stakeholder engaged.

• The vision building event which“piggy-backed” the local event inBurnley was much less expensive at£1.80 per stakeholder, but, the degreeof involvement of stakeholders waslow due to the absence of technicalknowledge amongst the general publicparticipating.

• The most expensive activity was theevaluation at £6-120 (€8.4-168) perstakeholder. Evaluation also scored

lowest in terms of importance inengaging the public.

• The greatest proportion of costs todate is the other costs to the projectsection e.g. travel and in-kindcontributions from the Testing Group.This demonstrates the difficulty incompleting such a process over alarge river basin such as the Ribble,i.e. holding events in one place meansthat travel from geographicallydisparate areas of the region andoutside the region will have asignificant impact on costs.

• The majority of the remaining costs todate are related to the vision buildingevents and the Stakeholder Forum.

• The Stakeholder Forum will becomemore cost effective to the Agency as itis intended to use this for otherprocesses e.g. Catchment AbstractionManagement Strategies (CAMS),Catchment Flood Management Plans(CFMPs)

• Use of the website, telephoneinterviews and stakeholder mappingrepresent the lowest proportion ofcosts.

• The stakeholder mapping wasconsidered to represent the 3rd mostimportant factor of the process. Interms of cost-benefit this wouldappear to have been efficient.

• Total costs of the Ribble Pilot Projectpublic participation testing to datewere approximately £150,000(€210,000) which £20,876 (€292,26)was spent on Stakeholder Forummeetings, £28,794 (€ 40,312) onVision building events, £12,090(€16,926) on Planning events,£13,884 (€19,438) on 1 to 1 meetingsand presentations, £10,000 (€14,000)on Evaluation and £9,840 (€1,378) oncommunication tools. Other costsincluding the Testing Group were justover £50,000 (€70,000). Costs areexpected to be lower when theprocess is “rolled out” over the wholecountry as approaches will berationalised.

- 61 -

The relative proportions of the cost to date are displayed in the pie chart (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1 Piechart showing relative costs of public participation work undertaken during testing in the Ribble PilotProject

7.4 Outcomes

7.4.1 Achievement of ObjectivesThe post-process questionnairedemonstrated that the overall process hadbeen worthwhile and that all the objectivesof the process had been in part, or mostly,achieved. Some stakeholders from theStakeholder Forum suggested that certainobjectives had not been achieved at alle.g. to improve the capacity of the Agencyand other stakeholders in the basin tomake joint decisions on complex issues in

the development of a Ribble BasinManagement Plan (RBMP). Table 7.3summarises feedback on the extent towhich each of the objectives for publicparticipation were achieved classifyingsuccess as either:

• Fully achieved• Mostly achieved• Achieved in part, or,• Not achieved.

Grindlethorpe Bridge on River Ribble

1 to 1 mtgs and workshopsVisioningPlanningStakeholder forumWebsiteTelephone interviewsEvaluationStakeholder mappingOther costs

- 62 -

Table 7.3Summary of achievementObjective Success measure ResultsTo seek involvement of all majorsectors, interests and geographicareas in the basin.

Type and numbers of stakeholderreached by public participation activitiesType and number of stakeholderinvolved in public participation activities

Mostly achieved• Stakeholder analysis showed 150 invited to workshops with 88 attending• Stakeholder Forum- on average ‘mostly achieved’• High inclusivity• Missing sectors: business (despite considerable attempts to involve this

sector) economics, under 30 year oldsTo effectively communicate theprocess and role of stakeholders inthat process so that stakeholdersunderstand their role and what isexpected of them

Number of stakeholders reached withinformation about process and roleNumber of stakeholders understandingthe process and their role in thatprocess

Mostly (but for limited number)• 88 stakeholders attended initial workshops• >80% of attendees at events reported having a greater awareness of

issues relating to the Ribble and RBMP• 1001 telephone interviews to understand wider views about the

environment and extent of knowledge about the Agency and WFD.• 42 1:1 meetings• Over 6000 hits on web-site• Stakeholder Forum On average ‘achieved in part ‘– ‘mostly achieved’

To test a range of public participationmethods so as to identify those whichprovide stakeholders and the Agencywith effective participation at anacceptable cost to all parties.

Number of stakeholders reached withinformation on process and roleNumber of stakeholders understandingthe process and their role in thatprocessFeedback on lessons and suggestionsfor improvements

In part (limited approaches used to actually engage the public)• 88 Stakeholders attended initial workshops• 1001 telephone interviews to understand wider views about the

environment and extent of knowledge about the Agency and WFD.• 42 1:1 meetings• Over 6000 hits on web-site• Time limited range of methods to meetings, workshops, Stakeholder

Forum, telephone survey and web• Stakeholder Forum - On average ‘achieved in part’ recognising time limits

To improve the capacity of the Agencyand other stakeholders in the basin tomake joint decisions on complexissues in the development of RiverBasin Management Plans

No. of stakeholders thinking the processworthwhileNo. of stakeholders believingcontribution made a differenceNo. of stakeholders showing willingnessto be involved in subsequent stages

In part• 95% of stakeholders from events deemed worthwhile• <5% not being interested in attending future events.• Stakeholder Forum - On average ‘achieved in part’ – tendency to cherry

pick stakeholders

To increase the desire of stakeholderto take action to implement River BasinManagement Plans.

No. of stakeholders showing willingnessto take action to implement

Mostly (albeit for limited number and range of stakeholders)• <5% not being interested in attending future events• Stakeholder Forum - On average ‘mostly achieved’– good start to the

processTo enhance the mutual understandingof the views and stances ofstakeholders in the basin.

Level of understanding of othersviewpointsWay in which conflicts are reported

In part (only at the start of the process)• Growing understanding reported in events• Growing understanding reported through process• Stakeholder Forum - On average ‘achieved in part’ – recognised this has

just started

- 63 -

Notes: on Table 7.3Stakeholder feedback: It was rare that stakeholders thought objectives were not achieved at all, even in the limited timeframe (one vote each in 2,3,4 and 6). Severalstakeholders thought objective 1 was fully achieved. Isolated stakeholders thought 3, 4, 5 and 6 were fully achieved. Views from the Agency tended to be more positive thanfrom other stakeholders. There was a concern among some stakeholders that the process changed throughout the course of events from public participation to publicconsultation in that, the Agency took an increasingly active role in the direction of and discussion within workshops.

- 64 -

7.4.2 Appraisal against the CommonImplementation Strategy documentThe process was appraised by consideringthe Context, Content and Process factorsconsidered as ‘Keys to Success’ in theCommon Implementation Strategydocument.

ContextContext refers to the existing conditions orcircumstances in which the approach topublic participation is being developed.Common Implementation Strategysuggests that the strength of a goodprocess is to recognise the context inwhich the participation is being developed.This includes the need for the competentbody and other stakeholders to acceptchanges in the political commitment,attitudes towards the environment andorganisation. The approach used in theRibble has taken account of these criteriaand not only compliments but developsprevious approaches. There has been arecognition by the Agency of theimportance of other stakeholders in RBMPand by the stakeholders in the changingpolitical commitment of the Agencytowards the environment andenvironmental planning. During themajority of the process, the Agency hasbeen open-minded and flexible althoughsome stakeholders considered that theybecame defensive regarding some issues.The Agency has recognised the need todemonstrate their commitment at anoperational level but perhaps needs todemonstrate to stakeholders that there iscommitment to the process at senior,regional and national levels. Provision ofinformation to stakeholders has beenmade but this was highlighted as not beingsufficient and that the majority ofstakeholders wanted more information.Considering the Ribble Pilot Projectagainst the context criteria demonstratesthat it has established a good basis fromwhich to develop a good process, usingthe lessons learned from the initial stagewill develop the process in a positive wayto achieve a widely accepted RBMP.

ProcessProcess refers to the ways in which thestakeholders participate. The quality of theprocess is dependent on trust andtransparency. The process shouldencourage:

• Trust

• Openness• Transparency• Honesty• Respect• Inclusion• Positiveness

As a result the process for publicparticipation should be characterised bysome or all of the following:

• Early involvement of people in settingthe terms of reference

• Developing co-ownership of theprocess design

• Opportunities for learning betweenstakeholders

• Mutual respect• Flexible and ‘open’ process• Iterative and continuous evaluation• Independent facilitation• Ongoing

The Ribble Pilot Project has beencharacterised by all of these points,stakeholders were engaged at an earlystage of the process to develop terms ofreference. Feedback from stakeholdershas identified an increase in co-ownership,learning and mutual respect. At the start ofthe process, some stakeholders wereworried about the Agency commitment tothe process and if their views would reallybe included or if the exercise was purely abureaucratic “box-ticking” exercise.Stakeholders felt that the process hasbeen open and this has resulted inincreased mutual respect and trust.Throughout the process there has beenindependent facilitation and evaluationwhich has helped to build trust betweenstakeholders and the competent body. Theprocess is ongoing and stakeholders haveindicated a strong desire to remaininvolved. Considering these criteria, theRibble Pilot Project has established agood quality process and this needs to bemaintained throughout the remainder ofthe project.

ContentMany of the factors relating to the contentare closely linked to the design of theprocess, i.e. getting the process properlyfocused helped the content to be right.The Common Implementation Strategysuggests that the following factors will beimportant at some stage of the process:

- 65 -

• Valuing diversity of knowledge• Evidence, proof and uncertainty• Reporting and communication

Valuing diversity of knowledge addressesthe question of using expert / non-expert,technical / non-technical and political /non-political actors in RBMP. Feedbackfrom the stakeholders from theStakeholder Forum indicated that non-expert, non-political and non-technicalactors should be involved at every stage ofriver basin management planning. Thiswill only be tested in the Ribble PilotProject by studying the utilisation of theseactors as the process of RBMP is run.

Evidence, proof and uncertainty considersthe use of information from non-specialistactors. Some stakeholders may considerthat only scientific information should beused in the process. It is suggested by theCommon Implementation Strategy that allthe information available should be usedby the competent authority in the decisionmaking process and that with a robust andtransparent process, uncertainties can bediscussed and decisions taken. In theRibble Pilot Project, all the opinionsexpressed by the stakeholders contactedhave been considered and included withinthe process, this inclusion of informationwill be further examined throughout theprocess.

The reporting and communicating offindings stage of the Ribble Pilot Projecthas only just been reached. As suggestedin the Common Implementation Strategynon-technical summaries are going to bemade available through the Agencywebsite, at this stage it is uncertainwhether more localised summaries will beproduced so that local stakeholders canidentify with specific situations.

Appraising the Ribble Pilot Project againstthe Common Implementation Strategy forimplementing a successful publicparticipation demonstrates that theprocess contains all the key elements forsuccess and that the ongoing processneeds to be carefully organised andmanaged to ensure a successfulconclusion.

7.5 Lessons to be taken forwardOverall, the public participation employedin the Ribble Pilot Project was very

successful. As a pilot project, designed toinvestigate and test methodology toimprove, modify and analyse the processso that similar future processes arecompleted efficiently. The project has alsoidentified many lessons to learn. Theseare summarised below:

Downham Village

7.5.1 Planning TimeThe most important factor in this publicparticipation process has been time, withthe testing being completed with veryrestrictive deadlines meaning thatconsiderable effort was needed toorganise a limited number of events.Increased planning time, coupled with the“piggy-backing” of other events to raiseawareness of workshops would haveenabled:

• A more diverse range of stakeholdersto be contacted and involved in eachevent.

• Attendees to schedule work aroundevents to ensure continuity inparticipation from key organisations.

• Participation of schools, as they needto fit events in with tight schoolschedules. The Ribble Pilot Projectintended to include a vision buildingevent at a secondary school withchildren at General Certificate ofSecondary Education level (age 14-16) in the Blackburn area. Despiteshowing interest in principle, schoolswere unable to schedule in such anevent at short notice.

7.5.2 InclusivityThe use of Stakeholder mapping todevelop a diverse coverage of interests iskey in effective participation. Theresponse rate in this project, 30-40%, wasthought to be good, but it indicates how

- 66 -

important it is to contact as manystakeholders as possible.

The Stakeholder ForumThe Forum developed for the Ribble wasconsidered by those involved to beinclusive, but some difficulties/omissionswere mentioned as follows:

• The Forum does not include banksidelandowners.

• The Forum is dominated byprofessional middle-aged people, andit was suggested that a youngeraudience be engaged so that thevision is continued in future yearsespecially from 2015 onwards.

• Initially it was difficult to getrepresentation from education e.g.universities and colleges but thesegroups became engaged as theprocess developed.

The Stakeholder Forum provided aneffective mechanism for buildingpartnership and an important platform tobuild on during the remainder of theprocess.

Specific eventsMain groups not well represented includedindustry and urban community groups.Despite considerable effort by the Agencyto engage with industry, further discussionis required on how best to engage them inriver basin planning. Urban communitygroups from ethnic minority backgroundswere a considerable omission given thesocial, economic and cultural diversity ofthe pilot area. Engagement with thesegroups may be difficult but could beattempted through community leaders andpublishing the leaflets and information inlanguages other than English.

7.5.3 Website and Interactive ToolsThe Website engaged more people thanany other method. It had over 6000 visits.Also, the Website could be accessedthrough public information points inlibraries and interactive tools which couldbe used in school classrooms without theneed for facilitators. Interactive tools couldalso be used to engage business andindustry who may not have the time orresources to attend workshops andmeetings. For example, an online forum oreven a video-conferencing approach couldbe used. However, information is neededthrough traditional routes as the website is

less appropriate for other groups, forexample those involved with agriculturepointed out that farmers will not “surf” theinternet to find this information. Websitesneed to be ‘hot-linked’ to related sites.Some stakeholders stated that they foundinformation on the site difficult to find andthat a “hot-link” should be present on theAgency home page rather than going toregional site and then find the information.

7.5.4 EventsThe regional vision building and planningevents were more successful than localvision building events. Local events wereless cost and time efficient , differentapproaches of engaging the general publicat this level may be more appropriate, forexample engagement in shopping centresor through the media. The use offacilitators during events enhanced theprocess and prevented discussionsbecoming dominated by individuals, orbecoming question and answer sessionswith Agency staff who were present.

Senior Agency representation is requiredto make a statement of commitment to theprocess. This would increase commitmentfrom the other participants.Representatives from the Agency shouldremove themselves from discussions, asfar as is reasonably practical. Onoccasions, Agency representatives wereseen by participants in group discussionsto be leaders to whom opinions should bedirected, this may reduce effectiveparticipation by marginalising others in thegroup.

It is very important to allocate the rightamount of time for events. Too little time,can make participants feel that they arebeing ‘rail-roaded’ into decisions This wasnoticeable in the Ribble Basin workshop 2where the programme was too ambitiousfor a half day event. Too much timehowever, may further deter participation bybusy stakeholders particularly business /industry. A longer timescale may alsohave resulted in focus and impetus beinglost and the development of a “talkingshop” where issues, goals and aims werenot decided, hampering the process.Increasing discussion may havedisaffected stakeholders, some of whomhave already voiced the opinion that ifaction was taken rather than being

- 67 -

discussed, there would not be arequirement for a participation process.

The “blank sheet” approach adopted indeveloping the Vision for the Ribble (i.e.stakeholders defined the issues, aims,process and goals without interferencefrom statutory bodies) had both strengthsand weaknesses. Time is required forparticipants to develop and explain ideasand goals, and further developrelationships between the actors. Whengroups were defined in workshops, thetime allowed to discuss the selected topicswas often shortened by the need todiscuss the expected output. The timeneeded could be reduced by explaining,before the event, the type of outcomerequired. On the positive side, the blanksheet approach was seen to be importantin increasing mutual confidence and trust,both amongst the stakeholders andtowards the process.

7.5.5 Raising Interest to ParticipateMarketing and advertising of the project isrequired to increase public enthusiasmand desire to be involved. In the pilotproject, the Agency Website served thispurpose effectively receiving over 6000“hits”.

Stakeholders expected to see morecoverage in local press and television.Many stakeholders reported seeing nolocal press or television coverage andothers a single article in a local paper(Clitheroe Advertiser) giving generalbackground and contact details for furtherinformation. Stakeholders commented thatgreater press coverage was needed toexplain where the general public fit into theprocess and to increase interest in localvision building events leading to greaterattendance of these events.

Early engagement of stakeholders is vitalin building confidence in the process andas a result of this people were more willingto give time and remain involved in theprocess.

Timing of events is important. The timingof the events made it difficult forlandowners and farmers to be involveddue to lambing and other agriculturalrequirements. Future engagements shouldtake account of the external timepressures on the stakeholders that are tobe engaged.

- 68 -

8. Conclusions and wayforward

8.1 Overall conclusionsConclusions from early public participationand river basin planning in the Ribble PilotProject are listed below.

• The experience of testing anddeveloping public participationmethods and tools for early river basinplanning broadly supports many of theprinciples of the CommonImplementation Strategy (CIS).

• The Ribble Pilot Project has involvedand received strong support fromstakeholders to help design a sharedpublic participation and planningstrategy. This has helped stakeholdersunderstand what the project willdeliver.

• Engagement required resourcecommitments from the EnvironmentAgency and other organisations. TheRibble Pilot Project Team securedearly support for the project fromsome key stakeholders, and additionalresources. For example, WWF,Strathclyde University, WRc and theMersey Basin Campaign all offeredvaluable technical and/or financialsupport.

• Ten different techniques were tested,including meetings, workshops andpresentations. It was evident thatdifferent approaches suited differentaudiences and different stages ofplanning. While meetings worked wellfor small numbers and when decisionswere required, presentations wereuseful to communicate simplemessages to a wider audience withdiverse backgrounds. Workshopsprovided a more interactive focus andhelped the participants learn moreabout the process; they alsostimulated greater dialogue betweenthe stakeholders involved. The RibblePilot Project Team witnessedwillingness for groups of stakeholdersto co-operate outside the forum.

• The Stakeholder Forum sat at theheart of the public participation in theRibble Pilot Project and involved allmajor stakeholders in the basin. Itproved cost-effective to bring these

key stakeholders together to shareviews and to guide the Agency. Theyprovided the Agency with some clearmessages. For example, the need torun the project for real and not just asa virtual test.

• Other plans and related stakeholderengagement must not be overlooked.For example, the Ribble FisheriesAction Plan and the DouglasCatchment Abstraction ManagementStrategy (CAMS) are key documentsthat must be fed into the river basinplanning process.

• Early engagement was important toset up the necessary structures forpublic participation and to establishterms of reference for the Forum.Before detailed planning begins anddifficult decisions are faced sufficienttime is required for building commonunderstandings and ways of working.In particular, time is then available tocommunicate the basic principles ofthe Water Framework Directive, whichare complicated.

• Future participation will be “issuedriven”. The planning process andneed to derive solutions to protectionand improvement issues willdetermine the technique to apply andthe people and organisations that willneed to be involved.

These overall conclusions, drawn from thereport presented, are supported by theindependent assessment of the RibblePilot Project provided by WRc, and set outbelow.

1. The Ribble Pilot Project hasrepresented a significant improvementwithin River Basin ManagementPlanning (RBMP). The overall view ofthe stakeholders is that those involvedhave done well to achieve so much insuch a short time frame. The projecthas clearly demonstrated that publicparticipation is vital in planning andengaging the public at an early stageof the process and is important ingaining their confidence and trust tocomplete the project.

2. The outcomes from the participationhave been very positive, the key

- 69 -

elements of the vision have beenprepared and can be used in the nextstage of the process. Thestakeholders who have been involvedin the Ribble Pilot Project arecommitted to the process and keen tocontinue to the next stage.

3. There have been some reservationsabout aspects of the process but itmust be remembered that this was apilot project to test methods ofengagement in RBMP, not simplyapplying a finished product and thatparts of the process will requirerefinement and improvement for futureparticipation.

4. In general the stakeholders wereconfident in the process, the peoplemanaging the process and theoutcomes of the events. However,lessons that must be learnt from thisprocess to ensure continued and moreeffective participation from thesestakeholders.

5. Dissemination of feedback from theRibble Pilot Project to stakeholders isrequired to maintain their interest inthe participation. This feedback shouldcontain the conclusions from this partof the process as well as informationon the next stage of the participation.There is a risk of losing newstakeholders if there is no regular andtimely follow up.

6. More time should be allowed fordiscussions and meetings to allowrelationships between stakeholders tofurther develop and a clearer finalvision to be developed.

7. Financial resources permitting, thereshould be increased marketing andadvertising of the Ribble Pilot Projectto improve its image and increaseaccessibility. Although the AgencyWebsite does provide a point ofcontact for information, this should notrepresent the sole contact route forthe project and the use of moretraditional methods should not bediscounted.

8. The Agency Website represented acost effective way of reaching a highnumber of stakeholders. However, thevision building events were perceivedas most effective in terms of publicparticipation. The “piggy-backing” ofevents represented another costefficient means of engagement.

9. Raising expectations too high was animportant concern voiced by some

stakeholders and the Agency. Clearand effective management of theprocess can avoid this so that allstakeholders involved clearlyunderstand the process, their role, andthe limits of what the Directive candeliver

10. So far the process has achieved anincreased motivation and desire withinstakeholders to be more involved inthe River Basin management planningprocess.

11. There is an increasedacknowledgement within the Agencyof the importance of activeengagement, and importantly anincreasing acknowledgement amongstmany stakeholders that the Agency ischanging its approach toenvironmental management.

12. Considering the CIS process criteria,the Ribble Pilot Project hasestablished a good quality processand this needs to be maintainedthroughout the remainder of theproject.

13. Against the CIS context criteria it hasestablished a good basis from whichto develop a good process, using thelessons learned from the initial stagewill develop the process in a positiveway to achieve a widely acceptedRiver Basin Management Plan(RBMP).

14. Appraising the Ribble Pilot Projectagainst the CIS guidance forimplementing a successful publicparticipation demonstrates that theprocess contains all the key elementsfor success and that ongoing workneeds to be carefully organised andmanaged to ensure a successfulconclusion.

The success of the Ribble Pilot Project willonly be fully realised with theimplementation of future planning stagesand the completion of the final RibbleRiver Basin Management Plan. Somestakeholders were concerned that theAgency would “dumb down” the processby selecting easily achievable targets.These concerns for the future commitmentof the Agency which, up to now, has beenkey in the project should be addressed atthe earliest opportunity to ensuresuccessful delivery.

- 70 -

8.2 Linkage to the CommonImplementation Strategy(CIS) guidance report

The report presents a review of tests ofCommon Implementation StrategyGuidance on public participation. Someoutline conclusions of the value of thisdocument to the experiences of river basinplanning on the Ribble are provided,grouped in relation to the relevantSections of the Strategy:

Section 2 – Introduction to publicparticipation in River BasinManagement• Stakeholder analysis and mapping is

an essential first step in developingpublic participation. The Ribble PilotProject has carried out a detailedstakeholder mapping.

• The distinction between three types ofinvolvement (co-knowing, co-thinkingand co-producing) is useful indesigning activities for differentstakeholder groups and should bedetermined as part of stakeholdermapping.

• The workshops used a simplified“problem and cause” analysis: thedetailed approach described in theCommon Implementation Strategywas considered too time-consumingfor this activity. However, it wasrecognised that if the analysisconcentrates on problems at theexpense of causes, the wrongsolutions will often be identified.

Section 3 – Active involvement of allinterested parties in the planningprocess of the Directive• Early involvement of stakeholders in

deciding how the process will be runwas appreciated. However, many ofthose who have been involved at anearly stage are those with an existinginterest in the water environment;most members of the public wereeither not especially interested inparticipating or belonged to “hard-to-reach groups”.

• The project has provided some initialindications of the level and nature ‘allinterested parties’ outlined in Article14. Fourteen percent of the generalpublic expressed an interest forinvolvement. Interestingly themajority of these were existing

members or supporters oforganisations presented by currentstakeholders (such as RSPB, WWF).

Section 5 – Access to information andbackground documentsInformation is vital to public participation,is required both on the issues to beconsidered in river basin planning and theplanning/decision making process itself.

Section 7– Developing a learningapproach to public participationThe use of expert meetings, including theTesting Group, over a period of time was apractical example of a learning approach.The Testing Group shared the experienceof developing the public participationprocess and was able to reflect on andtake account of lessons from the past, inorder to guide future initiatives.

Annex 1 – ToolsA number of different tools were used forpublic involvement in the Ribble(workshops, vision building, website,meetings, Stakeholder Forum, etc). Theeffectiveness of these tools is likely to varydepending on local social and culturalfactors, the stakeholders involved and thestage in the process. A toolkit approach,as developed on the Ribble, facilitatesflexibility in the use of different tools.

8.3 The way forwardThe general success of early worksuggests that there is little need to makeradical changes to the approach andtechniques that have been developed andapplied. The techniques tested representdifferent “tools” that can be applied todifferent engagement situations, andprovided experience in their use. However,modifications to the mix and emphasis inapplication should be expected as theAgency moves further into river basinplanning. For example, the publication ofthe River Basin Characterisation Report(for Article 5 of the Directive) will requiresignificant participation. The identificationof waterbodies at risk of failure to meetDirective objectives will necessarily lead tomore focused debate over local protectionand improvement work. This will lead tothe development of options formanagement. Hence, the next phase inplanning will be used to determine the

- 71 -

techniques for participation and willinclude the following major work items:

• the communication of characterisationoutputs and their quality review;

• development of monitoringprogrammes to supportcharacterisation assessments;

• identification of those stakeholderswho can help generate and appraiseoptions for solutions.

Using these as the “drivers” forengagement, the following mixture oftested techniques is recommended.

Communication planThe communication plan will need to bereviewed to ensure the inclusion of keymessages pertinent to the forthcomingstages of planning. This will ensure that inall communications the Ribble Pilot ProjectTeam uses clear and consistentmessages. The vision will be used to helpidentify those issues that local people areinterested in working on. The perceptionsstudy will also be used to ensure that theright language is used and terms familiarwith and important to the public areincluded.

Stakeholder mapFurther work will be required to extend thenumbers and types of organisationsinterested in learning about and providinginformation for the Ribble Pilot Project.The stakeholder map will form a criticalsource of information for matching localgroups to waterbody issues that will needto be addressed.

Stakeholder ForumThe forum will continue to provide acentral link to key stakeholders in thebasin. In particular, their role during 2004and 2005 will be to help quality review theRiver Basin Characterisation Report,identify other stakeholders who can helpdevelop options to solve problems andpotentially assist by “owning” someproblems where they may have a closeinvolvement in delivering solutions. TheForum has already contributedsignificantly to the development of thevision. With their help this will be finalisedand used as a way of linking the objectives

of the Directive to local aspirations, and tomanage expectations where theseaspirations can only be realised throughmeasures outside the scope of the WaterFramework Directive.

Meetings in personOne-to-one will be used to encourage keystakeholders to contribute to planning. Inparticular, meetings will be sought withstakeholders who can assist in deliveringsolutions but are currently unaware of theirinfluence or have not previously showninterest in contributing. There are a finitenumber of meetings that can beundertaken as they can be demanding onresources.

PresentationsPresentations provided an important rolecommunicating specific and technicalmessages. For this reason they willprovide an important communication routeduring the launch of the River BasinCharacterisation Report and the deliveryof the vision to large audiences.

Vision buildingWork to refine and complete the vision willcontinue, with the close involvement of theStakeholder Forum. This will be used asan adjunct to the River BasinCharacterisation Report to promote awider understanding of what the Agencyand its partners would like to see happenin the Ribble basin. Attempts will be madeto complete the vision at the same time asthe River Basin Characterisation Report islaunched as they represent twinassessments of management needs. Thelikely high degree of overlap in aspirationsof the two should make easier the furtherdevelopment of local ownership forDirective objectives. Sustained and highquality facilitation will be vital for the visionbuilding process to be a success.

Expert meetingsThis type of partnership working will becontinued as a core component ofplanning. Representation on small workinggroups will be determined by the issues tobe addressed. They are likely to be variedin size, composition, membership andlength of working. However, it should beremembered that building joint working

arrangements takes time and some of theissues to be addressed are likely togenerate strong feelings and opposingviews. This will make their management

more challenging, and the Agency willneed to invest time and resources toensure it has the skills to successfullymanage them.

- 72 -

Website and electronic newsletterThe Internet has formed and will continueto provide a primary route for informationprovision for the Ribble Pilot Project. TheAgency will need to remember that if usedalone as the method of sharing informationit could increase social inequalities.Access to the Internet in the UK is high byworld comparison, but is still only 57% andis limited by computer infrastructure.

The Agency will also need to explore waysof promoting the web address, to advertisethis as the primary route for finding outabout the Ribble Pilot Project and forencouraging those people interested inlearning more to go there first. (Thenewsletter is one way of advertising thesite.) An attached email address allows aclear route for further correspondence ifrequired.

Information will need to be updatedregularly to ensure that new materialstimulates communication through emailnotification (e.g. through using the

newsletter to provide a regular need toaccess the website). The Agency willcontinue to produce the newsletter andextend the number of people it is sent outto.

Perceptions surveyThe survey has yielded some veryimportant messages that can be woveninto future management of the Ribble PilotProject, especially communicationplanning. Repeat surveys would provide ameasure of progress with participation asthe project evolves.

Finally, the conclusions of this work willinform the development of nationalguidance on public participation and futurework will be reviewed when this guidanceis finalised. This will ensure that theexperience of the Ribble Pilot Project isused to influence approaches throughoutEngland and Wales and that its ongoingdevelopment is integral to work elsewhere.