Strategic and Project Level River Restoration Protocols ? Key Components for Meeting the Requirements of the Water Framework Directive (Wfd)

Abstract

The number of river restoration projects undertaken in the UK has increased rapidly over the last five years. However, schemes are still largely undertaken on an ad‐hoc basis rather than part of a co‐ordinated, strategic, catchment restoration strategy. Additionally, project level restoration is rarely initiated through a systematic approach that involves all stages from baseline studies through to design, installation, monitoring and post‐project appraisals. The need for both strategic and project levels to be undertaken effectively is necessary if the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are to be met. This directive has the potential to significantly increase the number of schemes, as restoration of surface water bodies has become a key duty of member states. There exists, therefore, a need for a holistic catchment scale approach to restoration to be adopted to maximise benefit to the fluvial systems and ensure compliance. This paper outlines key components of strategic and project level protocols for river restoration from a UK perspective.

Using secondary data to analyse socio-economic impacts of water management actions

“…To achieve sustainable water management and fulfil the objectives of the WFD, on-the-ground implementation must be aligned with higher-level aspirations. However, contemporary implementation of many aspects of water management continues to be opportunistic rather than strategic, with clearly stated objectives, monitoring and post project appraisals largely absent (Skinner and Bruce-Burgess, 2005). Such opportunistic approaches might be less likely to prioritise social and economic components, and decisions potentially more likely to be driven predominantly by technical and ecological aspects of the water environment.…”

‘Catchment Consciousness’ – Will Mantra, Metric or Mania Best Protect, Restore and Manage Habitats?

“…Long-term funding for such monitoring and to succour efforts made to create 'stakeholder platforms' is sadly not a feature of sustainability yet adopted by agencies. Post-project appraisal is conspicuously lacking (Downs 2001, Skinner & Bruce-Burgess 2005 and so the living experiment cannot inform adaptive management and any impacts will only come through the very coarse monitoring (Newson & Clark 2008). Doppelt et al (1993) criticise much of what has occurred in fisheries management as 'the traditional "band-aid" approach to restoration'.…”

Urban Rivers as Pollutant Sinks and Sources: a Public Health Concern for Recreational River Users?

“…In response to such reports, the number of river restoration programmes initiated over the last few years has shown a dramatic increase (Skinner and Bruce-Burgess 2005). These schemes are widely promoted by a range of government and nongovernment organisations as a multi-benefit approach to 'greening' urban areas able to provide a wide range of social, environmental and economic benefits from flood management to the provision of 'attractive and safe places… for playing, feeding the ducks and generally connecting with nature… providing new and exciting places to explore' (DEFRA 2004a; Environment Agency for England andWales 2005, 2006).…”