GLORIOUS MUD Homes for Nature, Protection for People

GLORIOUS MUD homes for nature, protection for people

GLORIOUS MUD – homes for nature, protection for people

RSPB Scotland – February 2016

Contents

Page

Executive Summary 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Scotland’s coasts – rocky and soft 4

3 Scotland’s coast under threat 6

4 Coastal habitats and climate change 7

5 Solutions to prevent coastal flooding 8

6 Making managed coastal realignment happen 11

7 Demonstrating managed realignment now 16

8 Where to start 18

9 Conclusions 18

10 Recommendations 19

Title page photo: Mudflat at low tide - Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

Executive Summary

Scotland’s wet, muddy coastal habitats are threatened by sea level rise; we are at risk of losing the flood protection benefits they provide. Saltmarsh is vital for wildlife and can increase coastal resilience in an uncertain future. We need a masterplan for adapting Scotland’s coasts and funding to make nature-based approaches to flood risk management and coastal change a reality.

Coastal flooding and erosion is one of the most pressing concerns for Scotland, requiring immediate action due to current and future climate change threats.

Saltmarsh and other intertidal habitats, along Scotland’s firths and coastline have been lost in the past due land use change. What remains is fragmented and increasingly under pressure from sea level rise and climate change.

Coastal habitats, such as saltmarsh, provide homes for wildlife but also provide a nature-based solution to flood risk because of their ability to buffer the coast and reduce the impacts of waves and storms. They are also very effective at absorbing and storing carbon – known as ‘blue carbon’ in the marine environment – and therefore contribute to reductions in GHG emissions.

Scotland needs to recreate a swathe of lost intertidal habitats along the coast to protect us from flooding and climate change, as well as providing more homes for wildlife.

To make this happen we are calling for:  A new blueprint for coastal adaptation and change.  New funding for managed realignment projects to start protecting the coast now  A target of 4 managed realignment projects completed by Dec 2018 with a new long- term target set for the area of intertidal habitat to be created through managed realignment in Scotland.

1. Introduction In 2003 the sea wall was breached at Nigg Bay in the Cromarty Firth allowing a 25 hectare field to be inundated by the tide in a controlled manner. This was Scotland’s first ever managed realignment project and resulted in a small section of land ‘given back’ to the sea’s influence (See Box 4). Nigg Bay was one of the areas identified in the RSPB’s Seas of Change1 document the previous year as a potential location for creating new saltmarsh and tidal habitats. The aims of this report included showing the ‘potential flood defence cost savings’ of intertidal habitats and to ‘encourage open discussion on the opportunities, issues and scope for a more strategic approach to inter-tidal habitat creation’. This at a time when climate change and sea level rise was being viewed as a clear threat to Scotland’s coast and its remaining habitats.

More than a decade later Scotland has seen very little progress in further coastal habitat recreation whereas the threat from sea level rise has definitely increased and will only continue2. This situation makes building resilience and adapting to climate change now more important than ever. ‘Glorious Mud’, aims to review the need for intertidal habitat creation and the policies which can make it happen. It will also look back to the areas identified in Seas of Change to see if these are still relevant today.

2. Scotland’s coasts – rocky and soft Scotland has some 11,800km of highly indented and convoluted coastline, in addition to hundreds of islands. The west and north coasts are in the main rocky, with some spectacular cliffs but 28% of Scotland’s coastline compromises soft and erodible sediments. Many of these are wet, muddy areas situated in the south and east, especially along firths (estuaries and sea inlets). Other stretches of soft coastline also occur, especially the sandy beaches and machair habitats of the western isles and the many pockets of intertidal habitat at the top of sea lochs.

Coastal erosion currently occurs on about 12% of the Scottish coastline3, with erosion being a particular problem for the inner and developed soft coastal firths. Not all soft coast is eroding, in this dynamic environment some is doing the opposite, known as accretion. To prevent erosion and inland flooding, vulnerable areas of the coast have been strengthened over the decades. It is estimated that 429km of mainland Scotland's coast is artificial, 307km of this is coastal defences, the rest being other developments such as piers and harbours4.

Wildlife habitats around the coast vary greatly, from rocky habitats; to shingle, machair and sand dunes; and to shallow lagoons, mudflats and saltmarsh5. Each have their own characteristics and associated species and ecological interactions. Mudflats and saltmarsh are intertidal habitats especially important for many species (see Box 1) which rely on the

1 RSPB Seas of Change http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/seasofchange_tcm9-132925.pdf 2 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: A climate change risk assessment for Scotland January 2012 (page 30) 3 Scotland’s Wildlife: An Assessment of Biodiversity in 2010. Scottish Natural Heritage http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B811968.pdf 4 Scotland’s Marine Atlas http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/16182005/67 5 http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/habitats-and-ecosystems/coasts-and-seas/coastal-habitats/

twice daily tidal changes to bring saltwater, food and nutrients. Many wading birds and wildfowl use these habitats for feeding and roosting, and often as refuelling stops on long migrations. These coastal habitats in the tidal zone are changing now due to rising seas.

Saltmarsh, mudflats and seagrass habitats can also Box 1. Wildlife associated contribute to achieving Scotland’s GHG emission reduction targets. They are very effective at absorbing with Scottish saltmarsh and storing carbon – known as ‘blue carbon’ in the Water and wading birds: 6 marine environment (see Box 2 ) redshank, lapwing, knot, bar- Scotland has 7766 ha of saltmarsh habitat7, a long way tailed godwit, pink footed short of its historical coverage. Much has been goose, whooper swan, scaup. reclaimed for agriculture and for development; for Invertebrates: narrow- example, calculations show that approx 50% of intertidal mouthed whorl snail, mud habitats in the Inner Forth Estuary were historically shrimp, baltic tellin. claimed for agricultural use, industrial use or for harbours8. The remaining saltmarsh is fragmented. Saltmarsh plants: sea aster, glasswort, salt grass. Many pressures remain on the quantity and quality of protected intertidal habitat9. A recent national survey10 found 67% of saltmarsh sites assessed failed one or more condition targets with 70% of designated sites failing. Table 1, indicates a more favourable condition for protected sites, however, 15 negative pressures were identified as acting on them, the most common including over-grazing, invasive species, disturbance impacts and development. Despite being under threat from these pressures and climate change, the remaining wet muddy intertidal coastal habitats in Scotland provide a number of ecosystem services which benefit society, such as reducing the power of waves, flood control and filtering pollutants.

Table 1. Status of selected intertidal protected nature sites around the Scottish coast.

Features (All No. No. % No. Not No. No. designations) features Favourable Favourable Assessed Unfavourable Recovering Atlantic salt meadows 5 4 80 0 1 0 Eelgrass beds 4 3 75 0 1 0 Glasswort & other annuals colonising mud & sand 2 2 100 0 0 0 Intertidal mudflats & sandflats 14 11 79 3 0 0 Saltmarsh 58 51 84 0 7 3 Source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-interactive/data/protected-nature-sites data extracted 11-01-2016.

6 UNEP/FAO/UNESCO (2009) Blue Carbon - The Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding Carbon 7 SNH: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1509053.pdf 8 SNIFFER: http://www.sniffer.org.uk/files/7813/4183/8006/SR0211_1.pdf 9 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Article17/FCS2007-H1310-Final.pdf 10 Haynes, T.A. 2016. Scottish saltmarsh survey national report. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 786.

Box 2. Blue Carbon

Saltmarsh can absorb and store carbon, at a rate of up to 210g of carbon per square metre per year (2.1 tonnes per hectare), nearly 100 times more than tropical forest.

3. Scotland’s coast under threat The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Box 3. At risk of flooding estimates there are around 26,000 homes and businesses at risk from coastal flooding in Scotland (see Box 3). Another report estimates that over 28,000 1 in 22 homes people in vulnerable neighbourhoods are exposed to coastal flooding11. Coastal flooding causes approximately 17% of the flooding impacts experienced 1 in 13 businesses in Scotland, and causes on average £19m worth of damage every year12. SEPA has produced coastal flood maps13 to show potential vulnerability and has consulted the public on options to protect vulnerable coasts.

Scotland’s Marine Atlas14 states that with the rise in global sea-levels and a predicted increased risk of storm surges, Scotland's coastal infrastructure and habitats may be placed under increasing threat. Sea level rise is expected and inevitable, well into the 21st century even if GHG emissions ended tomorrow, due to the lifespan of these emissions in the atmosphere. Current projections show that under medium emissions scenarios, Scotland should brace itself for a 5–11cm rise by 2020 depending on location and 30-50cm by 210015. These figures are based on sea levels in 1990. The highest change will happen to coastal areas away from the centre of the Scottish landmass, i.e. Shetland and Lewis, with lesser rises for coastal communities, such as Dundee, Glasgow and Oban.

Sea level rise to this extent will add further pressure on our coasts, our defences and the policies and systems in place to safeguard people, land, wildlife, and businesses. Rising sea levels and changes to wave conditions may alter erosion rates, increase the incidence and severity of flooding events, and affect intertidal profiles. The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (UKCCRA)16 views coastal flooding and erosion as one of the most pressing concerns for Scotland, requiring immediate action due to current and future climate change threats.

11 http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00490788.pdf 12 http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/1327/mccip201011_coastalflood.pdf 13 SEPA Flood Maps http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm 14 Scotland’s Marine Atlas http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/16182005/67 15 SCCIP Scottish Climate Change Information: UKCP09 Compendium UKCP09, Relative Sea Level Rise data for selected Scottish locations http://www.adaptationscotland.org.uk/Upload/Documents/SCCIP_Output_RSL.pdf 16 UKCCRA for Scotland http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15747#Relate dDocuments

4. Coastal habitats and climate change It is not just coastal homes, businesses and other economic assets which are at risk from climate change and sea level rise. Saltmarsh and other habitats, on which wildlife rely, are under threat from sea-level rise due to ‘coastal squeeze’. This is the process whereby as sea levels rise, saltmarsh habitat is prevented from naturally colonising inland due to the presence of hard sea defences, and therefore its area narrows and habitat is lost – see figure 1.

Figure 1. Coastal Squeeze process

sea wall saltmarsh sea wall rising sea level

Coastal squeeze and the loss of saltmarsh habitat can have a negative effect on wildlife populations but the loss of these habitats also has negative impacts on coastal resilience in the face of climate change. Saltmarsh provides a buffer against waves and storms - up to 50% of wave energy is reduced by the first 10-20m of a saltmarsh17. This benefit provides extra protection to the sea or flood defences/embankments, reducing the cost of construction and maintenance18, and to vulnerable inland areas. The habitat under threat from sea level rise is itself a solution to climate change impacts.

17 Moller (2006) Quantifying saltmarsh vegetation and its effect on wave height dissipation: Results from a UK East coast saltmarsh. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69(3-4) 337-351 18 SEPA NFM handbook http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/163560/sepa-natural-flood-management-handbook1.pdf

The losses in area due to sea-level rise have so far been relatively small, at around 4.5% over the past 20 years, but such losses are projected to reach 8% by 206019. Other habitats, such as sand dunes are being lost to erosion and to increased salinity.

Predictions are that saltmarsh in the UK will become increasingly vulnerable due to sea level rise. 30% is currently vulnerable but this could rise to 43% under the 2080s high sea-level rise scenario because of coastal squeeze prohibiting natural adaption of the habitat to move inland20.

Space for these habitats to naturally move or colonise inland is needed to allow for sea-level changes.

5. Solutions to prevent coastal flooding Scotland’s coasts have and will continue to change, even without human-influenced climate change. With the impacts of climate change combined with sea level rise being unpredictable, damaging and costly, coastal shocks will happen in more places, more quickly and potentially more violently. How we plan for this and deal with it is an urgent issue. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommended that ‘Scotland’s coastline is highly susceptible to erosion and given the sea level rise we are facing we need to target these areas of the coast carefully to help ensure they become more resilient to climate change’21.

Long term sustainability issues exist for traditional hard engineering in the face of rising sea level and increased storm surges. Building ever higher and stronger sea defences will cost more to build and maintain, and may also spoil the landscape and precious views. Building sea walls in their existing locations with a capacity to withstand seas half a metre higher (and more for storm protection) will not be practical in all cases. In addition, any remaining protective saltmarsh or other intertidal habitat may have been squeezed and lost by that point leaving the walls more prone to wave damage.

In some locations the most practical and cost effective long-term options will either be a ‘do nothing’ approach allowing areas which were reclaimed in the past to be inundated naturally, or actively making space for the seas and planning for coastal realignment. Coastal habitats, such as saltmarsh, will play an important role in these ‘retreat’ situations.

The saltmarsh solution The term ‘soft coasts’ implies that these coastlines are inherently weak and need strengthening. In many cases, however, the soft sediments of mud and sand are the basis

19 UK NEA Chp 11: Coastal Margins http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx 20 Zhang, Z., Jones, A., Nicholls, R.J., and Spencer, T. (2007) Methods of assessing vulnerability of species and coasts. Annex 2 of Planning for biodiversity in a changing climate, Chapter 4. BRANCH project Final Report, Natural England, UK. 21 RACCE letter http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_RuralAffairsClimateChangeandEnvironmentCommittee/20131127_Behaviour_Change_C limate_Change_Adaptation.pdf

for habitats which help buffer the coasts, lessen the power of waves and storms22 and actively support resilience.

Coastal habitats, such as saltmarsh protect soft coasts from erosion and inundation, and are part of the toolkit to adapt our coasts. However, there are few areas where saltmarsh habitats remain and many of these strips of habitat are themselves being swallowed by rising tides.

Managed coastal realignment is a technique which aims to increase the extent of saltmarsh habitat. It involves building a new embankment or wall inland of the existing coast to encompass a specific area, the existing sea wall is then breached to let the tide inundate the area thereby making it intertidal – See Figure 2. Within a few years the saltmarsh habitat returns, providing wildlife habitat, flood storage, wave attenuation and other benefits.

In general, projects using the managed realignment technique aim to return land, which was in the past reclaimed for agriculture or development, to intertidal habitat.

Figure 2. Process of managed realignment

1 - New sea wall constructed

3 - New 2 - Sea wall saltmarsh breached & colonisation inundation

Photo - D Munro

22 Moller et al, 2014 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n10/full/ngeo2251.html

Box 4. Case study: Nigg Bay – Scotland’s first managed realignment project Nigg Bay is an extensive area of mudflat, saltmarsh and wet grassland on the Cromarty Firth. It is an area of international importance for migratory bird species, such as bartailed godwits and knot. RSPB Scotland has a reserve at Nigg Bay where it has trialled coastal realignment, with the support of Heritage Lottery Funding and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). RSPB Scotland undertook Scotland's first coastal realignment project at Nigg Bay in 2003 when the seawall was breached in two places. The 25 ha site had been used for rough grazing and had only received small-scale drainage. Results of the realignment for biodiversity have been good, with the habitat returning more swiftly than expected. The site now holds up to 2,000 of the 10,000 or so birds that winter in the whole of Nigg Bay (depending on tides & weather). Ten species of wading birds and nine species of wildfowl have been recorded using the site. Around 21ha of saltmarsh and mudflat has been created adding 12% more saltmarsh to Nigg Bay. Vegetation and invertebrate monitoring shows that a good saltmarsh flora has developed, and that the site now holds invertebrates of a size valuable as wading bird food. The realignment site shows the full range of saltmarsh zones, from grassland, through upper, mid and lower saltmarsh communities to mudflats. Repeat monitoring continues but observation of the birds themselves leads the RSPB to expect that the vegetation and invertebrates will have further developed and increased in abundance.

Figure 3. RSPB Scotland Nigg Bay managed realignment site Photo – Stuart Benn

6. Making managed coastal realignment happen Saltmarsh and intertidal habitats provide clear benefits to wildlife and to homes and businesses at risk from flooding. However, we need a swathe of new coastal habitat if Scotland is to realise these benefits in the future and have a resilient coast. Are the policies in place to make re-creation of these habitats happen through managed realignment?

In 2012 James Curran, SEPA Chief Executive stated23 'Flooding crosses institutional and administrative boundaries. It demands collaboration between organisations responsible for Flood Risk Management...it needs our combined actions to be organised and delivered within the river catchment or coastal area that determines the nature of flooding’.

To make collaboration and combined actions work requires plans which are agreed and include long-term prioritisation. It also requires a long-term vision for Scotland’s coasts and a policy or policies to guide and deliver it. Is such a plan in place now?

How can Scotland ensure that coastal planning is fit for purpose and promotes resilient solutions such as managed realignment and the active use of habitat to reduce flood risk?

a. Who owns and manages the coastline? In Scotland sections of coastal land are owned and managed by a host of landowners. Each owns and maintains coastal protection structures, such as earth embankments, to protect their property and land. Many are not designated as flood protection structures.

Coastal planning and management is a devolved issue and governed by legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. In addition to the Scottish Government, the following bodies have a role to play in coastal management:

 SEPA - responsible for national strategy and implementation of flood risk management.  Local authorities, Scottish Water, and other public bodies - implement coastal and flood protection projects; develop non-statutory Shoreline Management Plans.  Local Coastal Partnerships - voluntary partnership groups that implement Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) approaches in Scotland. There are currently seven LCPs in Scotland24 and the approach taken by these groups is inconsistent.

b. Supportive policies Both the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 (FRM) and the Coast Protection Act 1949 (CPA) provide the legislative background to coastal management in Scotland. The CPA aims to prevent erosion and encroachment by the sea whereas the FRM Act deals with flooding. Both of these acts are implemented by Local Authorities and public

23 FRMP 2012-2016 http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flooding_publications.aspx 24 http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/regional/Scottish-Coastal-Forum/LCPs

bodies in Scotland so in effect they are implemented together. A number of Government policies influence coastal management, some enacting the above legislation.

 The Scottish Government is subject to international obligations to protect and manage the coastal and marine environment under instruments such as the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directives and 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.  National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3)25 has no reference to a vision for natural coastal defences, but states: as climate change impacts on Scotland’s coastline, there will be a need to address the long-term resilience of some island and coastal communities.  The Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)26 aims to achieve the NPF3 and includes support for: - an integrated approach to coastal planning which recognise rising sea levels and extreme weather events - a precautionary approach to flood risk - identification of areas at risk and areas where a managed realignment of the coast would be beneficial. - local development plans which protect land with the potential to contribute to managing flood risk, e.g. through natural flood management, managed coastal realignment, as part of a scheme to manage flood risk.

Redshank - Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

25 NPF3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00453683.pdf 26 SPP http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00453827.pdf

 Scottish Government’s Land Use Strategy (LUS)27 recognises the value of land for flood management and that land can have multiple uses. The associated Action Plan28 contains an action to develop the land use aspects of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework29 to support communities as they adapt to change including adaptive coastal management that works with natural processes.  Scotland’s Climate Change Adaptation Programme (SCCAP)30 addresses relevant climate change risks as identified in the UKCCRA31. The aim of the Programme is to increase the resilience of Scotland’s people, environment and economy to the impacts of a changing climate. Whilst it sets out useful principles its actions are generally existing government policy but highlighted as having adaptation value.  National Marine Plan (NMP)32 requires marine activity and development to not have adverse impact on coastal processes or contribute to coastal flooding. ‘Wherever possible, flood risk management and coastal protection solutions should work with natural processes and features, encouraging managed realignment of coastal habitats such as sand dunes, salt marshes and mudflats.’  Flood Risk Management Strategies aim to guide appropriate decisions and actions to reduce flood risk in vulnerable areas.

c. Limited funding Despite the lengthy list of policies which influence coastal planning, management and flood risk, there are very few budgets which provide funding for delivering on–the-ground coastal management – and even less funding for managed realignment projects.

Local Authorities receive a budget from central Government from which they can allocate funds to build and maintain coastal flood defences. SEPA’s Flood Risk Management Strategies33 aim to influence more Local Authorities to choose NFM solutions, including managed realignment, as a sustainable approach to coastal flood protection.

Scotland’s Rural Development Programme (SRDP) includes an option which can pay for some of the work involved in managed coastal realignment where there is a clear benefit to reducing flooding. A single option34 in the SRDP provides funding for land owners to remove the sea wall and allow the tides to inundate a defined area of land. It cannot fund construction of secondary coastal defences further inland so is limited in its contribution to the overall cost of any managed realignment project.

27 LUS http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/345946/0115155.pdf 28 LUS Action Plan http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/365706/0124378.pdf 29 superseded by the Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme 30 SAP http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451392.pdf 31 UKCCRA http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=15747 32 http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/6517/5 33 http://apps.sepa.org.uk/FRMStrategies/ 34 Coastal Embankment Breaching, Lowering or Removal - https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsite/futures/topics/all- schemes/agri-environment-climate-scheme/management-options-and-capital-items/coastal-embankment-breaching-- lowering-or-removal

d. A blueprint for the coast In the past Local Authorities constructed and now maintain coastal and flood defences at vulnerable locations for a variety of reasons including, perceived risk, and in response to previous flooding events. This has led to an ad hoc approach to coastal management even where Shoreline Management Plans are in place35. SEPA’s Flood Risk Management Planning process has identified areas vulnerable to coastal flooding through a risk-based approach and could lead to more appropriate flood defence spending where it is most needed – even where an area (by chance) has never flooded but is at high risk. However, the decision making process remains in the hands of Local Authorities and elected councillors, who will develop Local Flood Risk Management Plans. It is important to note that Local Authorities do not have a duty to protect the coast or prevent flooding and are not liable if their powers are not exercised.

Land owners, such as farmers, own embankments and maintain them as flood defences but must do so within the law and with planning permission if needed. With no coordinated approach to maintenance, what results is sporadic and reactive maintenance by landowners. Some defences are very weak and poorly maintained. As the risk of flooding increases due to climate change the question of liability for flooding is becoming more pertinent. If a community was repeatedly flooded leading to economic loss, would insurance companies always pay out in the future? Will some properties become uninsurable? What would happen in a case where it could be proved that a landowner had not maintained their sea defences? Could the landowner be sued? Saltmarsh - Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

35 CREW, 2012, Coastal Flooding in Scotland

The policies listed above say the right thing about coastal adaptation and promote natural flood management but do not deliver a blueprint for Scotland’s coasts. SEPA’s Flood Risk Management Strategies currently have the most influence on coastal management however these mainly focus prioritising action to reduce the vulnerability of people and property. This approach leaves gaps around Scotland’s sea and tidal estuary coastline which are vulnerable to flooding although with a low risk to people or property. The Strategies do not, for example, identify vulnerable farmland or rural areas with isolated dwellings.

The FRM Act is a progressive piece of legislation aiming to move the emphasis away from engineered structures such as concrete walls to using a range of measures including NFM. However, NFM for coasts and estuaries must take a long-term view at a landscape scale to address flooding. Prioritisation at a limited scale based on addressing risk to people and property is inappropriate if we are to ensure soft coasts and estuaries are resilient for decades to come.

In Scotland there is no national long-term vision or plan for coastal change and management. There is no blueprint which sets the overview of what our coasts will look like in future years, where priorities for adaptation are or what choices need to be made. Climate change and sea level rise impacts are certain to happen and adaptation will be needed. A piecemeal approach will not. To increase the resilience of the coasts to climate change, a comprehensive national plan is needed which ensures that local authorities and land managers are adapting their coastal management in a coordinated and sustainable way.

e. New funding As listed above policies are in place which promote NFM, adaptation of the coast and managed realignment. However, as we have seen this is not translated into the ‘day to day’ policies which deliver managed realignment or the scale of NFM planning needed. This situation where the high ambition of environmental policies in Scotland is not matched by the limited level of implementation is not uncommon and was highlighted in a report by IEEP36. The lack of change on the ground and implementation of policy is also symptomatic of coastal policy falling within the no-mans land between established land use planning and policies, and marine policy.

Scotland has policies in place which promote managed realignment, however, there are few which can direct public funds to support habitat creation through managed realignment. The Scottish Government needs to identify new funds which actively support managed coastal realignment and make funding mechanisms fit for purpose.

36 http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/IEEP_scottish_report_final_tcm9-354945.pdf

7. Demonstrating managed realignment now We have seen that the integrity of our coast is increasingly under threat. Conventional solutions of building and maintaining higher sea defences and embankments will not be practical or affordable everywhere in future. In some places land owners, planners and society will have to allow the tides to encroach onto land, either through natural processes or in a controlled way through managed realignment. However, these processes still need to be planned.

We have also discussed that there is currently no masterplan for our coasts or coordinated set of policies to plan coastal change and to adequately fund natural or managed realignment. We have few examples in Scotland of managed realignment and more are needed in order to realise and demonstrate the benefits of such techniques. However, just when we need to kick off more managed realignment projects the policies in place are not facilitating it or are actually discouraging it.

Box 5 explains the potential for managed realignment at Inch of Ferryton on the Forth but also the failure of policies and the lack of funding to make the project a reality. The lack of funding options to make this happen is disappointing and symptomatic of Government policy not supporting the type of action needed now and in the future around the coast.

The Inch of Ferryton is an ideal ‘ready to go’ site with landowner support, and would provide significant benefits for biodiversity close to an existing designated wildlife site1 and would contribute to the Upper Forth Estuary achieving Good Ecological Status for water body physical condition37.

Managed realignment at the Inch of Ferryton would also prevent unplanned flooding of 136 hectares of farmland but despite this the project is unlikely to attract flood prevention funding because it is not within a Potentially Vulnerable Area (PVA) and therefore not a priority for the Local Authority38.

This exposes the gap at this time between what is needed in the long-term for adaptation of the river in response to climate change and the current piecemeal focus on protecting pockets of at-risk people and property, important as this is. It also shows the gap between needing managed realignment projects now in the spirit of the FRM Act, and the current location of potential realignment sites, mostly outwith PVAs.

The lack of long-term climate adaptation planning by the private sector is also apparent in this case study. The full site is crossed by a national gas pipeline and electricity infrastructure, and the companies concerned were contacted as part of the options appraisal. The gas infrastructure is particularly at risk from the impacts of an uncontrolled catastrophic flood event of the area in future years. Despite the high cost of such an incident and the lower cost of a proactive adaptation solution which involves managed realignment, no progress was made in achieving a solution.

37 Under the Water Framework Directive. http://www.sepa.org.uk/data-visualisation/water-environment-hub/ 38 Flood Risk Management Strategies - http://apps.sepa.org.uk/FRMStrategies/

Box 5. Case Study: Inch of Ferryton – an ideal site in the wrong place The Inch of Ferryton site is an example where managed realignment is a realistic option for land use. This low lying farm on the north bank of the tidal Forth near Alloa is managed as an arable farm. However, the landowner’s interest in returning some of his land to inter-tidal habitat stems from the reduced returns on his crops in some years and the high cost of pumping water from the low lying land into the Forth, including water draining from neighbouring farms. An options appraisal led by RSPB Scotland in partnership with the landowner shows the cost effectiveness of a number of options. The most cost effective is a ‘do nothing’ option of letting the sea wall naturally degrade and flood the land in an uncontrolled way. The least cost effective is a Business as Usual option. With another farmer’s land at risk from the ‘do nothing’ option and electricity and gas infrastructure at risk also, a constrained managed realignment option is favoured on an 80ha area which would cost approx £4m. The resulting controlled inundation would create 76ha of intertidal habitat. With willingness of all parties in place and feasibility studies complete this is an excellent ‘shovel ready’ site to demonstrate the possibilities, benefits and realities of managed realignment in Scotland. Being close to centres of population it can also become an attractive visitor destination. To make the project happen external funds are needed as the initial capital cost is clearly high. Despite this project being consistent with Government policy, the mechanisms are not in place to make it happen. As discussed above, SRDP would only pay for removal of the sea wall and not the more costly construction of a new flood defence around the site. Furthermore the site is not within a Potentially Vulnerable Area and is therefore highly unlikely to be funded by the Local Authority for flood defence purposes.

Figure 4. LIDAR image of the low-lying land at the Inch of Ferryton site.

8. Where to start Seas of Change39 highlighted areas of the UK where coastal habitat creation and managed realignment was a realistic possibility. A review of this document for Scotland shows that there is now a potential to realign 66 relatively small sections of the coast to create saltmarsh and intertidal habitats. The review confirms that the sites identified in the original Seas of Change report are still relevant. If all these parcels were realigned it would result in over 4km2 of new saltmarsh and intertidal habitat predominately located in 4 main areas; the Firth of Forth, the Solway, the Tay and the area of the Cromarty, Beauly & Dornoch Firths (Easter Ross and Inverness-shire).

Table 2. Potential areas for return to intertidal habitat through managed realignment

Locality Area (ha) Forth and Lothian 956.4 Solway coast 1545.1 Tay and Fife 424.7 Beauly Firth, Moray Firth & Findhorn 508.0 Cromarty Firth 314.2 Dornoch Firth 35.6 Montrose Basin 221.3 Clyde and Ayrshire 130.2 TOTAL 4135.5

There is no shortage of potential sites for managed realignment projects in Scotland to provide much needed coastal habitat and add protection against impacts of climate change.

9. Conclusions Scotland’s wet, muddy coastal habitats are being lost as sea levels rise. A plan is needed to provide new habitats further inland – one which recognises the many benefits of these habitats for our future resilience. With the soft coast in the front line of climate impacts we must ensure that it is ready for the future. Not all the soft coasts can or should be defended by traditional methods of coastal defence, such as concrete or high embankments. Saltmarsh and intertidal habitats can play an important role in NFM but need space and other land uses to change. Furthermore, saltmarsh habitat needs time to develop and become effective.

There is no long-term national plan for climate-proofing the coasts. Whilst major impacts on people and property from sea level rise and coastal flooding may be some years off, the impacts on wildlife habitat are apparent now. It is time that a holistic and comprehensive approach to active coastal adaptation is developed which considers all impacts and outlines

39 http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/seasofchange_tcm9-132925.pdf

actions needed now and in the future. The policies currently in place only do bits and pieces but don’t give overall direction.

This report has identified few policies in place to realise coastal NFM through managed realignment, and a lack of funding to make these happen. New and innovative funding is needed to pay for NFM and managed realignment around our coasts.

10. Recommendations Scotland needs to recreate a swathe of lost intertidal habitats along the coast to protect us from flooding and climate change, as well as providing more homes for wildlife. To make this happen RSPB Scotland recommends 10 actions needed now, as follows:

1. Commitment and leadership from the Scottish Government to recreating coastal habitats through managed coastal realignment and other techniques. 2. Development of a long-term vision for Scotland’s coasts that allows its timely and sustainable adaptation to sea level rise and climate impacts. 3. Publication of a blueprint for coastal adaptation and change which considers all risks and potential impacts, and prioritises action to optimise the potential multiple benefits of altered land use. 4. Coastal land use planning featuring prominently in the next Land Use Strategy. 5. Four managed realignment projects completed by Dec 2018 with a new long-term target set for the area of intertidal habitat to be created through managed realignment in Scotland. 6. New funding for managed realignment projects to start protecting the coast now and in order to learn lessons and build on existing best practice. 7. A review of funding mechanisms which meet the full cost of managed realignment projects. 8. Innovative funding streams sought which recognise the natural capital along our coasts and potential of NFM solutions and managed realignment. 9. Publication of improved guidance for land owners on maintenance of coastal defences in order to avoid negative impacts and to promote long-term planning. 10. A greater emphasis on and promotion of NFM techniques to and by local authorities so that familiar hard engineering options are not seen as the only realistic solution.

For more information, contact:

Jim Densham, Senior Land Use Policy Officer (Climate) RSPB Scotland, 2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh EH12 9DH

Tel: 0131 3174100 Email: [email protected]

Registered Charity England and Wales Number 207076, Scotland Number SC037654

RSPB Scotland is part of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the UK-wide charity which speaks out for birds and wildlife, tackling the problems that threaten our environment. Nature is amazing - help us keep it that way