WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
6. DEFRA Stakeholder Sounding Board, England
Key- words
National stakeholder involvement.
Aim/objective of the project
The terms of reference for the Stakeholder Sounding Board says that it is a forum for
stakeholders to:
x provide input to DEFRA (Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs) thinking
on transposition, and related policy issues, of theWater Framework Directive (WFD);
x raise issues relating to the WFD of concern to the group;
x provide input into development of a long-term strategy for the environmental quality of
water - what it should cover, in what detail, risks and opportunities.
Scale/unit of planning
National – the Stakeholder Sounding Board considers WFD-related issues for the whole of
England. To date, no similar groups have been established in Scotland, Wales or Northern
Ireland.
Period
The Stakeholder Sounding Board was established in early 2001 after a request from a group
of stakeholder organisations (including WWF-UK). There is no fixed timescale for the
group’s existence.
Who participated and how (Degree/form of public participation) in what phase of the
planning?
The organisations represented on the Stakeholder Sounding Board are:
Government
DEFRA (Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs)
Statutory agencies
Environment Agency (the government’s statutory agency for environmental protection in
England and Wales)
English Nature (the government’s statutory advisor on, and agency for, nature protection in
England)
Private sector
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Chemical Industries Association (CIA)
Crop Protection Association (CPA)
Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
National Farmers’ Union (NFU)
Water UK (the trade association for UK water companies and water authorities)
118WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
NGOs
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
WWF-UK
Other stakeholders
UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (UKCEED)
Office of the National Consumer Council (ONCC)
Participation takes the form of regular meetings (approximately 3 or 4 a year), hosted in turn
by different stakeholder Sounding Board members. The meetings are chaired by a senior
official from DEFRA. DEFRA also undertakes a secretariat function.
Major input of stakeholders
Individual stakeholder organisations, or small groups of stakeholder organisations, can flag
up issues for discussion. They are then invited by the Stakeholder Sounding Board to
prepare a paper on the issue. The paper is discussed at subsequent meetings.
DEFRA may also raise agenda items.
Thus, WWF and UKCEED have prepared a paper on public participation; the RSPB and
others have prepared a paper on Wetlands and the Water Framework Directive; the RSPB,
WWF, Water UK and the NFU are currently preparing a paper on diffuse pollution.
Outstanding issues
It is not clear what status these papers have within the government. Although the papers
include recommendations for action by government and other stakeholders, DEFRA have
not made clear whether they will act on those recommendations, even if all stakeholder
organisations agree with them.
The relationship between the Stakeholder Sounding Board and the UK government’s internal
technical advisory group on implementing the WFD has yet to be clarified.
Lessons learnt
A national forum that allows stakeholders to input directly into policy thinking is genuinely
useful. It allows direct access to government officials and provides a mechanism by which
government can assess the most important issues. For relatively little cost and effort this
enhances the traditional methods of consultation and individual meetings with each
stakeholder organisation.
However, it is important that there is full transparency so that stakeholder organisations can
see how their ideas and concerns are considered and acted on (or not) by the Government.
At the moment, we are still working on this in the Stakeholder Sounding Board.
For more information contact:
WWF UK, David Tickner, DTickner@wwf.org.uk
119WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
7. The Wise Use of Floodplains Project in Somerset, England
Our work was made possible through the award of a 50% grant from the EU LIFE Environment Fund
programme.
Inspiration points – this example is inspiring because:
In partnership with other initiatives this project facilitated a creative and positive dialogue
on the future management of flood events in a catchment, where previously stakeholder
views had been polarised for decades to the extent where the conflict had become notorious
in national environmental circles.
Aim/objective of the project
The WUF Project’s aim was to encourage the wise use of water resources in river catchments
to benefit, people, their livelihoods and their environment. We set out to achieve this by:
1. Generating new options for the sustainable management of flood events across the
catchment and annual water levels on the floodplain;
2. Testing public participation methods to find out what were the economic, social and
environmental costs and benefits of different options for managing flood events and
floodplain water levels.
The project, through its participatory approach helped to find out how the policies of the
government and European Union needed to be changed to promote sustainable management
of the catchment and its floodplain. Findings were passed to managers of river catchments
across Europe to enable their governments to implement the WFD.
Scale/unit of planning
The River Parrett Catchment in the county of Somerset, South West England. It is the largest
river system in Somerset covering 1665 km2, about half of the county area and containing
five major rivers: the Parrett, Isle, Tone, Yeo and Cary. The floodplain forms a significant
part of the Somerset Levels & Moors: - an area of international importance for wildlife.
Period: January 2000 – March 2002
Objective of Public Participation (Why PP?)
In Somerset, the WUF Project developed new ways of helping stakeholders in the River
Parrett Catchment to find sustainable solutions through participation for the management of
water, both in flood events and throughout the year.
Who participated and how (Degree/form of public participation) in what phase of the
planning?
The Project sought to involve “stakeholders” - anyone or any organisation, at whatever level,
with an interest in the management of water resources in the Parrett Catchment. Above all, it
offered an opportunity for local concerns to be heard. Since the first participatory workshops
120
WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
started in 2000, a wide range of representatives of communities, local interests and
organisations ranging from local to national government-level were involved.
Methods and tools applied
The WUF Project responded to what communities and individuals wanted. Working closely
with an existing and (in the United Kingdom) unique forum for local democracy, the Levels
& Moors Partnership*, we held participatory workshops to encourage stakeholders to share
views and address problems in partnership. Workshops were managed through facilitative
leadership: with the help of group management techniques, stakeholders were helped to
work together in a non-conflict environment. The WUF Project Officer was the facilitator for
all participatory workshops. Contextual information such as new research on the
effectiveness of present flood management practices was introduced to help all stakeholders
to develop a common understanding of issues.
Participatory working has to be product-orientated to be worthwhile. If a process is not
guided by the need to reach a common goal then it will drift and is unlikely to achieve
results.
Stakeholders came to agree that no one solution would solve the problems of flood and
water management, but that a comprehensive package of measures was needed. Facilitated
dialogue provided the bridge to enable a wide variety of interests to work jointly towards a
common goal.
To reach the desired goal of integrated flood and water management, a variety of solutions
were generated in a series of participatory workshops. These solutions were built into a
Parrett Catchment Action Strategy, which sets out what community and organisational
stakeholders wanted to be achieved by 2050”.
As collaborative working developed between local initiatives, the WUF Project and LAMP
managed participatory workshops under an umbrella initiative, the Parrett Catchment
Project.
It is estimated that the approximate cost of facilitating the dialogue over two years is
approximately €30,000.00 (salary costs of project officer/facilitator). Workshop costs were
additional but low at approximately €150 – 180 for each event (hire of the venue and catering
for around 40 participants). The overall cost is difficult to estimate accurately, because staff
from a variety of organisations donated their time to the initiatives involved. For the LIFE
Project, the budget used to commission new research in Somerset was approximately
€75,000.00 and partnership organisations provided around €36,000 of in-kind time in support
of the Wise Use of Floodplains Project. (Note: all of these figures are provisional.) In
conclusion, the total cost of facilitating such a complex dialogue over a two-year period was
remarkably low and the gains are far greater than the financial investment.
*LAMP serves 86 parish councils with wetland habitats on the Somerset Levels & Moors,
who in turn represent all local community and organisational interests.
Major input of stakeholders at participatory events
We invited 85 representatives of local communities and organisations to our workshops and
regularly saw 30 – 40 people at each event. The organisations ranged from the major
121
WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
government agencies to single-issue lobby groups. It was the first time in Somerset that
participatory working had taken place on such a scale.
Tangible result (effect) of PP?
A series of 27 facilitated participatory workshops, which began in May 2000, produced:
x A statement of the consensus between all stakeholder interests, which forms the
basis for a vision for the future management of the catchment and floodplain;
x Eleven “components” or potential solutions to manage flood events, a
combination of which will make up an Integrated Flood Management approach;
x A detailed analysis of the policy, funding, administrative and technical barriers
and opportunities involving implementation of the eleven components;
x Appraisal of the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of each of
the components;
x Enhanced understanding among stakeholders of the implications of the
conservation management objectives necessary to achieve “favourable condition”
of the Special Protection Area (Birds Directive);
x Initiated a productive dialogue on finding a new balance between agriculture and
environmental interests to achieve favourable condition of the Special Protection
Area and Ramsar sites, while helping agriculture and other rural industries to
work towards sustainable management of an internationally important wetland;
x Produced practical sustainability indicators to monitor the effectiveness of
changes in water and land management.
Many of these outcomes are continuing to be implemented beyond the end of the Life Project
and are resulting in practical land management and integrated catchment management for
the area.
Lessons learnt
Positive Lessons
x Make dialogue relevant to people’s lives.
In Somerset the project centred on a major environmental issue that affected a wide range of
stakeholders.
x Dialogue should be gradual and often.
Frequent small-scale dialogue is better than big one-off events. More flexible processes are
better at accommodating changes in views and developing consensus. Continuing dialogue
is better at establishing and maintaining trust and helps to manage participants’ expectations
of outcomes more realistically.
x Maintain the momentum of the process.
122
WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
Ensure that the next stage in the participatory process can move on from the last one. Discuss
issues, generate solutions, appraise them, test them for sustainability and evaluate their
effectiveness once implemented.
x Create trust through impartiality.
This was critical to the success of the process in Somerset. It was the first time that water
management had been discussed in a neutral public forum. The WUF Project existed
between its sponsoring organisations (the LIFE Project partners): it was not seen as part of
them. The role of the WUF project officer as an impartial facilitator gave stakeholders
confidence that that they were taking part in a truly participative process and independent
process.
x Work to invest time.
Constantly remind participants or potential participants of the need to invest time: without
commitment the energy of the process will dissipate. Participants have been very committed
to the Somerset process: thirty to forty key stakeholder representatives regularly attended
workshops.
Negative Lessons:
x Expensive one-off events can bring dialogue to a halt by delivering a “verdict” and may
not be appropriate in making progress on a particular issue in a particular context;
x Don’t become a discussion forum without a purpose – manage expectation;
x Avoid any one organisation leading a process so that the process does not have the
necessary impartiality needed to create trust amongst stakeholders.
Contacts for further information:
Barry Phillips, Rural Environmental Facilitation Service, b.phillips@tiscali.co.uk,
+44 (01934) 713864
See also www.floodplains.org
123http://www.floodplains.org/pdf/area_case_studies/SomersetLevelsCaseStudy.pdf
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
6. DEFRA Stakeholder Sounding Board, England
Key- words
National stakeholder involvement.
Aim/objective of the project
The terms of reference for the Stakeholder Sounding Board says that it is a forum for
stakeholders to:
x provide input to DEFRA (Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs) thinking
on transposition, and related policy issues, of theWater Framework Directive (WFD);
x raise issues relating to the WFD of concern to the group;
x provide input into development of a long-term strategy for the environmental quality of
water - what it should cover, in what detail, risks and opportunities.
Scale/unit of planning
National – the Stakeholder Sounding Board considers WFD-related issues for the whole of
England. To date, no similar groups have been established in Scotland, Wales or Northern
Ireland.
Period
The Stakeholder Sounding Board was established in early 2001 after a request from a group
of stakeholder organisations (including WWF-UK). There is no fixed timescale for the
group’s existence.
Who participated and how (Degree/form of public participation) in what phase of the
planning?
The organisations represented on the Stakeholder Sounding Board are:
Government
DEFRA (Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs)
Statutory agencies
Environment Agency (the government’s statutory agency for environmental protection in
England and Wales)
English Nature (the government’s statutory advisor on, and agency for, nature protection in
England)
Private sector
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Chemical Industries Association (CIA)
Crop Protection Association (CPA)
Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
National Farmers’ Union (NFU)
Water UK (the trade association for UK water companies and water authorities)
118WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
NGOs
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
WWF-UK
Other stakeholders
UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (UKCEED)
Office of the National Consumer Council (ONCC)
Participation takes the form of regular meetings (approximately 3 or 4 a year), hosted in turn
by different stakeholder Sounding Board members. The meetings are chaired by a senior
official from DEFRA. DEFRA also undertakes a secretariat function.
Major input of stakeholders
Individual stakeholder organisations, or small groups of stakeholder organisations, can flag
up issues for discussion. They are then invited by the Stakeholder Sounding Board to
prepare a paper on the issue. The paper is discussed at subsequent meetings.
DEFRA may also raise agenda items.
Thus, WWF and UKCEED have prepared a paper on public participation; the RSPB and
others have prepared a paper on Wetlands and the Water Framework Directive; the RSPB,
WWF, Water UK and the NFU are currently preparing a paper on diffuse pollution.
Outstanding issues
It is not clear what status these papers have within the government. Although the papers
include recommendations for action by government and other stakeholders, DEFRA have
not made clear whether they will act on those recommendations, even if all stakeholder
organisations agree with them.
The relationship between the Stakeholder Sounding Board and the UK government’s internal
technical advisory group on implementing the WFD has yet to be clarified.
Lessons learnt
A national forum that allows stakeholders to input directly into policy thinking is genuinely
useful. It allows direct access to government officials and provides a mechanism by which
government can assess the most important issues. For relatively little cost and effort this
enhances the traditional methods of consultation and individual meetings with each
stakeholder organisation.
However, it is important that there is full transparency so that stakeholder organisations can
see how their ideas and concerns are considered and acted on (or not) by the Government.
At the moment, we are still working on this in the Stakeholder Sounding Board.
For more information contact:
WWF UK, David Tickner, DTickner@wwf.org.uk
119WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
7. The Wise Use of Floodplains Project in Somerset, England
Our work was made possible through the award of a 50% grant from the EU LIFE Environment Fund
programme.
Inspiration points – this example is inspiring because:
In partnership with other initiatives this project facilitated a creative and positive dialogue
on the future management of flood events in a catchment, where previously stakeholder
views had been polarised for decades to the extent where the conflict had become notorious
in national environmental circles.
Aim/objective of the project
The WUF Project’s aim was to encourage the wise use of water resources in river catchments
to benefit, people, their livelihoods and their environment. We set out to achieve this by:
1. Generating new options for the sustainable management of flood events across the
catchment and annual water levels on the floodplain;
2. Testing public participation methods to find out what were the economic, social and
environmental costs and benefits of different options for managing flood events and
floodplain water levels.
The project, through its participatory approach helped to find out how the policies of the
government and European Union needed to be changed to promote sustainable management
of the catchment and its floodplain. Findings were passed to managers of river catchments
across Europe to enable their governments to implement the WFD.
Scale/unit of planning
The River Parrett Catchment in the county of Somerset, South West England. It is the largest
river system in Somerset covering 1665 km2, about half of the county area and containing
five major rivers: the Parrett, Isle, Tone, Yeo and Cary. The floodplain forms a significant
part of the Somerset Levels & Moors: - an area of international importance for wildlife.
Period: January 2000 – March 2002
Objective of Public Participation (Why PP?)
In Somerset, the WUF Project developed new ways of helping stakeholders in the River
Parrett Catchment to find sustainable solutions through participation for the management of
water, both in flood events and throughout the year.
Who participated and how (Degree/form of public participation) in what phase of the
planning?
The Project sought to involve “stakeholders” - anyone or any organisation, at whatever level,
with an interest in the management of water resources in the Parrett Catchment. Above all, it
offered an opportunity for local concerns to be heard. Since the first participatory workshops
120
WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
started in 2000, a wide range of representatives of communities, local interests and
organisations ranging from local to national government-level were involved.
Methods and tools applied
The WUF Project responded to what communities and individuals wanted. Working closely
with an existing and (in the United Kingdom) unique forum for local democracy, the Levels
& Moors Partnership*, we held participatory workshops to encourage stakeholders to share
views and address problems in partnership. Workshops were managed through facilitative
leadership: with the help of group management techniques, stakeholders were helped to
work together in a non-conflict environment. The WUF Project Officer was the facilitator for
all participatory workshops. Contextual information such as new research on the
effectiveness of present flood management practices was introduced to help all stakeholders
to develop a common understanding of issues.
Participatory working has to be product-orientated to be worthwhile. If a process is not
guided by the need to reach a common goal then it will drift and is unlikely to achieve
results.
Stakeholders came to agree that no one solution would solve the problems of flood and
water management, but that a comprehensive package of measures was needed. Facilitated
dialogue provided the bridge to enable a wide variety of interests to work jointly towards a
common goal.
To reach the desired goal of integrated flood and water management, a variety of solutions
were generated in a series of participatory workshops. These solutions were built into a
Parrett Catchment Action Strategy, which sets out what community and organisational
stakeholders wanted to be achieved by 2050”.
As collaborative working developed between local initiatives, the WUF Project and LAMP
managed participatory workshops under an umbrella initiative, the Parrett Catchment
Project.
It is estimated that the approximate cost of facilitating the dialogue over two years is
approximately €30,000.00 (salary costs of project officer/facilitator). Workshop costs were
additional but low at approximately €150 – 180 for each event (hire of the venue and catering
for around 40 participants). The overall cost is difficult to estimate accurately, because staff
from a variety of organisations donated their time to the initiatives involved. For the LIFE
Project, the budget used to commission new research in Somerset was approximately
€75,000.00 and partnership organisations provided around €36,000 of in-kind time in support
of the Wise Use of Floodplains Project. (Note: all of these figures are provisional.) In
conclusion, the total cost of facilitating such a complex dialogue over a two-year period was
remarkably low and the gains are far greater than the financial investment.
*LAMP serves 86 parish councils with wetland habitats on the Somerset Levels & Moors,
who in turn represent all local community and organisational interests.
Major input of stakeholders at participatory events
We invited 85 representatives of local communities and organisations to our workshops and
regularly saw 30 – 40 people at each event. The organisations ranged from the major
121
WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
government agencies to single-issue lobby groups. It was the first time in Somerset that
participatory working had taken place on such a scale.
Tangible result (effect) of PP?
A series of 27 facilitated participatory workshops, which began in May 2000, produced:
x A statement of the consensus between all stakeholder interests, which forms the
basis for a vision for the future management of the catchment and floodplain;
x Eleven “components” or potential solutions to manage flood events, a
combination of which will make up an Integrated Flood Management approach;
x A detailed analysis of the policy, funding, administrative and technical barriers
and opportunities involving implementation of the eleven components;
x Appraisal of the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of each of
the components;
x Enhanced understanding among stakeholders of the implications of the
conservation management objectives necessary to achieve “favourable condition”
of the Special Protection Area (Birds Directive);
x Initiated a productive dialogue on finding a new balance between agriculture and
environmental interests to achieve favourable condition of the Special Protection
Area and Ramsar sites, while helping agriculture and other rural industries to
work towards sustainable management of an internationally important wetland;
x Produced practical sustainability indicators to monitor the effectiveness of
changes in water and land management.
Many of these outcomes are continuing to be implemented beyond the end of the Life Project
and are resulting in practical land management and integrated catchment management for
the area.
Lessons learnt
Positive Lessons
x Make dialogue relevant to people’s lives.
In Somerset the project centred on a major environmental issue that affected a wide range of
stakeholders.
x Dialogue should be gradual and often.
Frequent small-scale dialogue is better than big one-off events. More flexible processes are
better at accommodating changes in views and developing consensus. Continuing dialogue
is better at establishing and maintaining trust and helps to manage participants’ expectations
of outcomes more realistically.
x Maintain the momentum of the process.
122
WFD CIS Guidance Document No.8
Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive
Ensure that the next stage in the participatory process can move on from the last one. Discuss
issues, generate solutions, appraise them, test them for sustainability and evaluate their
effectiveness once implemented.
x Create trust through impartiality.
This was critical to the success of the process in Somerset. It was the first time that water
management had been discussed in a neutral public forum. The WUF Project existed
between its sponsoring organisations (the LIFE Project partners): it was not seen as part of
them. The role of the WUF project officer as an impartial facilitator gave stakeholders
confidence that that they were taking part in a truly participative process and independent
process.
x Work to invest time.
Constantly remind participants or potential participants of the need to invest time: without
commitment the energy of the process will dissipate. Participants have been very committed
to the Somerset process: thirty to forty key stakeholder representatives regularly attended
workshops.
Negative Lessons:
x Expensive one-off events can bring dialogue to a halt by delivering a “verdict” and may
not be appropriate in making progress on a particular issue in a particular context;
x Don’t become a discussion forum without a purpose – manage expectation;
x Avoid any one organisation leading a process so that the process does not have the
necessary impartiality needed to create trust amongst stakeholders.
Contacts for further information:
Barry Phillips, Rural Environmental Facilitation Service, b.phillips@tiscali.co.uk,
+44 (01934) 713864
See also www.floodplains.org
123http://www.floodplains.org/pdf/area_case_studies/SomersetLevelsCaseStudy.pdf
