UK Data Archive Study Number 7359 Understanding and Acting In

UK Data Archive

Study Number 7359

Understanding and Acting in Loweswater, 2007-2010

USER GUIDE

To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

End of Award Report: ‘Understanding and Acting in Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management’, RES-229-25-0008.

Background This research was carried out by an interdisciplinary team of six researchers based at Lancaster University and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster, and one ‘community researcher’, a farmer based in Loweswater. The RELU project ‘Understanding and Acting in Loweswater’ (2007-2010) was preceded by a 6-month RELU ‘scoping study’ which took place in 2004 (Waterton et al. 2005, 2006). This scoping study found that an interdisciplinary approach to understanding Loweswater and its ecological, social and economic interactions might help address the specific environmental problem of potentially toxic algal blooms formed by cyanobacteria, (blue-green algae), found in Loweswater. It also suggested that it would be desirable to: 1. link aquatic and terrestrial ecological knowledge; 2. understand how economic issues for those living and working in the catchment affect resource use and management (including waste disposal), and hence Loweswaters’ aquatic and terrestrial ecology; 3. understand how institutional arrangements pertaining to agriculture, water resources, environmental protection, economic regeneration, local government, tourism and recreation shape opportunities and constraints for catchment management; 4. understand the role of local culture, local knowledge and understanding in shaping land and resource use and management in the catchment; 5. move away from a ‘command and control’ regulatory style and innovate with a new ‘bottom-up’ approach to addressing the catchment’s problems and opportunities.

The present (2007-2010) RELU study built upon these conclusions, which themselves drew upon a wider body of research appraising the value of interdisciplinary working, especially in integrated catchment management (Collins et al. 2007, Watson, Walker and Medd 2007, Watson 2007), rural sociology, and human geography (Lowe and Phillipson 2006a and b). This impetus towards interdisciplinarity was further supported by research in Science and Technology Studies (STS) that has for many years argued for critical reflection on the component knowledges that are used in areas of science relevant to the public/policy domain, including that of ‘the environment’ (Wynne 1996, 2005, 2006; Irwin 1995, 2001; Jasanoff 2002, 2004; Leach, Scoones and Wynne 2005). STS research suggests that critical reflection on the way we do science and policy can travel beyond the academic, into the making and doing of science, technology and public policy in practice (e.g. Rabeharisoa and Callon 2004). Building on this, the research aimed to create a broader ‘participatory’, local- and stakeholder-relevant framework within which problems could be framed and re- framed, methodologies debated, and results and findings critically scrutinized, ideally by all participants. This meant creating new experimental partnerships which included relevant publics and varied forms of expertise. The three research objectives and research clusters (methods) of the project are briefly described below. Subsequently, the main insights generated by the research are summarized.

1 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Objectives The research had three objectives:

1. The creation of a new institutional mechanism To create a mechanism that would enable decision making by community- stakeholders and institutional-stakeholders to foster long-term ecological, economic and social sustainability within the Loweswater catchment.

2. The creation of a knowledge-base for decision making To carry out interdisciplinary research in order to produce a catchment knowledge- base to inform decision-making. This encompassed two inter-linked clusters, one focused on physical aspects of the catchment and the other focused on human aspects: 2.1a) economic value, land and water; 2.1b) terrestrial ecology and farm economy; 2.1c) linking terrestrial and aquatic ecological monitoring; and 2.2a) institutional and policy context, 2.2b) local knowledge and 2.2c) Cross-fertilising local, scientific and policy knowledge.

3. The transferability of the approach To carry out research into the 'transferability' of this approach and to examine whether it was a) beneficial; and b) transferable, and if so, how, at what scales, and for what kinds of problems. These objectives remained the same throughout the course of the project. We would suggest that all objectives have been successfully met – to be judged from our main results, presented below.

Methods Objective 1: The Setting up of a new institutional mechanism, the Loweswater Care Project (LCP) Previous work on algal blooms in Loweswater including attempts to manage and mitigate pollution incorporated a) scientific monitoring of lake and stream water quality in the catchment by CEH and the Environment Agency; b) the EA sending out ‘enforcement letters’ to holdings considered to be in breach of domestic waste management regulations c) the creation by farmers of a farmers’ action group, the ‘Loweswater Improvement Group’, to address obvious sources of phosphorus pollution in the catchment (this encompassed soil nutrient testing, re-routing water in yards, instalment of a reed bed system and new septic tanks for domestic waste waters funded partly through LEADER+). The potential to broaden out these collaborative efforts was supported by the findings of the RELU scoping study (Waterton et al. 2006).

The present RELU project helped create a new institutional mechanism, the Loweswater Care Project (LCP), which aimed to support the sharing of expertise, deliberative and negotiated planning, self-organisation and social learning. The ideas behind it followed many aspects of a ‘catchment management’ approach known as Integrated Catchment Management (Watson 2004; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Watson et al. 2007, 2009) as well as developments in the theory and practice of what has become known as technical democracy (Latour 2004; Callon et al. 2009). We say the RELU

2 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

research helped create this mechanism, as it did not fully drive this process. Rather, the LCP came into being through the involvement of researchers, the local community, agency representatives, and other stakeholders together. This entailed some delicate manoeuvring on the part of the RELU researchers, who wanted to stimulate the formation of this group , but did not want to dominate its evolution or set the agenda from ‘outside’.

The LCP was run as a forum that: • Levelled-out hierarchies and boundaries among institutions, researchers, and members of the local community; • Allowed for critical engagement by all actors with research and community agendas; • Encouraged the blending of previously distinct areas of research and action; • Supported ‘outside-the-box’ thinking and action on environment-society relationships in the catchment. Theoretically, it provided a space where a particular orientation to the making of collective knowledge could be developed. In STS terms it became a ‘reflexive organization’ – one that ‘constantly questions the procedures and tools enabling it to learn, and evaluate this competence and knowledge so as to decide on future actions’ (Rabherisoa and Callon 2004). Within the LCP, researchers consciously tested these ideas in practice and - building on STS theory (ibid and Latour 2004) - promoted particular ways of thinking about the creation of collective knowledge for the ‘common good’ that included the notions that:

• Understandings of nature are not self evident; • All knowledge and expertise needs to be debated; • Uncertainties in knowledge need highlighting and accepting; • New connections are valuable; • Doubt and questioning is to be extended to all the LCP’s representations, including scientific representationsi.

The LCP met 15 times between June 2008 – December 2010ii. These three-and-a-half hour evening meetings attracted between 25-35 participants, including typically 3-6 natural/social scientists from Lancaster/CEH, and 2-5 agency representatives from Natural England (NE), National Trust (NT), Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA), Environment Agency (EA), Natural England (NE) and others. The agenda was driven by the participants. A mission statement was created:

“The Loweswater Care Project (LCP) is a grassroots organisation made up of local residents, businesses, farmers, ecologists, sociologists, agronomists, environmental agencies and other interested parties. We work collectively to identify and address catchment-level problems in an inclusive and open manner. The LCP’s vision is to gain a better understanding of the diverse challenges faced by the Loweswater catchment and together to seek economically, socially and ecologically viable ways forward and put them into practice” (February 2009).

3 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Efforts were made by all to make ideas accessible without ‘dumbing down’ complex issues – a key concern in Public Understanding of Science debates (Irwin 1995, 2001, Irwin & Wynne 1996, Wynne 2005, 2005). The LCP became an informative, critical and agonistic forum in which experts of many different kinds met to discuss topics of concern, (e.g. the EA on the EU Water Framework Directive). A website (www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/loweswater) with regular updates, minutes, etc., was constructed for Loweswater residents, LCP participants, and wider non- scientific/scientific communities. An Advisory Group of 5 academics and stakeholders was appointed to provide guidance as the LCP developed (two invaluable full-day workshops were held with this group). The LCP proposed additional research through a budget of £35k allocated for this within the RELU grant. One of the projects most innovative features, it made it possible for local people to become involved in research and five studies were funded in 2009, two by residents of Loweswater (Davies & Clarke 2010; Webb 2010). The other three fostered novel interdisciplinary work and investigations into areas deemed particularly important by LCP participants (Bennion & Winchester 2010, Haycock 2010, Maberly 2011).

Through the LCP’s ways of working, participants gained considerable collective understanding of the interconnections between the wider economy, the sociology and rural economy of Loweswater, the ecology of the catchment and the institutional relations pertaining to this small valley. The LCP also built up ‘cultural capital’: for example, some participants gave witness, in a survey carried out to evaluate the LCP in 2010, to the improvement of relations between local farmers and the National Trust as a direct result of LCP meetings. Because of its novel approach and open philosophy, the LCP attracted regional attention and publicityiii. Good links were established with other community groups who sought our advice: the Coniston and Crake Partnership and the Shropshire Hills AONB. Following a knowledge-transfer conference in Penrith (December 2010), Dr Doug Wilson, Head of Research, Monitoring & Innovation, in the Environment Agency, wrote of the LCP: "I think the work at Loweswater is probably one of the best examples of participation on addressing an environmental issue that I've seen"iv.

Challenges, however, included LCP participants experiencing a ‘lack of direction’ as CEH/Lancaster researchers kept the agenda open so as to be directed from within the LCP. This disorientation dissipated with time as LCP participants began to do research and take ownership of the group. Later challenges aired at the Penrith conference in 2010 included questions such as:

• Can we all work with such open, multi-faceted (social/natural) versions of ‘a problem’? • How do we deal collectively with such versions ? • Certain aspects of Loweswater’s algal problems are beyond human control (e.g. the recycling of Phosphorus in lake sediments). How can we deal with this?

4 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

• Who should bear the responsibilities/costs of practical actions? • Does working like this only make sense on a small scale? • Can institutions work with the kinds of understandings and actions that the LCP is generating? How? These challenges overlap with the experiences of other participatory projects (Blackmore 2007, Collins et al. 2007, Connelly, Richardson and Miles 2006, Hubacek and Reed 2009). Yet despite current lack of funding, in November 2010 and February 2011, LCP participants (without CEH/Lancaster researchers but including key stakeholders (EA, NT, local farmers)) resolved to maintain the LCP and its activities. The CEH/Lancaster researchers are happy to support this ‘new version’ of the LCP in any way requested.

Objective 2: Creating a catchment knowledge base This objective aimed to understand the catchment from multiple perspectives, including both its physical and human aspects, detailed above.

2.1a) Terrestrial Ecology and Farm Economy Established methods (as used in the Countryside Survey, 2007) were employed to measure the ecological and landscape attributes of the land in the catchment (Carey et al., 2008). An agricultural/economic assessment of the catchment was made in collaboration with the farmers by a trusted local farm business advisor (John Rockliffe), who collected data on stocking rates, farm income, fertiliser application, and other parameters needed to create a farm P budget.

2.1b) Linking Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Monitoring A monthly lake monitoring programme, using standard techniques, was carried out over 3 years. Additionally, a meteorological station and lake monitoring equipment was installed on a buoy on Loweswater. Data, down-loaded by telemetry, included: temperature profiles, oxygen concentration, temperature, pH, conductivity at surface and depth, and surface chlorophyll a. Data were uploaded to the project web-site. Meteorological data were used to drive a lake model linking land cover and management to water quality and the in-lake data were used in model validation. Fish populations were investigated using three approaches: 1) a historical perspective through a student dissertation (Shaw, 2009); 2) analysis of unpublished data on recent fisheries performance in the lake and on fish abundance from electrofishing in its inflowing and outflowing streams provided by the NT and EA, respectively; and 3) scientific assessments of the lake’s fish community conducted in the summers of 2007, 2008 and 2009 combining night-time survey gill nets and hydroacoustic surveys during the day and night to produce information on fish species, abundance, individual condition and spatio-temporal distributions (Winfield et al., 2009).

2.1c) Creating community and stakeholder informed decision-support mechanisms Several different kinds of data were used as decision-support mechanisms:

5 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

• Terrestrial ecology and farm management data were incorporated into a GIS framework to link management practices with the environmental quality of the land. • Data collected under 1a and b (above) were used in catchment modelling. The modelling process was opened out to knowledge inputs beyond those originally envisaged and adopted a very practice-oriented approach. The modelling methodology used a series of linked models to assess Phosphorus (P) runoff from the catchment to the lake and its impact on water quality. Outputs from a farm nutrient budget model, Planning Land Applications of Nutrients for Efficiency and the environment (PLANET), fed into a hydrological model (GWLF) and nutrient outputs from the hydrological model fed into the algal production model (PROTECH). • In addition to a ‘current conditions’ scenario as input to the model, four further scenarios were explored to reflect alternative land management options. Non- farming scenarios included a wooded (deciduous) catchment (‘woodland’ scenario), and a no-input grassland scenario without livestock (‘natural grassland’). Farming scenarios included: ‘no cattle, double sheep numbers’ and ‘double cattle, half sheep numbers’ representing potential, though extreme, changes in the livestock composition of the catchment. • Nutrient loads from septic tanks (from an LCP study by Webb, 2010) were input to the GWLF model in two ways, see Figure 1: 1) As a diffuse source of nutrients where P discharge from septic tanks was incorporated into the farm nutrient budget in the same way as other sources of nutrients and 2) as a point source of nutrients where effluent was assumed to discharge directly to the watercourse, i.e. a worst case scenario. • Based on the data from the scientific fisheries surveys and the historical data collated, guidelines were developed for the sustainable management of fisheries in Loweswater. . 2.2a) Institutional and policy context Literature reviews of relevant policy documents were carried out, semi-structured interviews were held with key agency representatives (Annex 3).

2.2b) Local knowledge Semi-structured interviews were held with local residents. Of the 19 permanent households and 43 permanent residents in the catchment at the time of the study 22 people from 13 households were interviewed. A further 16 interviews included: 13 people living in the Parish of Loweswater (including 3 farmers with in-bye land in the catchment), and 3 people from outside the Parish (2 of whom had lived in Loweswater for 21 years, and 1 who had grown up there). Out of the 8 farmers with in-bye land in the catchment, 7 agreed to be interviewed. As not all residents agreed to be interviewed, interviews are not representative of the ‘Loweswater community’, but provide views of a subset of people linked to Loweswater.

2c) Cross-fertilise local, scientific and policy knowledges Results from the policy literature review (2.2a), semi-structured interviews with local residents and institutions (2.2 a and b), and from the ecological research (1a,b, and c) were pooled in two ways. Firstly, through the interactions of the researchers themselves, in regular joint meetings held at Lancaster University. Secondly, through

6 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

the mechanism of the LCP. The latter allowed for many questions, openings, challenges and sometimes re-framings of the issues at stake.

Results 2.1a) Terrestrial Ecology and Farm Economy Most farms are mixed sheep and cattle farming enterprises. The majority have diversified into other enterprises or rely on other income sources but are heavily dependent on single farm payments and agri-environment funding to sustain their livelihoods (Rockcliffe 2009). The economic value of land in catchment is therefore currently low but highly influenced by livestock prices globally as well as government funding nationally. The ecological value of the catchment was measured in terms of its habitats and their quality. The use of the Countryside Survey (Carey et al. 2008) enabled land at Loweswater to be compared with land elsewhere. The Loweswater catchment is relatively rich in habitats (12 per 1km square compared to 7.5 in comparable squares) and contains greater extents of hedges, lines of trees and numbers of individual trees than comparable areas. In contrast, species richness of agricultural grassland is broadly in line with that of comparable land. Farms vary in terms of ecological quality and research indicated that larger farms tend to contain fewer habitats and landscape features.

2.1b) Linking Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Data from the monitoring programme (2007-2010) revealed a slight improvement in water quality as compared to measurements taken in the early 2000s. Between 2008 and 2010 annual concentrations of Phosphorus and phytoplankton chlorophyll a were lower and the oxygen concentration at 6 – 8 m was slightly higher. Shaw’s work on fish at Loweswater indicated that 100 years ago recreational angling for brown trout was widely held as among the best game fishing in the North of England but this had only been achieved by extensive stocking of brown trout. Significant declines in returns by the middle of the last century led to native perch and pike being removed in the 1970s. Subsequently, further stocking with brown trout was undertaken resulting in a temporary improvement in fishing by the mid 1980s. Analysis of recent fishery information kept by the NT and the EA indicated that brown trout and salmonid populations have once again declined in the lake. The gill- netting surveys of 2007 and 2009 showed that perch overwhelmingly dominated the fish community, with much lower numbers of brown trout, minnow and pike. Offshore, few fish were recorded in the deeper parts of the lake, probably as a result of the very low oxygen concentration. However, hydroacoustic surveys detected abundant phantom midge larvae, Chaoborus, for which low oxygen at depth provides a refuge from fish predation. In contrast to the other lakes of this part of the U.K. where small fish are the major predator of the zooplankton, in Loweswater the peculiar environmental conditions interact to result in Chaoborus assuming this role (Tsouvalis, Waterton and Winfield, 2011). This may affect the amount of cyanobacteria that the lake supports.

2.1c) Creating community and stakeholder informed decision-support mechanisms i) Terrestrial Ecology and farm management

7 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

The strong focus on community engagement in this project led to the adoption of a pragmatic, grant-focussed approach to valuing the ecological aspects of the catchment. This shift of focus was considered appropriate given the constrained agricultural options farmers have and given the restricted economic data. Information from catchment mapping was transferred to maps used for applications for the Entry and Higher Level agri-environment schemes. Discussions with the NE officer responsible for the catchment confirmed that all farmers were eligible for Entry Level Scheme farming (two farmers subsequently entered this scheme – the others remained under other agreements). When renewals are due for the majority of farmers (in 2012/13) the potential for a joint catchment Higher Level Scheme application (providing higher levels of income) specifically addressing the role of habitats in enhancing lake water quality will be explored. This area of work proved important for farmer-engagement and brought broader understanding to both the farming and non- farming communities in the catchment and to institutional stakeholders involved in the LCP about the role of farmers in providing ‘ecosystem services’. It highlighted the constraints on farming as well as the poor economic returns received for both schemes and (at times) produce in these areas of high landscape value.

ii) Linking land use and water quality Full details on model results are provided in additional materials (Norton et al., 2011). Results from the farm nutrient balance model PLANET indicated that for the majority of the farms, P was in limited supply with most running a small P-deficit in terms of maximising their productivity. However, one farm was found to be generating a large P surplus (an issue immediately addressed by the farmer who reduced P inputs upon accessing monitoring results). When septic tank discharge was treated as point sources (worst case), the load was approximately 15% of the total.

GWLF used rainfall data to convert annual to daily nutrient loads. With data from GWLF for 2009 as a driver, PROTECH simulated the development of the phytoplankton populations. The modelled data agreed reasonably well with the monitoring data for chlorophyll a (R2 = 0.53, P<0.01), and for cyanobacteria (R2 = 0.64, P<0.01). The predicted annual mean in-lake chlorophyll a concentration of 8.9 mg m-3 accords well with annual monthly measurements for 2008 and 2009, i.e. 9.0 and 9.6 mg chlorophyll a m-3, respectively.

Scenarios S2 ‘woodland’ and S3 ‘natural grassland’ had low nutrient inputs and predicted concentrations of chlorophyll a and cyanobacterial chlorophyll a which were 66% and 80% lower than the current conditions scenario S1 (Fig. 1). At these low nutrient levels, and for S3 in particular, chlorophyll a production in the lake was particularly sensitive to inputs from septic tanks as point sources, where P reaches the lake directly. The ‘no cattle, double sheep numbers’ and ‘double cattle, half sheep numbers’’ (S4 and S5) scenarios produced concentrations of chlorophyll a and cyanobacteria that were higher than the S1 scenario.

8 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

14 )

3 M:P - S5A S4A 12 S5

(mgm S1A a S4 10 S1

8

G:M 6 S3A

4 S2 S2A H:G S3

Annual mean chlorophyll chlorophyll mean Annual 2

0 0 100 200 300 400 Phosphorus load (kg SRP y-1)

Figure 1. Annual mean in-lake total (●) and cyanobacterial (●) chlorophyll a concentrations resulting from changes in the soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) load to the lake under various scenarios. The scenario for cyanoabacteria is the same as that for total chlorophyll vertically above it. S1 –‘current conditions’, S2 – ‘woodland’, S3 – ‘natural grassland’, S4 – ‘no cattle’, S5 – ‘double cattle’. For points labelled with A septic tanks function as point sources rather than diffuse. The horizontal lines are the Good:Moderate and High:Good WFD boundaries.

The relationship between annual mean total algal chlorophyll and cyanobacterial chlorophyll a and total annual mean load of SRP make it possible to assess the differential responses of the lake algae to altering nutrient loads. Figure 1 suggests that the current load of SRP would need to be halved to achieve ‘Good’ ecological status in terms of the Water Framework Directive (European Union 2000). Removing high intensity farming altogether (as in scenarios S2 ‘woodland’ and S3 ‘natural grassland’) would enable the lake to reach the ‘High’ category. In contrast, significant changes in livestock densities (‘no cattle, double sheep numbers’ and ‘double cattle, half sheep numbers’ (S4 and S5) ) could push the lake towards ‘Poor’ ecological status.

The model successfully engaged with local expertise and demonstrated the connection between land use in the catchment and the occurrence of cyanobacterial blooms in the lake. Exposure of the community to the modelling work through the LCP was part of the research’s commitment to community-led integrated catchment management. All residents (including farmers and non-farmers) had a stake in the modelling by virtue of the inclusion of septic tank information alongside farm management inputs. Losses from septic tanks were clearly less important than agricultural losses overall but are nevertheless important to signal areas where the community might take action.

9 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Modelling results led farmers to express an interest in the impact of a conversion to organic farming - a potential scenario which may be explored in future work. Presentations of the modelling results to the community always stressed potential uncertainties in the results, such as unquantifiable/unquantified sources of P (e.g. in lake sediments) and lack of information on connectivity. iii) Implications for sustainable local fisheries management The recommended management for the fish community of Loweswater is to accept that the lake is naturally dominated by perch, with pike also present. Management of Loweswater’s fish populations should encompass reducing the lake’s eutrophication level to the benefit of all species, and ensuring the availability of, and access to, stream gravels for brown trout. Catchment management practices which reduce in- stream sedimentation are to be encouraged (Summers et al., 1996). A small-scale ‘quality experience’ fishery for brown trout and perch, and possibly pike, may be sustainable, although great care must be taken to guard against new fish species being introduced through live bait (Winfield & Durie, 2004).

2.2a) Institutional arrangements and policy context Although the Loweswater catchment area is small (< 9 km2), the institutional arrangements pertaining to land and water are complex. Nine farmers use land in the catchment and several large public and charitable ‘institutions’ including the EA, NE, LDNPA and NT share powers and responsibilities for the management and protection of the land and water. As owner of the lake, but only a proportion of the surrounding catchment area, the NT has particular interests in ensuring land is well-managed and water quality is improved. The EA, has published evidence showing that, nationally, diffuse pollution is a major contributing factor to poor ambient water quality (Environment Agency, 2007). Furthermore, farming was identified as a key source of diffuse pollution, accounting for 61% of nitrate entering surface waters and 40% of the phosphate load in rivers. The EA advocates a whole-catchment approach to the management of water, and a number of legislative controls are already available to control diffuse nutrient inputs from farming. The EA is also the ‘competent authority’ with responsibility for the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) in England and Walesv. The WFD establishes a new policy framework which could potentially lead to the development of an action plan for the Loweswater catchment and the implementation of additional regulatory, voluntary and incentive-based mechanisms to tackle diffuse pollution. However, the WFD’s focus on very large geographical areas and the amalgamation of water bodies for assessment purposes has meant that small lakes such as Loweswater are obscured in the water quality assessment process. Conversely, larger water bodies such as Bassenthwaite and Windermere ‘stand-out’ and have been prioritized for water quality improvement. The structure of the WFD implementation process, coupled with the limited resources available to the EA suggest that Loweswater is unlikely to receive much attention during the first river basin planning and management cycle – to 2015. At a policy level, the need to link land and water management has been widely recognized. However, in practice, this is difficult to achieve. The Town and Country Planning system provides significant controls over land use in rural areas, but agriculture retains many permitted development rights for built development.

10 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Management of farm land itself is not controlled through the planning system. There are, however, other initiatives which are being used to align farming with water management objectives (for example, the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI) operated by NE). In addition to management advisory services for farmers, ECSDI provides a capital grants scheme in designated priority catchments (currently Wyre, Bassenthwaite Lake, Kent/Levens, Ribble, parts of the Cheshire Meres and Mosses in the NW). Other available mechanisms are the Single Farm Payment of the Common Agricultural Policy which requires cross-compliance with environmental standards, and the Rural Development Programme for England (including Uplands Entry Level Scheme and Environmental Stewardship Higher Level Scheme). The LDNPA has a statutory responsibility to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to promote understanding and enjoyment of the park area by the public whilst also fostering the economic and social well-being of local communities – issues which are highly pertinent to the Loweswater community. The Management Plan for the Lake District National Park 2010-15 was produced by 23 partnership organisations (including borough, district and county councils, the EA, National Farmers Union, NT and NE). The Loweswater Care Project is specifically named in the Plan as one of fourteen lake and valley catchment initiatives which are intended to guide and influence the management of the landscape over the five-year period. Two aims outlined in the Plan are of particular importance to Loweswater: SL2 – protecting and restoring natural water features through whole catchment management; and SL3 – creating a joined-up approach to manage and enhance cultural and natural features, habitats and wildlife. They are reflected in Strategic Activity 22 in the Plan: improve the quality of surface waters in the National Park. This will be achieved by a comprehensive lakes-wide programme of surface water quality improvements, to be led by the EA and completed by 2012. However, the Plan states that these “will initially be for the priority catchments of Bassenthwaite Lake and Windermere but will seek to cover the whole Lake District in the future” (LDNPP 2010: 71). The NT actively promotes a more integrated approach to the management of water, land and related natural resources and published ‘From Source to Sea: Working with Water’ in 2008 (National Trust, 2008). The report argues that “it is time to move away from fragmented land and water management to embrace a new approach that respects natural river catchments and their processes, and considers our impacts upon water along its entire path from source to sea” (p.24). In addition to applying these new approaches to the land and water which it owns, the Trust called on other public and private interests to adopt the same principles. This is highly relevant to the situation at Loweswater. The research involved interviews and LCP round-table discussions with key representatives for the EA, NE, LDNPA and NT (Annex 3). Findings here indicate that all institutions support the principle of integrated management of land and water. Agencies argued that their organisations were already changing policy to reflect this new, more integrated, approach and expressed commitment towards working with local communities. Nevertheless, it became clear that putting a policy of integrated catchment management into practice was problematic for them. Each institution has different geographical boundaries and implements policy at different spatial scales. As such, there is a fundamental institutional problem of weak ‘spatial fit’ inhibiting the

11 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

implementation of integrated catchment management policy at the local level in the Lake District. Management institutions are accustomed to dealing with well-defined problems where actions, responsibilities and intended outcomes can be clearly identified. As such, the LCP represented a very new and different way of working for them, and some were unsure about how their own organisation could contribute. In some cases water quality problems at Loweswater were not perceived to be particularly serious relative to conditions in other water bodies across the region. All of the institutions have limited financial, human and technical resources which are inevitably targeted at priority areas. This raises the question as to how agencies can better respond where the situation is deemed serious locally but has not yet reached priority status at larger scales.

2.2b) Local Knowledge Interviews with local residents explored local understandings and knowledge of physical/ecological changes as well as those related to social and cultural life. These were fed into the developing interdisciplinary research of the LCP.

Population and work trends Loweswater Parish is shifting towards an ‘aging’ society (see census data for 1981, 1991, 2001; Bond, 1985, and Davies & Clarke, 2010). Of our own limited sample of 38 people, only 2 were below the age of 40, and 23 were over 60 years old. This is characteristic of a trend identified by the Commission for Rural Communities for England (2010:4) and across Europe and beyond (Brown, 2010).

Of our 38 interviewees, 15 were retired. The local population is constantly being replenished by new retiring offcomers as retirees only tend to live in Loweswater for around a 15-20 year period before moving into nearby towns to access amenities needed by the really elderly. Fourteen of our interviewees were farmers (incl. family members), and 8 were in other forms of full-time employment. Interviews confirmed that employment in the agricultural and tourism sectors is precarious in upland areas like Loweswater. Development in tourism is virtually non-existent in this area designated as a ‘quiet valley’ by the LDNPA.

Social groupings and ‘community’ relations In our sample, 22 of all interviewees were born outside Cumbria and 16 were born in Cumbria. There are significant differences between the life histories and the values of different people within the catchment: between those who come to retire to the valley, bringing their financial and cultural capital with them (15 of the 22 interviewees born outside Cumbria were retired), on the one hand, and those who make their living from the land or the landscape (farmers and people working in the tourism sector) on the other. The influx of retirees from urban areas seemed not to be a source of outward antagonism even though it perpetuates the inflated costs of local housing and price younger families, who may bring a broader diversity of employment (as well as children) to the valley, out of the market. Integration in Loweswater often depends on the acceptance by offcomers of particular roles and chores offered to them by existing residents, such as taking on administrative roles in local clubs, etc.. Challenging local

12 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

ways of thinking and doing things seems generally to be frowned upon. Interviews revealed delicate power relationships that must be navigated to sustain a sense of ‘community’ in Loweswater.

Memories and perceptions of Loweswater and the local environment Interview-derived insights into land-use change, changes in agricultural practice, relations with institutional representatives (especially the NT), and hypotheses about possible causes of the cyanobacterial problem were brought into the forum of the LCP for discussion. For example, a dominant perception that the lake-level had risen, thought to have been caused by a lack in river maintenance practices (dredging) around the lake outlet, was perceived by many as a cause of the algae problem. To follow this up, an LCP talk on changing river maintenance policies was organised with an EA representative. In addition, a geomorphological survey of the catchment was commissioned, using part of the £35K that the LCP had available to propose its own research (Haycock, 2010).

Farmer’s Perspectives Loweswater resembles other upland rural farming communities in the UK (Burton et al 2004, IEEP 2004) and elsewhere in western Europe (Arnason et al., 2009). Farmers occupy a fascinating position in the catchment, since they are the repositories of the most intimate, nuanced and often historically rich knowledge of the land, yet they are also in thrall to markets, policies and decision making that are made/make sense, at much greater scales. As the main land-users and land and landscape ‘producers’ in Loweswater, farmers’ activities can have profound effects on the visual landscape, but also on land and aquatic ecology. There is a particularly strong mythology that farmer’s know-how and intimate cultural knowledge is rooted in farming practices that have, over generations, stayed more or less the same. Interviews, however, revealed significant changes in Loweswater farm practices over the last 30+ years. Technological progress, a decrease in man-power, a decrease in the diversity of farm operations, a decrease in the number and a consequent increase in the size of farms in Loweswater, an increase in outside control, paper work, and stress, proved common themes. There were 33 farms in the parish in 1881; 28 in 1945 and 12 in 2008 (Southey 2008: 9). Currently there are 8 farms with in-bye land in the catchment of Loweswater. However, even during the period of the research (2007- 2010) some amalgamation of farm activities and land has taken place.

Objective 3 – transferability of research Questions and Methods An important initial question for the project was whether the kind of interdisciplinary, participatory ‘knowledge collective’ we hoped to create in Loweswater could serve as a model mechanism for other problems and places. If so, at what scale? We also needed to consider what the core ‘immutable’ elements of the LCP model might be – which elements could be held as ‘principles’? On the other hand there was the question of which aspects might need to be more responsive to the local specificities of new ‘problem-places’. Lastly, there was the wider context in which the LCP, or mechanisms like it, might ‘fit’. Transferability, is not solely about a mechanism being transferred, it is about such a mechanism being able to be sustained in a new context (de Laet and Mol 1999).

13 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

The ‘transferability’ work package of the research was carried out by discussing and thinking through the experience of carrying out the interdisciplinary/stakeholder-rich research (the’ knowledge base’) and creating and sustaining the LCP. This included: regular researchers’ meetings at Lancaster, 2 meetings and a workshop on ‘Interdisciplinarity’ (November 2010), a workshop with other catchment management practitioners (April 2010), visits to some of the key agencies (e.g. LDNPA, June 2010), the participation of agencies in the LCP, the participation of RELU researchers in agency-led fora (Tsouvalis/Maberly in the Science Task Group for Bassenthwaite and Windermere; Watson in the Defra Test Catchment Management Initiative, Winfield in the Still Waters Partnership) and the final project workshop on December 3rd 2010. The latter involved representatives from Defra, the EA, the Commission for Rural Communities, the LDNPA, NT and many more organisations interested in experimenting with new forms of environmental governance. Many of these organisations were interested to see if Loweswater held up as a good model for bottom-up working with communities around environmental problems. Transferability was also ‘practiced’ in knowledge exchange activities with other local groups: e.g. the Coniston and Crake Partnership and the Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership.

Results Scale Scale is an important issue in relation to Loweswater and one which was explored at an international conference on ‘Scaling and Governance’ in late 2010. An advantage of working at a small scale like Loweswater is the ability to engage directly with those making decisions about land management. The decisions made as a result of our research include beck clearing, entry into agri-environment schemes, changes to fertiliser applications, improvements in slurry tanks and yard water arrangements, new septic tanks and closer management of septic tanks. It is these decisions, and the awareness of the community of their impacts, that will ultimately improve catchment land and water quality. In thinking about ‘transferability’, however, it is recognised that not every small catchment can receive the input (£500,000 over three years) invested at Loweswater. At the Penrith conference (December 2010) and through our engagement with different science and task groups (see above), we have learnt much about how national level institutions think about working with people and communities at much larger scales. But we would still suggest that working at the level appropriate to the problem as recognised by those on the ground is a commitment that needs to be made. Our conclusion is that scales are not static: ‘scale- making’ (Tsing 2005), or working at the appropriate scale for local communities, is a vital aspect of working with people-in-place.

Local situatedness and collective working Fundamental to the project was the way in which it originated, building upon farmers’ responses to poor water quality in the lake. The LCP extended this original response, bringing in local residents, representatives of the institutions with vested interests there, and social and natural scientists to do ‘collective work’. Communication was recognised as being of crucial importance in making collective knowledge (as explored at the Water and Risk workshop, Durham 2010, the Lancaster ‘Philosophies of Catchment Management’ Workshop, April 2010, and through discussions with EA

14 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Catchment Sensitive Farming officers at Bassenthwaite/ in the South West (see Norton et al., 2011). We suggest that the idea of ‘transferability’ needs to take into account how existing initiatives have welled up from locally situated actors and concerns.

Can we offer core principles? Some core aspects of the way that the LCP was established may be ‘transferable’ as a model for other places where new ways for trying to achieve environmental governance are being trialled. The LCP was a deliberately reflexive organisation, bringing together knowledge and action, but also critically questioning the procedures and tools enabling it to learn, and the knowledge/actions being produced (Rabherisoa and Callon, 2004, See also Christie and Verran, 2007). In practice this meant that items brought to the LCP for discussion were heavily scrutinised and never taken as self-evident. Uncertainties and ignorance were often highlighted. Alternative perspectives were welcomed and often taken up as the starting point for new investigations. Although there are aspects of our methodologies, models and approaches that are transferable to other similar problem-places (e.g. the PLANET model offers potential for farmers elsewhere to create a farm nutrient budget), this critical, yet also very open philosophy of investigation within the LCP as a ‘reflexive organisation’ is the sole thing that we think is potentially transferable to any attempt to understand the complexity of problems at the same time as promoting collective action. Everything else, we suggest, must come from, and depend on, context.

Sustaining collective understanding and action Many of the research discussions around the concept of ‘transferability’ were preoccupied with how organisations like the LCP may ‘fit’ within a wider policy context. Agencies seemed inflexible about accommodating bottom-up initiatives within their own agendas (a common feature of institutions, Goffmann, 1961). Since organisations like the LCP are primarily responsive to what is observable on the ground, not to policy or institutional priorities, this leads to a fundamental mis-match. If agencies want to work with locally produced understandings and meanings, they need to find ways of accommodating the diversity and unevenness of approach that comes with sensitivity to community-scale issues and to demonstrate that they can be flexible to non-standardised local groups with their diverse understandings and priorities. This points to the need for institutions to re-think their own ways of working, as well as the need to think about who bears the costs in potential new arrangements of governance.

Interdisciplinarity Interdisciplinary working was both central to the main research objectives and critically under scrutiny throughout the research. It was practiced, first, through ‘research-to-research interdisciplinarity’: scientists from different disciplines simultaneously producing data that cross-communicated with other data. This was done in the knowledge that all disciplinary practices are ‘framed’ and that these framings are partial (Waterton, 2003). Several meetings were held by the researchers on interdisciplinarity, and we interviewed each other about our research (Annex 3). We also created an hour’s recorded discussion on our experiences of interdisciplinary

15 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

working, to be posted on the research web-site as an audio–resource for other researchers. A paper highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of our collaborations will also be published (Maberly et al., to be submitted to Environment and Planning C, Annex 1).

Secondly, interdisciplinarity took the form of ‘public-to-research interdisciplinarity’, which was facilitated through the institutional mechanism of the LCP, which opened all research findings to questioning and debate.

Lastly, interdisciplinary dialogue/working together was central to the ‘transferability’ objectives of the research (discussed above).

Capacity-Building and Training The RA, Judith Tsouvalis, attended several staff development courses, received training in webpage design, and attended a one-day course on research ethics and data management. The PI, Claire Waterton, attended a course on Interdisciplinary Research Management (Edinburgh 2008). Lisa Norton attended a course on Interdisciplinary Science (2010). Researchers supported each other in linking to networks and attending conferences (Annex 1).

Outputs and Data Listed in Annex 1.

Knowledge Transfer, User Engagement and Impacts Given the highly interdisciplinary and participatory nature of the research and the new mechanism (LCP) that was formed, knowledge transfer and user engagement were a permanent feature of this research. Links were also made with other community/institutional action groups and interested parties: the Coniston and Crake Partnership, Shropshire Hills AONB, Yorkshire’s East Riding Council, Entec Ltd., amongst others. Much knowledge exchange was undertaken by researchers with the farming community at Loweswater: framing practices altered in several instances as a result of these exchanges.

Future Research Priorities • How can agencies be made more flexible and re-organized so as to be able to be responsive to locally-rooted understandings and desires for action? • How do specific policies/policy changes (e.g. EA’s changing river maintenance policies) affect social-material transformations and what are the consequences for fragile social-natural systems like Loweswater? • A book bringing together STS theory with insights into the social-ecological, institutional, policy and governance issues seen through this case study.

16 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Ethics See Annex 4.

7, 394 words

17 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

References Arnason A, Shucksmith M, Vergunst J, eds. (2009) Comparing Rural Development: Continuity and Change in the Countryside of Western Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. Blackmore, C. (2007) What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas?: a theoretical overview, Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 512-525.

Bennion H & Winchester A, (2010) ‘Linking historical land-use change palaelolimnological records of nutrient change in Loweswater, Cumbria’. Loweswater Care Project Report, carried out with funding from the Rural Economy and Land-Use Programme.

Bond, Alec (1985) ‘Housing Problems in Rural Cumbria’, A study carried out for the Open University Course “The Changing Countryside”, December 1985.

Brown, D. L. (2010) ‘Rethinking the OECDs New Rural Demography’. Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No. 26 (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/discussionpapers/pdfs/dp26%20Brown.pdf)

Burton, R., Mansfield, L., Schwarz, G., Brown, K. and Convery, I. (2004) ‘Social Capital in Hill Farming: Report for the Upland Centre’. Macaulay institute and University of Central Lancashire. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carey, P.D.W., S.; Chamberlain, P.M.; Cooper, A.; Emmett, B.A.; Maskell, L.C.; McCann, T.; Murphy, J.; Norton, L.R.; Reynolds, B.; Scott, W.A.; Simpson, I.C.; Smart, S.M.; Ullyett, J.M. (2008) Countryside Survey: UK Results from 2007. London: Defra.

Collins, K., Blackmore, C., Morris, D., Watson, D. (2007) ‘A systemic approach to managing multiple perspectives and stakeholding in water catchments: some findings from three UK case studies’, Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 564-574.

Commission for Rural Communities (2010) ‘High ground, high potential – a future for England’s upland communities’. London: CRC.

Connelly, S. Richardson, T. and Miles, T. (2006) ‘Situated legitimacy: Deliberative arenas and the new rural governance’ Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 267–277

Christie, M., and H. Verran. 2007. Using digital technologies in doing Indigenous places in Australia. www2.unil.ch/easst2006/Papers/C/Christie_Verran.pdf (accessed May 2007).

18 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Davis, D. & Clark, E. (2010) ‘Community and Culture – Tourism in a Quiet Valley’. Loweswater Care Project Report, carried out with funding from the Rural Economy and Land-Use Programme. De Laet, M. and Mol, A. (2000), 'The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology', Social Studies of Science, 30: (2), 225-263.

Environment Agency (2007), The Unseen Threat to Water Quality: Diffuse Water Pollution in England and Wales Report 2007, Environment Agency, Aztec West, Bristol.

Environment Agency (2009), Water for Life and Livelihoods: River Basin Management Plan: North West River Basin District, Environment Agency and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

European Union (2000) The European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).

Goffmann, E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. London: Pelican.

Haycock, N. (2010) ‘Hydrogeomorphological investigation of the main streams feeding into and out of Loweswater’. Haycock Associates. Report produced for the Loweswater Care Project, carried out with funding from the Rural Economy and Land-Use Programme. Hubacek, K. and Reed, M. (2009) ‘Lessons learned from a Computer Assisted Participatory and Management Planning process in the Peak District National Park, England’. In Allen, Catherine and George Stankey (eds.) Adaptive Environmental management: A Practical Guide. Jointly published by Springer and CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. IEEP (2004a): An assessment of the impacts of hill farming in England on the economic, environmental and social sustainibility of the uplands and more widely. Main Report. http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/hillfarming/volume1.pdf

Irwin A. (1995) Citizen Science – A study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. London: Routledge.

Irwin, A. (2001) Sociology and the Environment: A Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge, London: Polity Press.

Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Jasanoff, S. (2002) Reading between the lines: The disciplines and the environment' in Lele, Kadekodi and Agrawal ( eds) (2002) Interdisciplinarity in environmental research, Indian Society for Ecological Economics, New Delhi,pp. 3-5.

Jasanoff, S. (2004) “Science and Citizenship: A New Synergy,” Science and Public Policy, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2004), pp. 30-34.

19 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Lake District National Park Partnership (2010) ‘The Partnership’s Plan: The Management Plan for the Lake District National Park’, Lake District National Park Authority, Kendal, Cumbria. Latour B. (2004) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Leach, M., Scoones, I, Wynne, B (2005). Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London, Zed Books.

Lowe, P. and Phillipson, J. (2006a) Special Issue Guest Editorial: The Scoping of an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 52, 2, 163-164

Lowe, P. and Phillipson, J. (2006b) Reflexive Interdisciplinary Research: The Making of a Research Programme on the Rural Economy and Land Use, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 52, 2, 165-184 Lowe, P., Speakman, L., ed. (2006) The Ageing Countryside: the Growing Older Population of Rural England.London, UK: Age Concern Books. Maberly, S., Norton, L., Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C., Watson, N., Winfield, I. J., ‘Environmental governance for sustainable outcomes – re-thinking the significance of ‘scale’ and the role of ‘publics’, Environment and Planning C (in preparation). National Trust (2008), From Source to Sea: Working with Water, The National Trust, Heelis, Swindon.

Norton, L., Elliott, J.A., Maberly, S.C., May, L. (Forthcoming 2011) ‘Using models to bridge the gap between land use and algal blooms: an example from the Loweswater catchment, UK’ Environmental Modelling and Software.

Pahl-Wostl C., Kabat P., Moltgen J., (eds.) (2007) Adaptive and integrated water management: coping with complexity and uncertainty (Springer, Berlin)

Rabeharisoa V., Callon M., (2004) ‘Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research’, in Jasanoff S. (ed.), States of knowledge The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

Reynolds, C.S., Irish, A.E. and Elliott, J.A., (2001) ‘The ecological basis for simulating phytoplankton responses to environmental change (PROTECH)’. Ecological Modelling, 140, 271-291.

Rockcliffe, J. (2009) ‘University Of Lancaster Loweswater Catchment Management Project. Summary Agricultural Report For The Catchment’. Loweswater Care Project Report, carried out with funding from the Rural Economy and Land-Use Programme.

Schneidermann, E.M., Pierson, D.C., Lounsbury, D.G. and Zion, M.S. (2002). Modeling of hydro-chemistry of the cannonsville watershed with Genearlized

20 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF). Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38, 1323 – 1347.

Shaw, A. (2009). The Decline of the Loweswater Fish Community: contributory factors and events. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Lancaster. Southey, R. (2008) Life in old Loweswater, Cockermouth: Lorton& Derwent Fells Local Historical Society.

Summers, D.W., Giles, N. & Willis, D. (1996) Restoration of riverine trout habitats. Fisheries Technical Manual 1. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report 603. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Tsing, A. (2005) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C., Winfield, I.J. (Forthcoming 2011) ‘Intra-Actions in Loweswater, Cumbria: New Collectives, Blue-Green Algae, and the Visualization of Invisible Presences Through Sound and Science’, in Rose, G., Tolia-Kelly, D. (eds.) Architectures of Visuality.

Waterton, C. (2003) ‘Performing the classification of nature’. In Szerszynski, B. Heim, W. and Waterton, C. (eds.) 2003 Nature Performed: Environment, Culture and Performance, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 111-129.

Waterton, C., Norton, L. and Maberly (2005) End of Award Report for Undertsanding Loweswater, RELU Scoping Study, RES-224-25-0039.

Waterton, C. Norton, L. and Morris, J. (2006) ‘Understanding Loweswater: Interdisciplinary Research in Practice’. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, 2, 2006, 277-293.

Watson N,(2004) ‘Integrated River Basin Management: A Case for Collaboration’ International Journal of River Basin Management, 2 (4) 243-257.

Watson, Nigel (2007) ‘Collaborative Capital: A Key to the Successful Practice of Integrated Water Resources Management’. In: Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Water management. Ashgate Studies in Environmental Policy and Practice. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 31-48.

Watson, Nigel and Walker, Gordon and Medd, Will (2007) ‘Critical Perspectives on Integrated Water Management’. The Geographical Journal, 173 (4). pp. 297-299.

Watson, N.M.; Heathwaite, L.; Maberly, S.; Norton, L.R.; Waterton, C.; Tsouvalis, J.; Haygarth, P.M. (2009) ‘Integrated catchment management and the WFD: Dealing with the complexity and uncertainty of diffuse pollution’. Tearmann: Irish Journal of Agri-Environmental Research, 7: 195-210.

21 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Webb L. (2010) “Survey of local washing practices and septic tank operation in relation to domestic phosphorus inputs to Loweswater”, Loweswater Care Project Report, carried out with funding from the Rural Economy and Land-Use Programme.

Winfield, I. J. & Durie, N. C. (2004) ‘Fish introductions and their management in the English Lake District’. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 11: 1-7.

Winfield, I. J., Fletcher, J. M., James, J. B. & Bean, C. W. (2009) ‘Assessment of fish populations in still waters using hydroacoustics and survey gill netting: experiences with Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in the U.K.’. Fisheries Research, 96: 30-38.

Wynne, B. (1996) ‘May the Sheep Safely Graze’ in Lash, S, Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity, London: Sage.

Wynne, B. (2005) 'Reflexing Complexity: Post-Genomic Knowledge and Reductionist Returns in Public Science', Theory Culture and Society, Vol. 22, 5: 67- 94.

Wynne, B. (2006) ‘Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science - Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?’. Community Genetics, Vol 9: 3, pp 211-220.

22 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Annex 1: List of Outputs of the Project

1. Local, National and International Presentations, Conference Papers and Posters (in order of date given/alphabetical author)

2007 Waterton, Claire (2007) Experimenting with a New Collective: Loweswater, Latour and More, at the STS and Farming Workshop, Lancaster University, 4/5 May 2007

2008

Lancaster/CEH RELU Research Team (2008) ‘Update on the Loweswater Care Project’, Loweswater Parish Hall, 6 May 2008

Tsouvalis, Judith & Waterton, Claire (2008) ‘Towards a Collective Approach to Nature-Culture Relations: The Case of Loweswater’ in the session “Governing for Sustainability: Exploring Innovations in Environmental & Urban Futures”, RGS-IBG Conference, London, Thursday 28th September 2008

Tsouvalis, Judith & C. Waterton (2008) ‘Approaching Environmental Change Relationally in Loweswater’, University of Nottingham, Department of Geography, 10 November 2008

Waterton, Claire and Tsouvalis, Judith (2008) ‘Understanding and Acting in Loweswater’, Presentation given to RELU’s Advisory Board, London, 21 April 2008

Watson, Nigel (2008) ‘Integrated catchment management and the WFD: dealing with the complexity and uncertainty of diffuse pollution from agriculture’, International Conference on Grassland and the Water Framework Directive, Teagasc, Johnstown Castle Environmental Research centre, Wexford, Ireland, 12-14 November 2008

Waterton, Claire (2008) ‘A ‘modest yet sufficient connection’: thinking through epistemic difference and collective working. Lancaster University LEC Environment and Society Research Group Workshop on: ‘Re-thinking interdiciplinarity: the benefits and challenges of working across the natural and social sciences

2009

Lancaster/CEH RELU Research Team (2009) ‘Finding new mechanisms for participatory environmental politics: the Loweswater Care Project’ Inaugural Conference of the Coniston & Crake Partnership, Coniston, 11 September 2009

Norton, Lisa (2009) ‘Understanding and Acting in Loweswater’. Paper presented at the RELU Workshop on Expert Systems, UEA, Norwich, 14 April, 2009

23 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Norton, Lisa (2009) ‘Understanding and Acting within Loweswater’, Presentation of poster at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Conference, Birmingham, 8 December 2009

Tsouvalis, J. & C. Waterton (2009) ‘Visible materiality/material invisibility and visualizing the invisible: grappling with algal blooms at Loweswater, Cumbria’, Visuality / Materiality Conference, Institute of British Architects, London, 9 July 2009

Tsouvalis, J. & C. Waterton (2009) ‘Engaging with the politics of things: from Loweswater Knowledge Collective to Loweswater Care Project’, Royal Geographical Society w. the Inst. of British Geographers, Manchester, 28 August 2009

Waterton, Claire (2009) ‘Deliberative and participatory methods: an overview and case study in the policy domain of the environment’, Commission for the Rural Communities Workshop, ‘Managing, developing and formulating for policy for the English uplands’, Rheged Centre, Penrith, 22 May 2009

Waterton, C. and Judith Tsouvalis (2009) ‘‘Research in the wild through a new forum for local expertise’ The XXIII European Society for Rural Sociology congress, Vaasa, Finland 17-21 August 2009

Watson, N., Bell, K., Norton, L., Maberly S., Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C. (2009) ‘Understanding and acting in Loweswater: a community approach to catchment management’. Catchment Science for Sustainable Water Management Conference, Chartered Institute for Water and Environmental Management and Envirolink Northwest, Lancaster University, 2 July 2009

Watson, N., Doody, D., Ingram, J. and Mills, J. (2009) ‘Collaborative approaches to the development and implementation of agri-environmental measures in UK catchments’. Paper given at the Work Package 4 meeting of the COST 869 project on mitigation options for nutrient reduction in surface waters and groundwater (EU RTD Framework Program), Nottwil, Switzerland, 24-26 June 2009

2010 Lancaster/CEH Research Team (2010) Local Engagement in Resource Management: the Loweswater Care Project, Presentation to policy makers and farmers from Shropshire AONB, Lancaster University, 10 March 2010

Norton, Lisa (2010) ‘Understanding and Acting within Loweswater’ Poster presented at the Lancaster Environment Centre Poster Day, Lancaster University, 7th January 2010

Norton, Lisa (2010) ‘Understanding and Acting: Community Catchment Management at Loweswater’ Presentation given at the Water and Risk workshop at Durham University, January 2010

24 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Norton, Lisa Winchester, Angus, Bennion, Helen, Haycock, Nick (2010) ‘Sustaining livelihoods and landscape at Loweswater’, Poster presented at the ‘End of Tradition’ Conference at Sheffield Hallam University, 15 September 2010

Norton, Lisa (2010) ‘Loweswater: a case study for the importance of ‘local’ scale for ecosystem management’. Presentation given at the conference ‘Scaling and Governance’ 10-12 November 2010, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Norton, Lisa and Tsouvalis, Judith (2010) ‘The Loweswater Care Project Experience’ Presentation given at final meeting of RELU project ‘Catchment Management for the Protection of Water Resources’, 29 November 2010, SOAS, London

Tsouvalis, Judith, and Ken Bell (2010) ‘Local Engagement in Resource Management at Loweswater’ Northern Rural Network Conference, ‘The Future of the Uplands’, 2 March 2010

Tsouvalis, Judith, &. Waterton, Claire (2010) ‘The cosmopolitics of cyanobacteria: new collectives and encounters with invisible actants in Loweswater, the Lake District, England’, Royal Geographical Society w. the Inst. of British Geographers, London, 2 September 2010.

Waterton, Claire (2010) ‘Caution! Deep Waters: Environmental Change as Proxy for Social and Cultural Change’ paper presented at ‘Performing Environmental Change: the Politics of Social Science Methods’, TIK, Oslo, 20-21 May 2010

Waterton, Claire (2010) ‘What does Adaptation Mean?’ Paper given at RELU conference, Adapting Rural Living and Land Use to Environmental Change. Manchester Conference Centre, 1 July 2010

Waterton, Claire and Tsouvalis, Judith (2010) ‘STS and the formation of collectives for understanding and acting – the case of Loweswater’ – paper given at The European Association for the Social Study of Science and Technology, Trento, Italy (Track 14: From a ‘Social Raw Matter’ to the Production of Stabilized Collectives: Tracking Institutions of Knowledge), 5 September 2010

Waterton, C. (2010) ‘’Living With...... ’: challenges for the discourses and practices of biodiversity’. Keynote Presentation given at the conference, ‘Living With Biodiversity: people, knowledge, politics’, Naturalis, the Dutch Natural History Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands, 21-22 September 2010

Waterton, Claire (2010) ‘For whom do we practice STS?’ Presentation given for TIK STS Seminar Series, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture (TIK), Oslo, 18 November 2010

Waterton, Claire (2010) ‘STS studies: how and for whom do they circulate and translate?’ Keynote presentation at Mini-STS Conference, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, 9-10 December, 2010

25 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Watson Nigel (2010) ‘Moving from participation to collaboration in integrated water resources management’ British Hydrological Society 3rd International Symposium, Newcastle, UK, July 19-23, 2010.

Watson, Nigel (2010) ‘Developing a Community-based approach to diffuse pollution control in the Loweswater Catchment’, International Water Association, Diffuse Pollution Specialist Group 14th international conference, Quebec, Canada. This IWA conference paper has now been submitted as a journal paper to ‘Water Science and Technology’. September 2010

2. Journal articles

Watson, N.M., Heathwaite, A.L., Maberly, S., Norton, L., Waterton, C. Tsouvalis, J. and Haygarth, P., (2009) ‘Integrated Catchment Management and the WFD: Dealing with the Complexity and Uncertainty of Diffuse Pollution form Agriculture’, Tearmann: The Irish Journal of Agri-Environmental Research, 195-210

Norton, L., Elliott, J.A., Maberly, S.C., May, L. (2011) ‘Using models to bridge the gap between land use and algal blooms: an example from the Loweswater catchment, UK’ Environmental Modelling and Software. Under final review.

Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C. (2011) ‘Framing the world another way: ‘participation’, 'experts', and 'expertise' in the Loweswater Care Project (LCP), Cumbria, UK’ (2011) Environmental Modelling and Software. Undergoing final revision.

Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C. ‘On the political nature of cyanobacteria: experimenting with intra-active collective politics in Loweswater, the English Lake District’ (under review), , Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Under review.

Watson, N. (2010) ‘Developing a Community-based approach to diffuse pollution control in the Loweswater Catchment’, submitted to Water Science and Technology.

Maberly, S., Norton, L., Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C., Watson, N., Winfield, I. J., ‘Environmental governance for sustainable outcomes – re-thinking the significance of ‘scale’ and the role of ‘publics’, Environment and Planning C (in preparation).

Norton, L., Tsouvalis, J. ‘Links between social and natural capital in the uplands’ Land-Use Policy (in preparation)

3. Book Chapters Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C., Winfield, I.J. (2011) ‘Intra-Actions in Loweswater, Cumbria: New Collectives, Blue-Green Algae, and the Visualization of Invisible Presences Through Sound and Science’, (2011), in Rose, G., Tolia-Kelly, D. (eds.) Architectures of Visuality, Forthcoming 2011.

26 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Norton, L., Bracken, L., Grischeff, J. (2011) ‘The role of communication for managing risk’ submitted as a chapter in a book arising from a workshop on Water and Risk at Durham University in January 2010.

4. Reports Maberly, S., Norton, L., Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C., Watson, N., Winfield, I. J., (2011; in preparation) ‘New forms of participatory environmental governance: experiences and challenges from Loweswater, Cumbria’,), Report from conference held in Penrith, 3 December 2010.

Maberly, S., Norton, L., Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C., Watson, N., Winfield, I. J. (2011) ‘Understanding and Acting in Loweswater: a Community Approach to Catchment Management’, Summary Report for the Loweswater Care Project (LCP) and Loweswater Residents

5. Booklet

Loweswater Care Project Participants (2011, in print) ‘Dealing with Environmental Challenges Collectively: The Loweswater Care Project’, A booklet produced by Loweswater Care Project (LCP) participants.

6. Planned publications

RELU Policy and Practice Note. [This is in draft-form at present.]

Book elaborating and reflecting on the Loweswater Care Project. [This is dependent upon contract.]

27 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Annex 2: List of Loweswater Care Project Meetings

Date: Title:

18/06/2008 Knowing/Remembering Loweswater – An Evening of Stories/Evidence

11/09/2008 Fish and Fishing in Loweswater: Scientific Findings, Experiences & Stories

16/12/2008 Counting Sheep: A Thousand Years of Farming and Land-Use Change

04/02/2009 The EU Waterframework Directive

25/03/2009 River Maintenance – Changes in Policy

12/05/2009 Septic Tanks as Sources of Nutrient Pollution to Freshwaters

15/07/2009 Get to Know Your Institutions

10/09/2009 LCP Generated Research – Exploring The Proposals / & LCP Achievements – Where We Are At

21/11/2009 Reporting Back: Agriculture and the Environment in the Loweswater Catchment

18/03/2010 Turning Aspirations Into Actions

17/05/2010 LCPs Small Projects – Reporting Back

07/06/2010 LCPs Small Projects – Understanding and Acting Continued

28/09/2010 Linking Land-Use and Water Quality – Modelling Results and Discussion

11/11/2010 The LDNPA & Its Impact on Loweswater

15/12/2010 The LCP: Looking Back / Looking Forward

28 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Annex 3: Interviews with Representatives from Key Institutions and with Fellow Scientists

1. Interviews with Institutions

1) 8th July 2008, Emma Lyons and Sandy Brown, Natural England.

2) 16th July 2008, Stephen Johnston and Andrew Seward, Environment Agency, Penrith

3) 16th March 2009, Jeremy Barlow and Mark Astley, National Trust

4) 30th April 2009, Andrew Humphries, formerly North-West Regional Development Agency

5) 11th May 2009, Bob Cartwright, Steve Ratcliffe, Andrew Herbert and Suzi Grindley, Lake District National Park Authority

2. Interviews with Scientists

1) 1st August 2008, Dr. Ian Winfield, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster

2) 2nd April 2009, Dr. Stephen Maberly, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster

3) 25th February 2010, Dr. Linda May, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh

29 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Annex 4 Confidentiality issues were needed for semi-structured interviews carried out with residents, stakeholders, and scientists.

Statement of Research and Data Protection used for semi-structured interviews • Any information that you share with me during this interview will only be used for research purposes; • We will check the transcripts of this interview with you for accuracy; • We will always consult you if we would like to quote from your transcript in publications or presentations; • In case we do use the information in this way and with your consent, we will anonymize the data so that nobody would know it had come from you; • Any data we receive from you about you, your family and others will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and used solely for the purposes of research.

30 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

Notes

i This list of ‘principles was adapted from Latour (2004) The politics of Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ii See Annex 2 for a list of the meetings held. iii http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cumbria/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_8691000/8691649.stm iv E-mail to RELU researchers, Dec 2010.

31 To cite this output: Waterton, C, et al (2011) Understanding and Acting within Loweswater: A Community Approach to Catchment Management. Full Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-229-25-0008. Swindon: ESRC

v The WFD requires all inland and coastal water bodies to reach good ecological status by 2015, with subsequent six-year cycles of planning and management to improve conditions where initial ecological and chemical targets are not achieved. Loweswater is part of the Derwent catchment area within the WFD’s North West River Basin District (NWRBD) where 70% of surface waters (512 separate water bodies) do not meet good ecological status.

32