DOCSLIB.ORG

Eccles Wastewater Treatment Works) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eccles Wastewater Treatment Works) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016 AA/3/A UNITED UTILITIES WATER LIMITED (ECCLES WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2016 PROOF OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE ACQUIRING AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF WATER QUALITY DR KEITH HENDRY FIFM CENV, APEM LTD MAY 2018 1 1. Qualifications, experience and scope of evidence 1.1. I am Dr Keith Hendry, Chairman of the science based aquatic consultancy firm APEM Ltd based in Manchester. I am an aquatic scientist with over 30 years’ experience in water quality and freshwater ecology/fisheries. I have specific expertise in relation to the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) and urban waterways in general. I was the Scientific Advisor to the Mersey Basin Campaign and its successor organisation, the Healthy Waterways Trust, for 25 years (renamed the Mersey Rivers Trust), becoming a trustee in 2016 and elected Deputy Chairman in 2017. The Mersey rivers, Salford Quays and the MSC have all featured heavily in my long involvement with the Campaign and Trusts. 1.2. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology (specialising in Fish Biology) from Plymouth Polytechnic and a PhD from Manchester University awarded in 1991 on ‘The Ecology and Water Quality Management of Disused Dock Basins and their Potential for Alternative Uses’. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Fisheries Management and a Chartered Environmentalist. I have published over 40 scientific papers in peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings, many of which relate to the MSC. 1.3. From 1987 to March 2018 I was Managing Director of APEM Ltd, previously having worked for South West Water Authority. Over these 32 years at APEM I oversaw the company’s development into one of Europe’s leading specialist aquatic science consultancy firms, now employing over 100 scientists. In March 2018 I changed roles to become Chairman of the APEM board, responsible for the strategic development of the firm. 1.4. My work on the MSC dates back to 1987 and continues to the present day. My PhD from Manchester University, based largely on the water quality and ecological transformation of Salford Quays, involved extensive scientific investigation into the MSC and its dock basins. I have undertaken many consultancy commissions and over 30 research projects on the MSC, including in relation to: water quality characterisations; artificial water quality management using large scale oxygen injection; sediment contamination and the influence of bed sediments on water quality; and long term fisheries and invertebrate investigations. Some of these studies were instigated in 1987 and remain ongoing. This has provided me with a detailed understanding of the interaction between water quality and aquatic ecology in the MSC. In particular, I have undertaken extensive studies into the impacts of United Utilities’ assets (treated 2 effluent, storm sewage, and imported water assets) on the water quality and ecological environment of the MSC, including bracket sampling around the Salteye Brook/MSC confluence. 1.5. In 2007, I took part in a major investigation into the main influences on water quality throughout the entire freshwater length of the MSC1. This study was the most detailed examination of the water quality status of the MSC ever undertaken. It investigated the factors that influence water quality, including United Utilities’ treated and storm water discharges, other discharges, the influence of sediments and the form of the MSC itself. The study concluded that the overriding factor influencing water quality (in particular the all-important parameter dissolved oxygen) was the physical structure of the MSC itself. Its artificial steep banks and deep nature facilitate rapid stagnation during dry, still weather conditions that consequently result in rapid oxygen depletion from the sediments up through the water column. 1.6. I provide this Proof of Evidence on behalf of United Utilities in relation to the United Utilities Water Ltd (Eccles Wastewater Treatment Works) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016. 1.7. The purpose of my evidence is: 1.7.1. To provide the background for the CPO Scheme from a water quality perspective; 1.7.2. To clarify the implications for the CPO Scheme in the context of changes to the Salteye Brook and changes to the MSC; 1.7.3. To explain the water quality implications of the alternative proposals now being suggested by the objectors; and 1.7.4. Consequently, to provide a response to objections raised against the CPO Scheme. 1.8. My Proof of Evidence is necessarily of a technical nature and uses a variety of technical terms and abbreviations, which are defined in the Glossary at Appendix 1. 1.9. For the reasons set out below, I consider that the proposals to which the Compulsory Purchase Order relates will be of benefit to water quality in both Salteye Brook and the MSC. 1 APEM (2007) Manchester Ship Canal Water Quality Review. Parts 1 and 2. United Utilities, APEM Scientific Report 410039, September 2007 3 1.10. I confirm that this Proof of Evidence is true and sets out my professional and honest assessment. I am aware of and have complied with my duties as an expert witness and those as a Chartered Environmentalist. 4 2. Executive Summary 2.1. Treated sewage effluent from Eccles Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) is currently discharged into Salteye Brook, a tributary of the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC). As a consequence, the part of the Brook below the effluent discharge point has significantly lower water quality than that upstream. 2.2. As dealt with in more detail in the evidence of Luke Pearson, the Environment Agency (EA) as the regulator has required the water quality in Salteye Brook to be improved to meet the relevant standards in the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The proposed Scheme will facilitate meeting the required standards set by the EA for Salteye Brook. It will do so by transferring treated effluent directly to the MSC adjacent to the point where Salteye Brook joins it, rather than into the Brook itself. 2.3. Eccles’ final effluent discharge currently increases mean flow in Salteye Brook by nearly 200%, and is therefore the overwhelmingly dominant source of water in the Brook. In contrast, the Eccles final effluent discharge constitutes less than 2% of the overall MSC flow downstream of Salteye Brook, and if transferred (under the CPO Scheme) directly to the MSC would therefore result in much greater dilution than is possible in the Brook. 2.4. Transferring the effluent discharge directly into the MSC in the way proposed, rather than into Salteye Brook, will lead to significantly and immediately improved water quality conditions in Salteye Brook by removing the large majority of its ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and nutrient contamination. Maintaining a discharge into Salteye Brook, even under the more stringent consent standards that would be required for such a discharge, would still result in lower water quality in Salteye Brook than the CPO Scheme transfer to the MSC. 2.5. Transferring the effluent discharge directly into the MSC via the pipe and outfall under the proposed CPO Scheme will achieve this substantial improvement to Salteye Brook, whilst at the same time not resulting in any material detriment to the water quality in the MSC. Indeed, by also providing greater storm flow capacity in the pipe and providing for screening of such flows, there will in fact also be an overall net improvement in the water quality of the MSC achieved by the proposed CPO Scheme. 2.6. The objection on behalf of the Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (“MSCCL”) and Peel Investments (North) Ltd (“PI(N)L”) assumes that Salteye Brook has an important role in cleaning the effluent water before it enters the MSC. I consider that this view is incorrect. Salteye Brook’s poor water quality is exacerbated by the 5 fact that it is a small river now flowing along the former channel of the much larger River Irwell (i.e. substantially wider and deeper compared to the Salteye Brook channel). Hence in its lower reaches it is now therefore considerably larger and slower flowing than a river of this size would normally be, with little gradient. As a consequence, the natural processes of re-aeration that would ordinarily be expected to remove contaminants from the water will not be operating to a significant extent. Currently, Salteye Brook is therefore unlikely to have any material beneficial effect on water before it enters the MSC. It may even reduce water quality further, as oxygen used to break down contaminants chemically will not be replaced. 2.7. Transferring the discharge to the MSC will result in a significantly reduced flow in Salteye Brook. However, the removal of sewage effluent inputs will more than offset any potential disadvantages of this reduced flow. 2.8. The existing and ongoing poor water quality in the MSC is significantly exacerbated by its artificially engineered physical nature (deep, steep sided and slow flowing). This inhibits mixing and replenishment of oxygen from the atmosphere, leading to periodic water quality problems mainly associated with oxygen levels. This can occur irrespective of the quality of inputs, and is particularly prevalent during periods of still, dry weather. Indeed, the physical structure of the MSC is the main driver influencing water quality under still, dry weather conditions, irrespective of any effluent discharges into it. 2.9. A major benefit of the proposed CPO Scheme is to offer a safe refuge with good water quality to fish populations in the MSC below Barton Locks during these periodic episodes of low oxygen concentration. The substantially improved oxygen conditions in Salteye Brook, which will result from removing the sewage effluent currently present, will offer an important fish refuge due to unobstructed passage between the MSC and the Brook.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3 Restocking with Salmon, Trout and Freshwater Fish 80
    North West fisheries report 2002 Item Type monograph Publisher Environment Agency North West Download date 07/10/2021 13:25:39 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/24896 I www.environment-agency.gov.uk • North West Fisheries Report 2002 Published by: Environment Agency Richard Fairclough House Knutsford Road Warrington WA4 1HG Tel: 01925 653999 Fax: 01925 415961 ISBN: 1844322076 © Environment Agency All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any other means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Environment Agency. NORTH WEST FISHERIES REPORT 2002 Contents Page Note on organisational changes 2 North West Region Fisheries and Recreation staff 3 Regional Fisheries Ecology, Recreation Advisory Committee 5 Consultative association contacts 6 Introduction 7 North Area Annual Report for 2002 Team report: South-West Cumbria 8 Team report: Eden 12 Team report: West Cumbria 14 Projects 15 Central Area Annual Report for 2002 Team reports 17 Projects 20 Survey reports 28 South Area annual report for 2002 Team reports 34 Survey reports 39 Projects 42 Note on Organisational Changes In the past year the Environment Agency has undergone major organisational changes. The area teams were previously organised in relation to work areas, e.g. we had an Area Fisheries Ecology and Recreation Manager, and a Fisheries team in each of our area offices. Since October 1, 2002 the old 'functional' structure has gone and the work is now split along geographic lines. The three areas now have two or more Environment Managers who are responsible for delivery of all Agency work (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • River Basin Management Plan North West River Basin District
    River Basin Management Plan North West River Basin District Annex C: Actions to deliver objectives Contents C.1 Introduction 3 C.2 Actions we can all take 9 C.3 All sectors 11 C.4 Agriculture and rural land management 14 C.5 Angling and conservation 32 C.6 Central government 45 C.7 Environment Agency 52 C.8 Industry, manufacturing and other business 67 C.9 Local and regional government 78 C.10 Mining and quarrying 87 C.11 Navigation 92 C.12 Urban and transport 96 C.13 Water industry 102 Environment Agency River Basin Management Plan, North West River Basin District 2 Annex C: Actions to deliver objectives December 2009 C.1 Introduction This annex sets out tables of the actions (the programmes of measures) that are proposed for each sector. Actions are the on the ground activities that will implemented to manage the pressures on the water environment and achieve the objectives of this plan. Further information relating to these actions and how they have been developed is given in: • Annex B: Objectives for waters in the North West River Basin District This gives information on the current status and environmental objectives that have been set and when it is planned to achieve these. • Annex D: Protected area objectives (including programmes for Natura 2000) This gives details of the location of protected areas, the monitoring networks for these, the environmental objectives and additional information on programmes of work for Natura 2000 sites. • Annex E: Actions appraisal This gives information about how we have set the water body objectives for this plan and how we have selected the actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Mersey Basin Campaign Study 2006 Final Report
    MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN STUDY 2006 FINAL REPORT Evaluation Of The Mersey Basin Campaign Final Report Government Office North West July 2006 1 An Evaluation of the Mersey Basin Campaign Contents Page Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 10 1.1 Background and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 The Campaign Structure ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 The Study.................................................................................................................................................. 11 2 What the Campaign Does....................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.2 Recent Campaign Activity ......................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Financial Performance .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Environment Agency Plan
    local environment agency plan CROAL/IRWELL CONSULTATION DRAFT OCTOBER 1998 En v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive. Aztec West, Almondsbury, Croal/lrwell 32 Local Environment Agency Plan Map 1 30 30 E n v ir o n m e n t A g e n c y H ^ . BURNLEY BC BUSINESS REPLY SERVICE Licence No NW W 359A Environment Agency Appleton House 430 Birchwood Boulevard Birchwood WARRINGTON Cheshire WA3 7AA Foreword Welcome to our latest Local Environment Agency Plan (LEAP) Consultation Report for the Croal/lrwell area. Our aim is to produce a local agenda of action for.environmental improvement which addresses issues which we are unable to solve through our day to day work. We have attempted to draw together the issues which we believe need tackling to improve your local environment. As the LEAP provides the focus for actions by the Agency, it is important that the issues we have raised relate to our key responsibilities for the regulation of waste, releases to air from some industrial processes and protecting and improving the water environment. However, where issues are raised which do not relate directly to our responsibilities, we hope to influence others to plan and act in ways that support our Environmental Strategy for the Millennium and Beyond. In order for the LEAP to be effective we need to know your views. We would like to know what you think of the issues raised, whether you would like other environmental issues to be added, and whether you can work together with us to achieve environmental improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Arup, the Value of the River Mersey
    The Value of the River Mersey INVEST IN ARUP THE VALUE OF THE RIVER MERSEY An appraisal using an ecosystem 2 | 28 April 2016 service-led approach The Value of the River Mersey FOREWORD The River Mersey contributes economic and social value to the Liverpool City Region: what is the nature of that value and can it be quantified? © Dreamstime 2 The Value of the River Mersey Contents 1 Introduction 10 1.1 What is the value of the River Mersey? ........................................ 10 1.2 Structure of the report .................................................................. 10 2 Regional context 12 2.1 Liverpool City Region ................................................................... 12 2.2 The River Mersey ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Natural asset valuation ................................................................. 15 3 Natural capital concepts 16 3.1 Total Economic Value (TEV) ......................................................... 16 3.2 Intrinsic value ............................................................................... 17 3.3 Natural capital and ecosystem services ....................................... 17 3.4 Typical ecosystem services from rivers ........................................ 18 3.5 Value, financial return or privatisation .......................................... 18 3.6 Previous studies ........................................................................... 19 4 Value: qualitative analysis 26 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mersey Basin Campaign Corporate Plan 2009-2010
    MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN CORPORATE PLAN 2009-2010 FINAL VERSION: MAY 2009 CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PRIORITY ACTIONS 3 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD 7 SECTION 1 CONTEXT 9 SECTION 2 MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN 15 CURRENT POSITION SECTION 3 ACHIEVEMENTS 2008-09 19 SECTION 4 CAMPAIGN LEGACY 27 SECTION 5 OBJECTIVES AND KEY MEASURES 29 2009-10 ANNEXES A SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST TARGETS 33 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 B SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 37 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 C PROPOSED DCLG GRANT BUDGET 39 FOR 2009-10 D CONSTITUTION AND COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP 41 1 2 MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN CORPORATE PLAN 2009-2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PRIORITY ACTIONS The Campaign Council decided in November 2008 to terminate the Campaign at the end of its planned 25-year life in March 2010. This presents unique challenges and opportunities in communications, management, legacy and succession planning. There is a strong resolve from the stakeholders, Campaign Council, Business Foundation, Healthy Waterways Trust, staff and volunteers to make the most of the final year in a positive, celebratory and constructive spirit – this attitude underpins the plan. The overarching principles for the final year are: DELIVERY – maintain momentum delivering a substantial programme throughout the year LEGACY – celebrating the Campaign’s achievements; capturing and communicating lessons learned SUCCESSION – ensuring, where practical, the transfer of programmes, projects and initiatives to others in a position to take them forward CLOSURE – effective management of all relationships and resources so as to ensure a professional and orderly end, with the Campaign’s reputation maintained and enhanced in the interests of all of the partners STAFF – supporting all staff in finding jobs appropriate to their experience and aspirations The Campaign is a partnership that works within the context of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy – Securing the Future.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Environment Agency Plan
    local environment agency plan SANKEY/GLAZE CONSULTATION REPORT M AY 1996 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORM ATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House. Waterside Drive. Aztec West. Almondsbury. Bristol BS32 4UD D A T E D U E ! GAYLORD M IN T ED IN U S A. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 0 7 7 3 2 6 Sankey/Glaze Local Management Plan Map 1 E n v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y Westhoughton Cunningham Hindley Atherton Walkden 7 I.0W Hall • Pool 1 Wharton Brk Brookside Bn Astley' Abram iherton SM, Brk Tyldesley Rainford Boothstown Ashton-in- (Common Lane Brk Makerfield Whitehead i Pasture Brki Lane Bedford1 Pennington Brk I Flash ,x\ningtQn j BrodK Rindle Golborne IBrk 12) Lowton Haydock Longborough Brook] ST HELENS tiDcroftBrt Newtony House Brk St Helens I St Helens Parksidet Canalj i f anal Brook Newton-Le Culcheth Willows St Helens Canal Os wa/cfc Thatto Sutton Heath Brk Silver) Lane Brk) Burtonwood Brk Burtonwood \ Prescot ^sey Winwick [Causey IB rk I1 )\ u m Birchwood \ Rainhill WARRINGTON ftYFistis0*0" Barrow Catchment Boundary Brk Great Butcherf, Watercourse Sankey Culverted Watercourse Canal Built up Area The Vision for The Area The Environment Agency will work in partnership with area users to realise the full environmental potential of the Sankey/Glaze area. The aim will be to create and maintain a balanced environment which will meet the Agency's overall aim of contributing to the worldwide goal of Sustainable Development, which has been defined as "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancement of Green Infrastructure in the Landscape of Lowland Rivers” (ENGRAVE, LLI-291)
    Project “Enhancement of Green Infrastructure in the Landscape of Lowland Rivers” (ENGRAVE, LLI-291) Summary report of study visit to the United Kingdom September 25 – September 29, 2018 Deliverable T.1.7.1. 09.2018 (updated 10.2018) Content list Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................3 1. List of participants ....................................................................................................................................4 2. The agenda of study visit .........................................................................................................................4 3. Visit of Greater Manchester ....................................................................................................................5 4. Visit of Peak District National Park ....................................................................................................... 10 5. Visit of Liverpool City Region ................................................................................................................ 14 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Annexes ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 2 Introduction The study visit to the Manchester and Liverpool regions
    [Show full text]
  • Public Participation in the Ribble River Basin
    Public Participation in the Ribble River Basin Case study report produced under Work Package 5 This report has been produced as part of Workpackage 5 of the HarmoniCOP Project Authors: Davis, M, Rees, Y November 2004 WRc plc Prepared under contract from the European Commission Contract No. EVK1-CT-2002-00120 Deliverable nr. 7 www.harmonicop.info Table of Contents Executive Summary / Main Findings ii 1 Introduction and Approach 1 2 Context 3 2.1 Environmental context ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Institutional context.............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Socio-economic political context......................................................................................... 6 3 Description of the PP process 9 3.1 Activities / Phases ................................................................................................................ 9 3.3 Outcomes.............................................................................................................................. 12 4 Analysis of the Process 15 4.1 Framing/reframing ............................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Basic role of Assumptions / definition of roles.................................................................... 16 4.3 Boundary management........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Display PDF in Separate
    catchment management plan FOR REFERENCE ONLY PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE S i En v ir o n m e n t Ag e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD Lancaster"?^ DOUGLAS Fleetwoo Clitheroe annual review Blackpool -C e n t r a l a r e a urnley October 1996 Prestoi Blackourn Southpor Rochdale Bolton This annual review provides a progress update of all the actions stated in the River Douglas Catchment Management Plan Final Report (February' 1995) produced under the auspices of the former National Rivers Authority (see Section 5.0). Section 6.0 has been added to the report as a result o f the new Water Quality Objective Scheme. Issues originally highlighted for action in the final report have been reviewed and comments regarding these issues are welcomed. The comments and questions should be forwarded to the Environment Planner by Friday 28 March 1997. This report is intended to be used widely and may be quoted, copied or reproduced in any way, provided that the extracts are not utilised out o f context and that due acknowledgement is given to the Environment Agency. Front Cover: River Douglas W igan ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 076905 RIVER DOUGLAS CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FIRST ANNUAL REVIEW 1996 CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 V isio n .....................................................................................................................................3 2.0 In tro d u ctio n ..........................................................................................................................4 3.0 O verview of the catch m en t.............................................................................................5 4 .0 S um m ary of P ro g ress........................................................................................................7 5 .0 P ro g ress R eport..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Manchester Sill1) Canal Water Quality
    The Manchester Sill1) Canal Water Quality. r1I 2t)th Century in perspective, and recornniendat.ions for the new Millennium. - g soon. It’s affccting polar bcäisn hc Arctic.’ . : Author: Eric Harper, on behalf of a client group, the Environment Agency tEA), the Manchester Ship Canal Company(MSCC), Noah Nest Viater Ltd NVdV) and the Mersey Basin Campaign(MBC)1 Author: Eric Harper, BScTeeh, AMCT. MCIWEM. He first worked for the Mersey River Board and Lancashire River Board in the early 1960’s, returning in 1969 to the Mersey and Weaver River Authority where, before the 1974 reorganisations, he became Chief Pollution Officer. On the formation of North West Water Authority he held various posts in charge of pollution prevention, water resources and drinking water quality. On privatisation in 1989 he became Chief Scientist/Quality Director to. North West Water Ltd and retired in 1997. He was a member of the Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committee (REPAC) for the north west region of the National Rivers Authority and its successor the Environment Agency, from its inception until April 2000. Acknowledgements. Theprovision of data and help from the client group, Environment Agency, North West Water, Manchester Ship Canal Company and Mersey Basin Campaign, is gratefluly acknowledged. The views expressed and recommendations are those of the author and not necessarily those of the client organisations. Cartoon on front cover. This first appeared in Punch prior to 1971 and is reproduced with the permission of the proprietors. 1 THE MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL: WATER QUALITY. 20th The Century in perspective, and recommendations for the new Millennium.
    [Show full text]
  • Manchester Local Nature Recovery Strategy Pilot
    DRAFT Report of the Greater Manchester Local Nature Recovery Strategy Pilot 0 DRAFT Table of Contents The Greater Manchester Local Nature Recovery Strategy Pilot .......................... 3 Background and purpose of the pilot .......................................................................... 3 The pilot process ........................................................................................................ 3 The status of this report and the prototype strategy ................................................... 5 This report and the planning system .......................................................................... 5 The future for Local Nature Recovery Strategies ....................................................... 6 The Greater Manchester Prototype Local Nature Recovery Strategy .................. 7 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 8 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9 Greater Manchester’s Natural Environment ............................................................... 9 Links to other strategies and plans ........................................................................... 11 Who can use this strategy and how?........................................................................ 12 2. Why we need a Local Nature Recovery Strategy ............................................. 14 The Biodiversity Emergency ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]