evaluating the impact of integrated local delivery on enhancing ecosystem services resilience
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluating the impact of integrated local delivery on
enhancing ecosystem services resilience
Chris Short, Janet Dwyer (CCRI) & Jenny Phelps (FWAG)
Outline
• Introduce WILD project & link to nexus• Outline approach: reporting & governance• Issues of evaluation and ‘proof of concept’• Implications for institutions & policy• Some concluding thoughts
WILD project
• Water and Integrated Local Delivery– in area of 25,000 ha (Cotswolds & Swindon)
• Improvements to rivers through partnership• Key driver WFD and initial EA funding• Farmers, local communities & agencies• Range of activity, linked to lead partner• Led by FWAG, CCRI role to evaluate
Reporting & Governance
• ILD links the local to strategic objectives– makes ‘the local’ relevant to the govt agency– brings ‘a face’ from the agency at local level
• Joining up within project– Reporting and recording
• Getting message out across project area
Evaluation & proof of concept
• Social-ecological system resilience (Biggs et al 2012)
• Critical friend • Proof of concept
– Via CBA• Need SES too
Key findings:
• Evidence of Engagement, Communication, Knowledge, Consistency & Trust
• Multi-layer challenges tackled at local level• Need facilitator & agency to ‘stand-back’• Clear evidence of increased understanding
– Up & down stream impacts, role of soil etc.
Implications for institutions & policy
• The nexus of water issues in the EA– WFD, flooding, biodiversity, planning …
• Farmers cautiously emerging from isolation• Local authorities challenged by process• Communities embrace opportunity• Private funding sources cautiously engaged
Concluding thoughts
• UK ‘important arena’ for nexus as ‘tool for action’ (Cairns & Krzywoszynska 2016)
• Need a ‘gathering’ of nexus projects?• Transferability tricky as cases bespoke
– Framework not a blueprint or model• A common framework for comparisons• Compare evaluation approaches on 1 project
