GROUPWORK RESULTS - 10TH LOWESWATER CARE PROJECT (LCP) - 18th March 2010
Small groups of 4-6 people discussed future actions of the LCP, who would need to get involved in them,
and what obstacles might be encountered:
ACTION
INVOLVEMENT
 Continue communication
 Agencies / forums like the
between local people and
LCP / locals
agencies
 More knowledge and under Scientists
standing needed of:
 Geomorphologists
o Midges
 Agencies
o Fish
o Causes of the algae
o Underlying assumptions
o Phosphorus in sediments /
P recycling
o Improved inflows / infl. Of
channels
o Drainage
 Investigate potential for a
 Scientists
communal sewage system
 Update septic tanks if required
 Everyone in the catchment
 Farming-related:
 Farmers
o How can farming be
 LCP to influence politicians
supported?
like Jamie Reed, agencies,
o Encourage understanding
and government (lobbying)
of real cost of food
 Powerful agencies that take
production at local/
things forward or offer
national/ intern. levels
partnerships (eg. UU could
o Discuss issues of farm
allocate funds for land
succession and what enmanagers – pilot scheme?
courages farmers to stay
LDNP could look at its
o Pay for public goods like
policies and tailor them more
clean water
to local needs
o Source money from the
Shouldn’t LDNPA be on this
‘top’ for land managers
list here?
o Enable farmers to work on
a basis of income foregone
o Agencies need put
pressure on the government to obtain funds for
land managers, better
schemes, agency mergers
o Keep Newton Rigg
College
OBSTACLES
 Funding
 Convincing institutions
and scientists that these
are important problems
 Funding
 Money
 New farm payment
schemes don’t support
capital grant schemes (ex.
HLS, but at a reduced
rate)
 Farmers make up only
2% of the voting
population
 High staff turnover rate
in agencies
NB. Newton Rigg no longer
supports the study of farming
as it once did.
1
ACTION
INVOLVEMENT
OBSTACLES
 Related to population decline:
 Invite LDNPA to explain
 Housing policy encourages
o Encourage young people to
their policies on housing
aging population and is ‘the
stay
and economic development
wrong way round’ (ie, show
o Address demographic inneed, then give permission)
balances
 No incentives for
o Create job opportunities for
youngsters to stay (lack of
young people (eg. in IT)?
provisions like football
o Create incentives in the
pitches, clubs, etc.)
countryside for young
 Being in a National Park
people to stay, eg. clubs,
football/sports opportunities
 Use low phosphate products
 LCP & all in catchment area
 Knowledge of products
and publicise this as a good
 Info from Coniston & Crake
 Funding
thing (eg. to hotels, schools,
Partnership and the
and tourists visiting the area)
Cumbrian Tourist Board
 Amalgamate agencies like the
 Politicians, agencies, LCP
EA and NE [this may already
lobbying
be happening]
 Need a ‘champion’ to lead
 Commitment
 Future of the LCP:
o Discuss how to take it
meetings
 Voluntary contributions are
forward
rarely offered, so far.
 Need money (eg. Nuclear
o Decide objectives/questions
Decommissioning
 Funding
of future meetings
Authority’s cultural funds)
o Twin with other groups?
 Need clear aims and
o Explore if LDNPA is willing
objectives
to take it forward
 Local people/agencies (buyin in catchment)
 LDNPA
 Lancaster research team
 None
 LCP to produce a punchy
report which will:
 Local involvement if
o Summarize the research
desired
o Reach conclusions
o Make recommendations
o Identify further questions
o Brings it all together and
makes it known
 Use LCP report/findings to:
 Researchers
 Time
o Communicate the project to
 Others in a position to lobby
 We need to be able to
scientists, MPs, agencies,
identify the right
and government
Opportunities
o Communicate LCP and its
work to the media
o Approach funding bodies
 Explore opportunities provided
 Researchers
to Loweswater if it fails the EU
 EA
Waterframework Directive
 LDNPA to lead community
 LDNPA
 Willingness to support the
projects like the LCP
LCP
2