DOCSLIB.ORG

Mersey Basin Campaign Study 2006 Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mersey Basin Campaign Study 2006 Final Report MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN STUDY 2006 FINAL REPORT Evaluation Of The Mersey Basin Campaign Final Report Government Office North West July 2006 1 An Evaluation of the Mersey Basin Campaign Contents Page Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 10 1.1 Background and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 The Campaign Structure ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 The Study.................................................................................................................................................. 11 2 What the Campaign Does....................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.2 Recent Campaign Activity ......................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Financial Performance .............................................................................................................................. 19 2.4 Quantified Outputs and Outcomes............................................................................................................ 21 2.5 Water Quality Changes in the Mersey Basin Area.................................................................................... 21 2.6 Waterside Regeneration Changes to the Mersey Basin Area................................................................... 26 2.7 Community Engagement in Water Quality and Watersides ...................................................................... 26 2.8 Summary................................................................................................................................................... 27 3 Water Quality and Regeneration Policy Context.................................................................................. 28 3.1 The Changing Context .............................................................................................................................. 28 3.2 International............................................................................................................................................... 29 3.3 European................................................................................................................................................... 30 3.4 National ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 3.5 Regional and Sub-Regional ...................................................................................................................... 31 3.6 Local.......................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.7 Summary................................................................................................................................................... 32 4 The Impact and Added Value of the Campaign .................................................................................... 33 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 33 4.2 Impact of MBC Activity Against Objective 1 – Improving Water Quality.................................................... 33 4.3 Impact of MBC Activity Against Objective 2 – Encouraging Sustainable Waterside Regeneration .......... 36 4.4 Impact of MBC Activity Against Objective 3 – Public Information, Participation and Involvement ............ 39 4.5 The Structure of the Campaign ................................................................................................................. 42 4.6 Impact and Strategic Added Value of Core Government Funding ............................................................ 44 4.7 Summary on Impact and Added Value...................................................................................................... 46 5 Development and Future Role of the Campaign .................................................................................. 48 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 48 2 EKOS Consulting 2 An Evaluation of the Mersey Basin Campaign 5.2 Rationale For and Against the Continuation of Core Funding to 2010...................................................... 48 5.3 The Role and Activities of the Campaign to 2010 ..................................................................................... 51 5.4 The Role of the Campaign Beyond 2010 .................................................................................................. 57 5.5 Alternative future funding options.............................................................................................................. 60 6 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 62 6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 62 6.2 Conclusions - Impact................................................................................................................................. 62 6.3 Conclusions – Added Value ...................................................................................................................... 63 6.4 Conclusions – Service Delivery................................................................................................................. 64 6.5 Conclusions – Funding and Future Role to 2010...................................................................................... 65 6.6 Conclusions– Funding and Future Role Beyond 2010.............................................................................. 66 6.7 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 66 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Annex A Bibliography....................................................................................................................................... 68 Annex B List of Consultees .............................................................................................................................. 70 Annex C Yearly Campaign Targets.................................................................................................................. 72 Annex D List of Action Partnerships................................................................................................................. 73 Annex E Performance Against Targets 2004/05.............................................................................................. 75 Annex F Water Quality Improvement Data ...................................................................................................... 77 3 EKOS Consulting 3 An Evaluation of the Mersey Basin Campaign Executive Summary The Study EKOS Consulting was commissioned by the Government Office for the North West (GONW) to undertake an independent evaluation of the past impact, present activities and future role of the Mersey Basin Campaign. The study sought to address the following questions: To what extent is the MBC succeeding in achieving its objectives in relation to the delivery of relevant European, Central Government and Regional Policies? What is the contribution of Government funding to that work? What still needs to be done between now and 2010 and 2015 to achieve European/government/regional policy objectives? What lessons can be learnt from the last twenty years and current approaches and activities to guide GONW in advising ministers on whether a centrally funded MBC is the most cost effective way forward? The study has involved extensive desk based analysis and a consultation process involving a series of face to face consultations and themed workshops. The method was agreed with GONW and the Chair of the Campaign in order to capture, as fully as possible, the quantitative and qualitative benefits arising from the Campaign’s work. The Role of the Campaign Context The Campaign has its origins in the early 1980s when conditions in the River Mersey had become so poor that urgent action was required to address the situation. In recognition of the scale of this task, the Campaign was given a nominal 25 year lifespan. Significant water quality improvements have continued to occur in the Mersey Basin catchment area over recent years across a range of indicators. This has been due in a large extent to the massive investment delivered through Asset Management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3 Restocking with Salmon, Trout and Freshwater Fish 80
    North West fisheries report 2002 Item Type monograph Publisher Environment Agency North West Download date 07/10/2021 13:25:39 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/24896 I www.environment-agency.gov.uk • North West Fisheries Report 2002 Published by: Environment Agency Richard Fairclough House Knutsford Road Warrington WA4 1HG Tel: 01925 653999 Fax: 01925 415961 ISBN: 1844322076 © Environment Agency All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any other means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Environment Agency. NORTH WEST FISHERIES REPORT 2002 Contents Page Note on organisational changes 2 North West Region Fisheries and Recreation staff 3 Regional Fisheries Ecology, Recreation Advisory Committee 5 Consultative association contacts 6 Introduction 7 North Area Annual Report for 2002 Team report: South-West Cumbria 8 Team report: Eden 12 Team report: West Cumbria 14 Projects 15 Central Area Annual Report for 2002 Team reports 17 Projects 20 Survey reports 28 South Area annual report for 2002 Team reports 34 Survey reports 39 Projects 42 Note on Organisational Changes In the past year the Environment Agency has undergone major organisational changes. The area teams were previously organised in relation to work areas, e.g. we had an Area Fisheries Ecology and Recreation Manager, and a Fisheries team in each of our area offices. Since October 1, 2002 the old 'functional' structure has gone and the work is now split along geographic lines. The three areas now have two or more Environment Managers who are responsible for delivery of all Agency work (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • River Basin Management Plan North West River Basin District
    River Basin Management Plan North West River Basin District Annex C: Actions to deliver objectives Contents C.1 Introduction 3 C.2 Actions we can all take 9 C.3 All sectors 11 C.4 Agriculture and rural land management 14 C.5 Angling and conservation 32 C.6 Central government 45 C.7 Environment Agency 52 C.8 Industry, manufacturing and other business 67 C.9 Local and regional government 78 C.10 Mining and quarrying 87 C.11 Navigation 92 C.12 Urban and transport 96 C.13 Water industry 102 Environment Agency River Basin Management Plan, North West River Basin District 2 Annex C: Actions to deliver objectives December 2009 C.1 Introduction This annex sets out tables of the actions (the programmes of measures) that are proposed for each sector. Actions are the on the ground activities that will implemented to manage the pressures on the water environment and achieve the objectives of this plan. Further information relating to these actions and how they have been developed is given in: • Annex B: Objectives for waters in the North West River Basin District This gives information on the current status and environmental objectives that have been set and when it is planned to achieve these. • Annex D: Protected area objectives (including programmes for Natura 2000) This gives details of the location of protected areas, the monitoring networks for these, the environmental objectives and additional information on programmes of work for Natura 2000 sites. • Annex E: Actions appraisal This gives information about how we have set the water body objectives for this plan and how we have selected the actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Environment Agency Plan
    local environment agency plan CROAL/IRWELL CONSULTATION DRAFT OCTOBER 1998 En v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive. Aztec West, Almondsbury, Croal/lrwell 32 Local Environment Agency Plan Map 1 30 30 E n v ir o n m e n t A g e n c y H ^ . BURNLEY BC BUSINESS REPLY SERVICE Licence No NW W 359A Environment Agency Appleton House 430 Birchwood Boulevard Birchwood WARRINGTON Cheshire WA3 7AA Foreword Welcome to our latest Local Environment Agency Plan (LEAP) Consultation Report for the Croal/lrwell area. Our aim is to produce a local agenda of action for.environmental improvement which addresses issues which we are unable to solve through our day to day work. We have attempted to draw together the issues which we believe need tackling to improve your local environment. As the LEAP provides the focus for actions by the Agency, it is important that the issues we have raised relate to our key responsibilities for the regulation of waste, releases to air from some industrial processes and protecting and improving the water environment. However, where issues are raised which do not relate directly to our responsibilities, we hope to influence others to plan and act in ways that support our Environmental Strategy for the Millennium and Beyond. In order for the LEAP to be effective we need to know your views. We would like to know what you think of the issues raised, whether you would like other environmental issues to be added, and whether you can work together with us to achieve environmental improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Arup, the Value of the River Mersey
    The Value of the River Mersey INVEST IN ARUP THE VALUE OF THE RIVER MERSEY An appraisal using an ecosystem 2 | 28 April 2016 service-led approach The Value of the River Mersey FOREWORD The River Mersey contributes economic and social value to the Liverpool City Region: what is the nature of that value and can it be quantified? © Dreamstime 2 The Value of the River Mersey Contents 1 Introduction 10 1.1 What is the value of the River Mersey? ........................................ 10 1.2 Structure of the report .................................................................. 10 2 Regional context 12 2.1 Liverpool City Region ................................................................... 12 2.2 The River Mersey ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Natural asset valuation ................................................................. 15 3 Natural capital concepts 16 3.1 Total Economic Value (TEV) ......................................................... 16 3.2 Intrinsic value ............................................................................... 17 3.3 Natural capital and ecosystem services ....................................... 17 3.4 Typical ecosystem services from rivers ........................................ 18 3.5 Value, financial return or privatisation .......................................... 18 3.6 Previous studies ........................................................................... 19 4 Value: qualitative analysis 26 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mersey Basin Campaign Corporate Plan 2009-2010
    MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN CORPORATE PLAN 2009-2010 FINAL VERSION: MAY 2009 CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PRIORITY ACTIONS 3 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD 7 SECTION 1 CONTEXT 9 SECTION 2 MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN 15 CURRENT POSITION SECTION 3 ACHIEVEMENTS 2008-09 19 SECTION 4 CAMPAIGN LEGACY 27 SECTION 5 OBJECTIVES AND KEY MEASURES 29 2009-10 ANNEXES A SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST TARGETS 33 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 B SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 37 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 C PROPOSED DCLG GRANT BUDGET 39 FOR 2009-10 D CONSTITUTION AND COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP 41 1 2 MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN CORPORATE PLAN 2009-2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PRIORITY ACTIONS The Campaign Council decided in November 2008 to terminate the Campaign at the end of its planned 25-year life in March 2010. This presents unique challenges and opportunities in communications, management, legacy and succession planning. There is a strong resolve from the stakeholders, Campaign Council, Business Foundation, Healthy Waterways Trust, staff and volunteers to make the most of the final year in a positive, celebratory and constructive spirit – this attitude underpins the plan. The overarching principles for the final year are: DELIVERY – maintain momentum delivering a substantial programme throughout the year LEGACY – celebrating the Campaign’s achievements; capturing and communicating lessons learned SUCCESSION – ensuring, where practical, the transfer of programmes, projects and initiatives to others in a position to take them forward CLOSURE – effective management of all relationships and resources so as to ensure a professional and orderly end, with the Campaign’s reputation maintained and enhanced in the interests of all of the partners STAFF – supporting all staff in finding jobs appropriate to their experience and aspirations The Campaign is a partnership that works within the context of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy – Securing the Future.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Environment Agency Plan
    local environment agency plan SANKEY/GLAZE CONSULTATION REPORT M AY 1996 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORM ATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House. Waterside Drive. Aztec West. Almondsbury. Bristol BS32 4UD D A T E D U E ! GAYLORD M IN T ED IN U S A. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 0 7 7 3 2 6 Sankey/Glaze Local Management Plan Map 1 E n v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y Westhoughton Cunningham Hindley Atherton Walkden 7 I.0W Hall • Pool 1 Wharton Brk Brookside Bn Astley' Abram iherton SM, Brk Tyldesley Rainford Boothstown Ashton-in- (Common Lane Brk Makerfield Whitehead i Pasture Brki Lane Bedford1 Pennington Brk I Flash ,x\ningtQn j BrodK Rindle Golborne IBrk 12) Lowton Haydock Longborough Brook] ST HELENS tiDcroftBrt Newtony House Brk St Helens I St Helens Parksidet Canalj i f anal Brook Newton-Le Culcheth Willows St Helens Canal Os wa/cfc Thatto Sutton Heath Brk Silver) Lane Brk) Burtonwood Brk Burtonwood \ Prescot ^sey Winwick [Causey IB rk I1 )\ u m Birchwood \ Rainhill WARRINGTON ftYFistis0*0" Barrow Catchment Boundary Brk Great Butcherf, Watercourse Sankey Culverted Watercourse Canal Built up Area The Vision for The Area The Environment Agency will work in partnership with area users to realise the full environmental potential of the Sankey/Glaze area. The aim will be to create and maintain a balanced environment which will meet the Agency's overall aim of contributing to the worldwide goal of Sustainable Development, which has been defined as "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancement of Green Infrastructure in the Landscape of Lowland Rivers” (ENGRAVE, LLI-291)
    Project “Enhancement of Green Infrastructure in the Landscape of Lowland Rivers” (ENGRAVE, LLI-291) Summary report of study visit to the United Kingdom September 25 – September 29, 2018 Deliverable T.1.7.1. 09.2018 (updated 10.2018) Content list Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................3 1. List of participants ....................................................................................................................................4 2. The agenda of study visit .........................................................................................................................4 3. Visit of Greater Manchester ....................................................................................................................5 4. Visit of Peak District National Park ....................................................................................................... 10 5. Visit of Liverpool City Region ................................................................................................................ 14 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Annexes ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 2 Introduction The study visit to the Manchester and Liverpool regions
    [Show full text]
  • Public Participation in the Ribble River Basin
    Public Participation in the Ribble River Basin Case study report produced under Work Package 5 This report has been produced as part of Workpackage 5 of the HarmoniCOP Project Authors: Davis, M, Rees, Y November 2004 WRc plc Prepared under contract from the European Commission Contract No. EVK1-CT-2002-00120 Deliverable nr. 7 www.harmonicop.info Table of Contents Executive Summary / Main Findings ii 1 Introduction and Approach 1 2 Context 3 2.1 Environmental context ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Institutional context.............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Socio-economic political context......................................................................................... 6 3 Description of the PP process 9 3.1 Activities / Phases ................................................................................................................ 9 3.3 Outcomes.............................................................................................................................. 12 4 Analysis of the Process 15 4.1 Framing/reframing ............................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Basic role of Assumptions / definition of roles.................................................................... 16 4.3 Boundary management........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Display PDF in Separate
    catchment management plan FOR REFERENCE ONLY PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE S i En v ir o n m e n t Ag e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD Lancaster"?^ DOUGLAS Fleetwoo Clitheroe annual review Blackpool -C e n t r a l a r e a urnley October 1996 Prestoi Blackourn Southpor Rochdale Bolton This annual review provides a progress update of all the actions stated in the River Douglas Catchment Management Plan Final Report (February' 1995) produced under the auspices of the former National Rivers Authority (see Section 5.0). Section 6.0 has been added to the report as a result o f the new Water Quality Objective Scheme. Issues originally highlighted for action in the final report have been reviewed and comments regarding these issues are welcomed. The comments and questions should be forwarded to the Environment Planner by Friday 28 March 1997. This report is intended to be used widely and may be quoted, copied or reproduced in any way, provided that the extracts are not utilised out o f context and that due acknowledgement is given to the Environment Agency. Front Cover: River Douglas W igan ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 076905 RIVER DOUGLAS CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FIRST ANNUAL REVIEW 1996 CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 V isio n .....................................................................................................................................3 2.0 In tro d u ctio n ..........................................................................................................................4 3.0 O verview of the catch m en t.............................................................................................5 4 .0 S um m ary of P ro g ress........................................................................................................7 5 .0 P ro g ress R eport..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Manchester Sill1) Canal Water Quality
    The Manchester Sill1) Canal Water Quality. r1I 2t)th Century in perspective, and recornniendat.ions for the new Millennium. - g soon. It’s affccting polar bcäisn hc Arctic.’ . : Author: Eric Harper, on behalf of a client group, the Environment Agency tEA), the Manchester Ship Canal Company(MSCC), Noah Nest Viater Ltd NVdV) and the Mersey Basin Campaign(MBC)1 Author: Eric Harper, BScTeeh, AMCT. MCIWEM. He first worked for the Mersey River Board and Lancashire River Board in the early 1960’s, returning in 1969 to the Mersey and Weaver River Authority where, before the 1974 reorganisations, he became Chief Pollution Officer. On the formation of North West Water Authority he held various posts in charge of pollution prevention, water resources and drinking water quality. On privatisation in 1989 he became Chief Scientist/Quality Director to. North West Water Ltd and retired in 1997. He was a member of the Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committee (REPAC) for the north west region of the National Rivers Authority and its successor the Environment Agency, from its inception until April 2000. Acknowledgements. Theprovision of data and help from the client group, Environment Agency, North West Water, Manchester Ship Canal Company and Mersey Basin Campaign, is gratefluly acknowledged. The views expressed and recommendations are those of the author and not necessarily those of the client organisations. Cartoon on front cover. This first appeared in Punch prior to 1971 and is reproduced with the permission of the proprietors. 1 THE MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL: WATER QUALITY. 20th The Century in perspective, and recommendations for the new Millennium.
    [Show full text]
  • Manchester Local Nature Recovery Strategy Pilot
    DRAFT Report of the Greater Manchester Local Nature Recovery Strategy Pilot 0 DRAFT Table of Contents The Greater Manchester Local Nature Recovery Strategy Pilot .......................... 3 Background and purpose of the pilot .......................................................................... 3 The pilot process ........................................................................................................ 3 The status of this report and the prototype strategy ................................................... 5 This report and the planning system .......................................................................... 5 The future for Local Nature Recovery Strategies ....................................................... 6 The Greater Manchester Prototype Local Nature Recovery Strategy .................. 7 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 8 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9 Greater Manchester’s Natural Environment ............................................................... 9 Links to other strategies and plans ........................................................................... 11 Who can use this strategy and how?........................................................................ 12 2. Why we need a Local Nature Recovery Strategy ............................................. 14 The Biodiversity Emergency ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Present Day Toxteth
    Evaluating the Success of the Mersey Basin Campaign and its Impact on Toxteth Joanna Gunn School of Environment and Life Sciences University of Salford, UK Submitted in partial fulfilment of the Requirement of the Degree of Master of Science by Research, 2015 Contents List of Figures IV List of Tables VII List of Abbreviations VIII Acknowledgements IX Declaration X Abstract XI 1. Introduction 1 1.1 The Mersey Basin Campaign 2 1.2 Merseyside’s Crisis of Decline 3 1.3 Core Purpose and Objectives 4 2. Literature Review 5 2.1 Previous Pollution Control Measures 6 2.2 Potential Solutions to Merseyside’s Problems 7 2.3 The Consequences of Deindustrialisation in Merseyside 8 2.4 Toxteth’s Deprivation 12 2.5 The Mersey Basin Campaign 13 2.5.1 Key Investors and Successes of the Mersey Basin Campaign 15 2.5.2 United Utilities 15 2.5.3 Peel Holdings 16 2.5.4 Liverpool One 16 2.6 The Role of the Environment Agency 17 2.6.1 Fish Stocks: Populations in the Mersey Catchment 18 2.6.2 The Importance of Biotopes in an Urban River 19 2.6.3 The European Union Water Framework Directive 20 2.7 Successes under the Mersey Basin Campaign 21 i 2.7.1 Liverpool Festival Gardens 22 2.7.2 Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture 2008 23 2.7.3 Case Study of Salford Quays 24 2.8 Gaps in Research 25 2.9 Aims and Objectives 26 3. Research Area 29 3.1 Toxteth 29 3.2 Sefton Park 30 3.3 Princes Park 31 3.4 Summary 31 4 Methods 32 4.1 Data Collection 33 4.1.1 Liverpool City Council Data 33 4.1.2 Environment Agency Data 34 4.2 Evaluating Results 37 5 Results 38 5.1 Water Quality within the Mersey Catchment 38 5.2 Statistics for Toxteth 44 5.3 Housing in Toxteth 50 6.
    [Show full text]