Catchment Change Network.net

Reflections on the 2^nd Annual Meeting of CCN

The 2^nd Annual Meeting of CCN was held under the title “Guidelines for Good Practice as a way of encouraging stakeholder involvement across catchment management” at the Arup Campus, Solihull.   It provided an excellent set of talks and
discussions which may be found at (see ).   And it made me think….

When reflecting some years ago on how to introduce more realistic assessments of uncertainty into flood risk management, the concept of Guidelines for Good Practice seemed to be a sensible way of introducing a framework for allowing for the subjectivity inherent in representing different sources of uncertainty.   Structuring such guidelines as a set of decisions, where different degrees of effort might be invoked for different types of application is also a sensible way of allowing for proportionality and lack of knowledge in uncertainty assessments.   Such decisions would need to be agreed between analyst and users or stakeholders and this seemed to me to be a useful structure for agreeing assumptions, communicating the meaning of uncertainty assessments, and providing an audit trail for later evaluation and revisions.

This still seems fine, but also too simplistic.  It was intended to provide a structure that decides on how uncertainties can be handled in a scientific assessment (originally in flood risk management).  It was not intended as a guide as to HOW to manage user or stakeholder involvement.   It already assumes that it is possible for the stakeholders to come to a sensible agreement about those many and different decisions in the analysis process. This would then seem to demand a different form of Guideline document to guide Good Practice involving stakeholders in the process.   Many of the talks at the CCN meeting were about this:  posing questions about how to do it, reflecting on experience of trying to do it, discussing the issues that it raises when many different groups and levels of stakeholders (“emotive” / “institutional” / “financial” ; organised / disorganised; ….).  These issues are common to all the focus areas of CCN.  They are even incorporated into practice in the form of the Water Framework and Floods Directives.  It would therefore seem worthwhile to consider whether it might be possible to produce a Guideline for Good Practice document for stakeholder involvement and the participatory process that would be relevant across the focus areas.

A good topic for a future CCN workshop at least – but given all the experience of doing stakeholder involvement already, some guidance should already exist, should it not?    Any suggestions from the community out there about where to look? Or about what works and what doesn’t?   Or whether developing such a guidance process might be worthwhile or not?   Any suggestions or comments (to ) welcome!

  There is nothing you write essay can say can make that right

The second N8 Debate on Valuing the Environment: Looking beyond the Economics took place on the 26th May  2011 at the Lancaster Environment Centre and was a resounding success.

Chaired by Professor Louise Heathwaite, the event featured interactive questioning and input from a range of remote participants engaging online. Panel members included Ian Bateman (UEA), Allan Provins (eftec), Topsy Rudd (Cascade
Consulting) and Graham Harris (Lancaster University).

Supported by over 75 delegates the debate began with an overview of the concept of ecosystem services, its role within decision making and current  methods used for valuation.

Discussion topics supported the need to improve or develop new means of  valuing ecosystem services that recognise both the complexity and the  connectivity across different ecosystem services. Given that knowledge of our  environment is imperfect, a particular challenge discussed during the debate focussed on developing methods that are not based on monetary values
(recognising that value is not the same as price!) and can incorporate complexity and uncertainty. The panel highlighted the need to distinguish clearly between benefits and values, because different groups place assorted values on benefits. Values assigned are subjective and vary widely across time and space; therefore, the social sciences have a key role to play at the
interface with natural sciences to develop appropriate means of ‘looking beyond the economics’.

One particular point raised during the debate was the need for policy to focus on a longer-term view of ‘value’ to capture the full range of services and benefits that landscape stocks and flows can provide, rather than short-term localised impacts. Longer term planning will provide more thought towards broader public benefits across habitats and throughout catchments, such as flood alleviation and improved water quality.

A collective output from the event will take the form of a policy guidance document that will chart a pathway for future UK policy and action.

Feedback from attendees at the debate and the online audience on the format and use of the technology was extremely positive and has encouraged us to embed interactive web-based technology across our meetings and events portfolio more widely.

Our next N8 Debate Food Security and Sustainable Water Supplies is scheduled to take place at Stockbridge in September 2011.

Defra has produced an introductory guide which will help you make a start on valuing the benefits society is getting from ecosystem services you have identified as important to your policy or decision.

• (PDF 436 KB)

Value transfer

Value transfer refers to the use of existing economic valuation evidence in a new policy appraisal context. We have produced detailed practical guidelines which will assist economists, policy analysts, scientists and other technical experts understand and present evidence on the environmental impacts of proposed policies and projects for decision-making:

Non-technical summary

This document provides a non-technical summary of the guidelines for policy analysts, scientists and other technical experts and economists:

• (PDF 263KB)

Full guidelines

The main guidance is available to view on line or download as documents:

View the guidelines on-line:

Download the guidelines as documents:

• (PDF 1.1MB)
• (PDF 234KB)

Annexes

• (PDF 151KB)
• (PDF 190KB)
• (PDF 172KB)

Examples of application

Technical report

The Technical Report provides the basis for the guidelines, reviewing best practice principles and the state of the art of value transfer:

• (PDF 135KB)
• (PDF 2.5MB)

Contact

For technical queries related to the value transfer guidelines please contact the Defra Natural Environment Economics team by emailing:

Acknowledgement

The guidelines and supporting material and technical report have been developed for Defra by Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd. (). While the official rollout https://celltrackingapps.com/spy-app-android of the ota update of 7

Please find below a link through to the EA webpage where you can download the latest guidance for farmers on the The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 2010 (SSAFO)
With the deadline for compliance with the NVZ storage requirements 6 months away it is important that farmers make sure any storage they have / are putting in place meet the requirements laid down in the SSAFO regulations. They have been around since 1991, so are not new, but have been re-laid in the past twelve months to bring them up to date and apply to all farms storing or making slurry, silage or fuel oil.

NVZ position statements can also be found via the link below;

The display is protected by the corning gorilla glass 2, and with a decent ensemble of hardware under the hood, it’s little wonder samsung went with the very strongest protection commercially available

International conference on  Realistic expectations for improving European waters

 For more information and registration http://www.georgikon.hu/cost869final/ 

Final conference of COST Action 869

Mitigation Options for Nutrient Reduction in Surface Water and Groundwaters