THE TROUT BECK PROJECT
SHAPING THE FUTURE
1.0 Introduction
The Trout Beck and its surrounding fells is an evolving landscape which over many thousands
of years has become the environment we see today. It possesses many features which make
it unique in the world and its preservation is of vital importance. This is not only for the people
who live and work in it but equally the case for everyone who visits and it is important that
all who are involved plays their part in ensuring its future.
Life in the 21st Century is changing at a pace never before experienced and the Trout Beck
area is not immune from this rapid pace. Our rivers and streams lie at the heart of an area
such as this and make a key focal point around which to build and plan for the future.
The aim of this exercise is firstly to take stock of the region’s assets and then to use this to
form a consensus of everyone involved to work together to achieve an environment that
works for all. Clearly there will be conflicting views and requirements but is preferable that
these are discussed rather than being allowed to be unresolved.
Producing a report on its own is of little value unless it results in real action and in a movement
which has the backing of everyone. This must not be an action plan that we try to impose but
must be a genuine movement bought into by all. The aspiration is, that having created a way
forward for the Trout Beck, our findings will help and guide others with their future planning
of similar parts of the county.
2.0 Background
Eden Rivers Trust (ERT) has been carrying out restoration works on the Trout Beck subcatchment for 12+ years. During that time ERT has delivered a number of ‘prescriptions’
designed to target both habitat degradation, species conservation and diffuse pollution issues
on the beck and its many smaller tributaries1.
In the main, the project has been driven by a sub-catchment strategy produced by ERT in
2006. This strategy was informed by research undertaken by both ERT and Durham University
who carried out fast and cost effective assessments of the Eden catchment, including Trout
Beck. A combination of aerial photography, environmental modelling, ecological surveying
and a Geographical Information System (G.I.S.) were used to give an overall picture of the
catchment and to pin-point areas that need restoration and conservation work.
To date, the project ERT has installed fencing, planted trees, removed invasive species,
aerated soils, improved farm infrastructure and provided advice on water friendly farming.
This work has been generously funded by the Oglesby Charitable Trust, Natural England,
RDPE, and Environment Agency and has included significant investment from the farmers in
the Trout Beck project area.
1
See Trout Beck Project Summary Report ERT 2011
A number of community events and wider engagement opportunities have been delivered by
ERT within the Trout Beck sub-catchment including attendance of local shows, evening
presentations for community groups, volunteer events and school visits.
2.1 We’ve come a long way on Trout Beck, but…
A meeting in August 2014 with the Oglesby Charitable Trust sparked a debate about how
much there is left to do on ‘Trout Beck’ and how this could be delivered and sustained. At this
meeting a ‘draft outcome’ for the Trout Beck was suggested:
“To make the Trout Beck into an outstanding watercourse which fits in with the
ecosystem of the landscape and takes note of its agricultural setting, making a
compelling case for those people who live, work and visit the area”.
It was also agreed that ERT would draw-up a project proposal to design a long-term action
plan for the sub-catchment, which would be developed in partnership with stakeholders,
farmers and communities in Trout Beck.
3.0 Placing Trout Beck into a ‘Catchment Context’.
ERT is currently developing a long-term plan for the entire Eden Catchment (Saving Eden)2.
The plan suggests developing a new and robust structure for change to address a number of
issues that typically constrain the development, pace and impacts of a targeted plan of
tangible actions to be delivered on the ground.
We would suggest that Trout Beck is used as a case study to develop and operationally test
that new and robust structure for change, which in-turn could then be rolled out across other
sub-catchments, not only in Eden but in other similar areas of the country. Many elements of
this structure are already in place. However no one organisation has managed to pull all of
the relevant evidence together so that joined-up thinking can support a process of informed
decision making that is required to drive better and faster outcomes for catchments.
4.0 Developing a robust structure for change on Trout Beck
Below are a series of steps we think are required if we are to have any chance of achieving
anything above and beyond what the Public Sector would have probably done anyway on
Trout Beck;
A DESK BASED STUDY TO CAPTURE ALL EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND DATA
Establish a ‘complete’ knowledge baseline for the Trout Beck and identify any gaps. It is
proposed that this would be a digital baseline and will be open access via ERT’s website.
ESTABLISH A TROUT BECK PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM (PDT)
A small but representative group3 of key interest groups to ‘Trout Beck Proof’ the project to
ensure opportunities are maximised. This group would meet quarterly and would be tasked
with overseeing the suggested steps to deliver the Trout Beck Action Plan. It will also play a
2
3
See www.savetheeden.org
Members of this group will be those typically those involved with on-the-ground delivery of actions
key role in setting-up a tactical communications plan for stakeholder engagement and
participation through ERT’s HLF funded Cherish Eden programme.4
WALKOVER SUREYS TO GROUND TRUTH DESK BASED STUDIES
Testing desk based studies and research by walking over the catchment with observations of
real time conditions and pressures. A walkover would be conducted by a river and land
management specialist and would also be used as a training and development opportunity
for ERT’s graduate entry staff, apprentices and volunteers. There is also a great opportunity
to undertake walkovers in collaboration with suitably experienced staff from ‘Defra Family’.
Linking to ERT’s fisheries programme:
Our electrofishing programme has been running since 2002 alongside the Environment
Agency’s own monitoring programme. It should be no surprise that the Trout Beck is a good
home for Trout, after all the clue is in the name! However, we suspect that the Trout Beck
and its adjacent tributaries along the Pennines play a major role in replenishing the Eden
catchment fisheries resource and are hence is a barometer of fresh water health for the rest
of the catchment. Over the next 12 months we will further develop a structure for our
fisheries work on the Trout Beck to support the Eden Fisheries Management Plan with key
stakeholders. Above all else, we will continue to use fisheries data (gathered on an annual
basis) to gauge success of our interventions.
ORGANISATIONAL PEER REVIEW
To become owned, accurate and reflect critical agendas the desk based studies need to be
peer reviewed by both the Project Team and their peers in partner organisations. It will make
sure that the final analysis takes into account the knowledge and opportunities that can come
from partners.
CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
Once Desk Based Studies have been ground-truthed and peer reviewed, there is a critical
stage of them being shared with, and tested by communities in the Trout Beck. In many ways
people who live, work and play in the catchment are the real experts, and they may know
more about the river. Visualisation of data will be an important tool in our consultation
toolbox. Again, ERT’s Cherish Eden programme and The Rivers Trust nationally could support
these activities.
Understanding the complexities of land tenure and its influence on levels of engagement with
farmers is key to moving forward across the whole Eden. The Trout Beck provides us with an
opportunity to get to grips with these complex social questions such as how does the
upland/fell interact with the lowland landscape? How do we influence asset poor tenant
farmers and asset rich but cash poor owner occupiers? What is the influence/impact of
national upland policy on catchment and river ecosystem health based on what the Trout
4
See Section 4.0
Beck tells us about our rivers? We envisage our consultation and ultimately the plan will
provide these answers.
FURTHER DEVELOP EVIDENCE BASE
By capturing knowledge and data we hope to be able to answer key questions with clear
answers. However, one of the bottle-necks that often limits the ability to make informed
decisions at a catchment level is the lack of accessible and useable evidence. Gaps in
knowledge highlighted by the desk based studies will be actioned. The scientific and research
community will be key partners in this process and should be supported if further investment
is required.
FULLY COSTED, TARGETED AND DELIVERABLE PLAN
The above process will allow ERT to have one of the most accurate, evidenced, effectively
targeted and strategically joined-up plans for a sub-catchment in the country. A suite of
solutions that deliver environmental improvement by bringing positive changes to farm
businesses, their land management and communities will form the basis of a ‘real world’
action plan. This plan will be different as it will join everything-up and provide straight
answers to the catchment critical questions that need to be answered. It will make clear
whether existing / planned investment is high enough or where additional investment is
needed. It will set out who is responsible for every action and who should be paying for them.
Above all it will have tight targets and milestones so that everyone involved can be held
accountable for their successes or failures!
5.0 Trout Beck Expert Working Group (Strategy)
Successful delivery of the suggested plan in Section 3.0 hinges on placing Trout Beck into both
a local and national context. If we want to deliver positive and sustainable outcomes for Trout
Beck, critical questions will need to be addressed in terms of understanding what ‘Catchment
Improvement Tools’ are currently available and are they fit for purpose. Potential ‘tools’ may
include Joined-up Farm Business Advice, Enlightened Self Interest (incentives), State Aid (agrienvironment payments) and Regulation (advice / enforcement).
It is proposed that ERT would form an informal ‘expert working group’ who would meet twice
a year to track progress with the project. Members will be invited to join the group based on
their specific knowledge, experience and skills and will be drawn from local farming interests
(including Commoners), Eden Rivers Trust, Natural England, Environment Agency, Forestry
Commission and Oglesby Charitable Trust.
The Group will also consider and address the ‘blockers’ limiting the scale, uptake and
sustainability of the prescriptions required to support stated outcome/s for Trout Beck. The
above will be synthesised into an engaging and succinct report which will authored by ERT,
on behalf of the Working Group, for wider dissemination. It is hoped the report will act as a
catalyst for debate between farming, conservation and regulatory organisations at a national
level, though forums such as the Catchment Based Approach (CaBA5) steering group. This
group comprises many of the key public, private and third sector organisations involved with
catchment management at a national level.
This will be a challenging project objective to deliver, but we feel the current systems in place
to improve the catchment are simply just not working as well as they could.
Put simply, things cannot stay as they are if we are serious about moving the needle
on the Trout Beck dial.
The difficult economic climate where time and money are in short supply provides further
justification for the development of cost effective and innovative catchment management
approaches. We feel the output of the Trout Beck Expert Working Group will initiate a long
overdue debate about development of a new and radically different engine of change to drive
multiple benefits at a catchment scale.
We foresee that this group will sit down and address the following key sustainability questions
to support delivery of the Action Plan (others may emerge!);
1) What should be the outcome/s for Trout Beck?
2) Will they work for farmers, communities, organisations that invest in the catchment
and planners / politicians and could we deliver them?
3) If not, what are the blockers and what changes do we need?
4) What we will do about it and a local, regional and national scale?
It is important to state that this project will not over-engineer governance and project
management. The Expert Working Group (EWG) and Project Delivery Team (PDT) will, from
time to time need to meet. The PDT will give the initiative the necessary day-to-day project
management focus and it will be co-ordinated by a member of ERT’s staff. For most of the
time this will be conducted informally or virtually by a group of officers and specialists tasked
with delivering / supporting the outputs of the project (as agreed by the EWG). The EWG will
initiate the project and confirm the projects stated outcomes and milestones. It will then
meet periodically as milestones are reached. The emphasis will be to meet, if there is a need
to meet!
5.1 Communications
A tactical communications plan will be needed to disseminate the key findings and
recommendations of the Trout Beck Expert Working Group. Experience from the Saving Eden
Pilot year demonstrated that a document which has been professionally produced (design /
copywriting, etc.) with target audiences in mind is a highly effective engagement tool. It is
proposed to produce such a document as a key output of this project. On the face of it, an
investment in communications may seem like an ‘optional’ item in the proposed budget. We
would strongly argue that this investment be considered essential if we genuinely aspire to
5
A DEFRA policy framework to encourage the wider adoption of an integrated Catchment Based Approach to
improving the quality of our water environment (www.catchmentbasedapproach.org)
set this project above and beyond the normal bland serving of super-dull reports, so often
churned out (in their hundreds) on an annual basis by a bewildering array of organisations.
ERT is developing a tactical communications strategy through the Cherish Eden Project,
including a new website, including social media such as Twitter, Facebook and a Tumblr Blog.
The outputs of the Trout Beck project will be integrated into this strategy by ERT’s
Communications Co-ordinator, who will be appointed in Quarter 1, 2015.
Assembling and presenting evidence linked to real world recommendations will be a critical
step in making an effective and compelling case to stakeholders. Key stakeholders operate at
local, regional and national levels. If presented correctly, the strategy report will link the
thinking and the doing at all three levels and will be at the very heart of the debate about how
we shape the future of upland catchments like Trout Beck.
6.0 Timescale
This project will (subject to funding) commence at the start of the 2015/16 FY and depending
on the agreed specification would report back in November 2015. The final report will be split
into two sections; 1) Trout Beck Sub-catchment Action Plan 2) Report from the Expert
Working Group.
7.0 Budget & Matched Funding
Action
A DESK BASED STUDY TO CAPTURE ALL EXISTING
KNOWLEDGE AND DATA
By When (tbc)
April – June
2015
Oglesby CT Funding
£5,250
Matched Funding Source
Total
£5,250
ESTABLISH AN ERT TROUT BECK PROJECT TEAM
April 2015
£0
£1500
WALKOVER SURVEYS TO GROUND TRUTH DESK BASED
STUDIES
June 2015
£5,200
ERT Saving Eden
£1,500
ERT Cherish Eden Project
£833
Fisheries £670 (staff time)
ORGANISATIONAL PEER REVIEW
July 2015
£750
CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
July 2015
£0
FURTHER DEVELOP EVIDENCE BASE
August 2015
£0
FULLY COSTED, TARGETED AND DELIVERABLE PLAN
ESTABLISH AN EXPERT WORKING GROUP
September 2015 £3,750
April –
£0
November 2015
November 2015 £2000
(design /copywriting
and print)
£16,950
PRODUCTION & DISSEMINATION OF WORKING
GROUPS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Totals
£6703
£750
ERT Cherish Eden Project
£1,500 (staff time)
ERT Saving Eden
£1500 (staff time)
ERT Saving Eden
£2000 (staff time)
ERT Staff Time
(Communications Strategy)
£1000
£9003
£1,500
£1,500
£3,750
£2,000
£3,000
£25953