Stakeholder Contribution and Conflict in Pickering, North Yorkshire: Trying to Reconcile Science with Project Delivery in a Pilot Flood Risk Management Scheme

Stakeholder contribution and conflict in Pickering, North Yorkshire: trying to reconcile science with project delivery in a pilot flood risk management scheme

Nick Odoni School of Geographical Sciences, Bristol University

([email protected]) Stakeholder engagement - (rough) outline of today‟s talk

Part 1: Preliminaries - Some ideas about stakeholders and stakeholdership - Use of models … why might we trust in a model?

Part 2: residents and scientists working as individuals co-producing knowledge - the RELU Knowledge Controversies (“KC”) project, competency group working in Pickering (and Uckfield); - how we worked, bunding the Beck, development of “OVERFLOW” Stakeholder engagement - (rough) outline of today‟s talk

Part 1: Preliminaries - Some ideas about stakeholders and stakeholdership - Use of models … why might we trust in a model?

Part 3: „representative agent‟ working in a project delivery setting - the Slowing the Flow at Pickering and Sinnington (“STF”) project; - Forest Research (“FR”), OVERFLOW, and some progress; - bunding again, and project collapse(?)

Part 4: comments, thoughts and lessons - what worked in Pickering (and Uckfield) and the STF project; - how the bund scheme collapsed, and (maybe) why; - stakeholdership … why do you want to use it and what do you want from it? Part 1: Preliminaries Just what do we mean by a „stakeholder‟? And who is (should be?) a stakeholder? Part 1: Preliminaries Just what do we mean by a „stakeholder‟? And who is (should be?) a stakeholder?

Institutional, Practical, operational financial Part 1: Preliminaries Just what do we mean by a „stakeholder‟? And who is (should be?) a stakeholder?

One way of looking at it, based on my experience and specifically with rural flooding in mind … Bear in mind that there are probably many Visceral, competing ways of emotional looking at this! Set of all possible stakeholders Note that the set boundaries are Institutional, fuzzy rather than Practical, operational sharply defined financial

Note also that there are intersections between the sets Visceral, Set of all emotional possible Visceral, stakeholders emotional

Institutional, Practical, operational financial

Feel a direct personal association with risks:

• therefore often „locals‟ in some respect;

• right of stakeholdership often afforded by reason of either residence in the area of risk or proximity to it, with immediacy of danger (physical and otherwise) to home, family, property, business premises etc;

• stakeholdership also attained owing to an inherent sense of a close association with the locality, often acquired through ancestry, heritage or upbringing, or achieved through personal sacrifice and endeavour. Thus such a stakeholder may not be immediately at risk, but still feel a deep need to have a role in protecting local, culturally important icons, ways of life, doing business, managing land etc. Visceral, Set of all emotional Visceral, possible Practical, stakeholders emotional financial Institutional, Practical, operational financial

Reasoning and analysis indicate a direct but impersonal association with risks:

• „impersonal‟ because these stakeholders are not necessarily directly affected as persons or businesses by the worst consequences of flooding or related hazards, or by risks arising from interventions needed to control or mitigate the same;

• right of stakeholdership recognised generally as afforded to those who have an interest, usually economic or financial, by reason of land ownership, usage or related rights;

• farmers and landowners (upstream) commonly in this category, but might also include organisations or groups such as pension funds, National Trust, RSPB, water authorities, Forestry Commission, or similar large landowners Visceral, Set of all emotional Visceral, possible Practical, stakeholders Institutional,emotional financial Institutional, operational Practical, operational financial

Statutory obligations impose a direct or indirect impersonal association with risks: ReasoningFeel a direct and analysispersonalindicate association a directwith but risks: impersonal association with risks: • most likely to be organs of the state, also quangos or similar, e.g. the Environment • „impersonal‟• therefore becauseoften „locals‟ these in stakeholders some respect; are not necessarily directly affected as Agency,persons National or businesses Park authorities, by the worst local consequences and county councils, of flooding drainage or related boards hazards, etc; or• byright risks of stakeholdershiparising from interventions often afforded needed by reasonto control of eitheror mitigate residence the same; in the • involvement or association may be continuous (within normal working requirements, area of risk or proximity to it, with immediacy of danger (physical and whether daily, weekly or over longer term, but as a matter of routine) or contingent, • rightotherwise) of stakeholdership to home, family, recognised property, generally business as afforded premises to etc; those who have an dependentinterest, usuallyupon events economic e.g. inor response financial, toby demands reason of for land action ownership, following usage flooding, or or inrelated an• stakeholdershipadvisory rights;-regulatory also role attained in planning owing applicationsto an inherent etc; sense of a close association with the locality, often acquired through ancestry, heritage or • depending upon the circumstances, can also include consultants, engineers and • farmersupbringing, and landowners or achieved (upstream) through personalcommonly sacrifice in this category,and endeavour. but might Thus also other bodies under contract to engage in environmentally related work who, for includesuch organisations a stakeholder ormay groups not be such immediately as pension at funds,risk, but National still feel Trust, a deep RSPB, various reasons (e.g. professional standing, business opportunity, public relations waterneed authorities, to have a Forestryrole in protecting Commission, local, or culturally similar large important landowners icons, ways of etc.) need to ensure products, reports, recommendations and so on are reliable, life, doing business, managing land etc. credible and respected Some questions to keep in mind: Why would you put trust in a model? IT‟S SIMPLE? YOU‟VE USED IT A LOT? YOU BUILT IT? What do you mean by „model‟ in the first place, and what sort of models do you use? QUANTITATIVE? QUALITATIVE? SOCIAL (ways of working)? ORGANISATIONAL (ways of deciding/enacting)? Some questions to keep in mind: Why would you put trust in a model? IT‟S SIMPLE? YOU‟VE USED IT A LOT? YOU BUILT IT? What do you mean by „model‟ in the first place, and what sort of models do you use? QUANTITATIVE? QUALITATIVE? SOCIAL (ways of working)? ORGANISATIONAL (ways of deciding/enacting)?

Some other thoughts on models … In general, models as applied to the natural world are ideas about how the world works or how data and information should be represented With respect to understanding physical systems, two main categories: 1. data models (e.g. DEMs, stage data, land cover maps etc.); 2. theoretical models (e.g. HecRAS, ISIS, LISFLOOD, to name just a few examples …!) BUT most data models have a strong theoretical content, AND many (most?) theoretical models rely strongly on data, empirical values, and calibration (e.g. Odoni and Lane, 2010, PIPG) Part 2: residents and scientists working as individuals alongside each other to co-produce knowledge The RELU “Knowledge Controversies” project (1):

http://www.relu.ac.uk/research/ The RELU project (2):

http://knowledge-controversies.ouce.ox.ac.uk/ Rural flooding used as the focus of the project, hence the involvement of Stuart Lane and the role of the PDRA in Work Package 2.

Two main study locations:

- Pickering Beck (North Yorks), also River Seven and Vale of Pickering;

- the River Uck (East Sussex) and the town of Uckfield. Main project aims, and detail of Work Package 2: Why might this be important? Consider conventional approach to modelling flood problems … Why might this be important? Consider conventional approach to modelling flood problems …

EVENT(S) + PUBLIC PRESSURE + STATUTORY DUTIES = “ Something must be done! ” “ Something must be done! ” – PUBLIC PRESSURE “ Something must be done! ” – PUBLIC PRESSURE

Enter the E.A. … E.A. considers what general measures are likely to work, and commissions consultants to conduct a study to weigh up effectiveness of different „solutions‟

Consultants obtain data needed in the model they are going to use, set up model, calibrate, run simulations, assess, write up E.A. considers what general measures are likely to work, and commissions consultants to conduct a study to weigh up effectiveness of different „solutions‟

Consultants obtain data needed in the model they are going to use, set up model, calibrate, run simulations, assess, write up

Consultants deliver report to the E.A. including any cost estimates E.A. considers what general measures are likely to work, and commissions E.A. disseminates findings as consultants to conduct a study to weigh appropriate, also comments up effectiveness of different „solutions‟ on cost-benefit criteria for defences etc.

Consultants obtain data needed in the model they are going to use, set up model, calibrate, run simulations, assess, write up And then …?

Consultants deliver report to the E.A. including any cost estimates ENOUGH PROPERTIES AFFECTED + COST-BENEFIT CRITERIA = “ Something can be done. (Hooray!) ”  

Gazette and Herald, 31st Jan., 2002 ENOUGH PROPERTIES AFFECTED TOO FEW PROPERTIES AFFECTED + + COST-BENEFIT CRITERIA COST-BENEFIT CRITERIA = OR…? = “ Something can be done. (Hooray!) ” “ Nothing can be done. (Boo!) ”    

Gazette and Herald, 18th July, 2007

Gazette and Herald, 31st Jan., 2002 E.A. considers what general measures are likely to work, and commissions E.A. disseminates findings as consultants to conduct a study to weigh appropriate, also comments up effectiveness of different „solutions‟ on cost-benefit criteria for defences etc.

Consultants obtain data needed in the model they are going to use, set up model, calibrate, run simulations, assess, write up

We particularly want to Consultants deliver report to the E.A. including any cost influence these bits of estimates the process Why Pickering?

Some background on Pickering Beck and Ryedale

© Google map, 2010 Pickering Beck and its catchment: arable, mixed woodland, plantation forestry, upland grazing and rough moorland, with the Beck flowing through the heart of the town of Pickering … Helmsley

Pickering

VoP very flat – long history of flooding!

Main river inputs from the NYM (Rye, Dove, Seven, Pickering Sourced 2007, via ArcGIS, from Beck, Derwent etc.) Malton OS 1:25 000 (Digimap), overlain with EA Dales region flood maps Helmsley

Pickering

VoP very flat – long history of flooding! Enter the consultants …

Babtie (2003) recommended, amongst other things:

- channel maintenance (remove excessive bank or stream bed vegetation, etc.); - channel dredging + above basic maintenance; - higher defence walls; - a diversion tunnel; and

- a dam c. 9 m high, near Levisham Mill (on Lev. Beck) Enter the consultants …

Babtie (2003) recommended, amongst other things:

- channel maintenance (remove excessive bank or stream bed vegetation, etc.); - channel dredging + above basic maintenance; - higher defence walls; - a diversion tunnel; and

- a dam c. 9 m high, near Levisham Mill (on Lev. Beck)

Apart from the basic channel maintenance, all the above are expensive, the hard engineered solutions costing £1 million plus.

A period followed when it seemed Pickering would get its flood defences, and local hopes were raised … … but then the scheme was postponed … … and then it was dropped altogether, on the grounds that it did not satisfy cost-benefit criteria re. no. of properties flooded Underlying aim is to “do science differently …” • The project in Ryedale was set up as an experiment in involving local people in a sustained way over a twelve-month period in a process of collaborative knowledge production. • Involving local knowledge was used as a means to help the reframing of research questions and to change the ways that science would get done. • In particular, the approach was intended to enable the group to „try things out‟ and experiment with things e.g. flood inundation maps, numerical models. • The hope was to produce useful and „socially robust‟ knowledge i.e. knowledge which local people could identify with and relate to, with a sense of ownership and involvement, rather than knowledge imposed on them from outside, or presented to them as a finished and unchallengeable product. • In this setting, the divide between „experts‟ and „local people‟ was allowed to dissolve; expertise would be distributed among the group and beyond. Underlying aim is to “do science differently …” • The project in Ryedale was set up as an experiment in involving local people in a sustained way over a twelve-month period in a process of collaborative knowledge production. • Involving local knowledge was used as a means to help the reframing of research questions and to change the ways that science would get done. • In particular, the approach was intended to enable the group to „try things out‟ and experiment with things e.g. flood inundation maps, numerical models. • The hope was to produce useful and „socially robust‟ knowledge i.e. knowledge which local people could identify with and relate to, with a sense of ownership and involvement, rather than knowledge imposed on them from outside, or presented to them as a finished and unchallengeable product. • In this setting, the divide between „experts‟ and „local people‟ was allowed to dissolve; expertise would be distributed among the group and beyond. Interested in what causes flooding, or how flood risk in managed?

WE are a team of researchers from Oxford, Durham and Newcastle Universities conducting a one-year research project on flooding in the Derwent. We would like 5 local people to work with us. For further information about the project, and to express and interest in being involved, please write, including your contact details, to Sue Bradley, Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU (E-mail [email protected] or telephone 0191-222-8506) by 30th June 2007. • Recruitment led by Sue Bradley, but conferred with rest of academic team. • In particular, keen to avoid recruiting anyone with a particular axe to grind – want people who are prepared to consider anything, who can accept that their opinions may be changed, open-minded • Preferred therefore to avoid recruiting members of professional bodies or established pressure groups • Aim generally to „make something together‟, provide an opportunity to be part of and help shape something • Advertisements placed in first week of June, 2007, in two local newspapers (they also wrote features on the aims of the project) • Notices (same wording as the advert) placed on community notice boards, in supermarkets, show windows and so on. Pickering – the 25th/26th June 2007 flood (Flood photos courtesy of Mike Haigh, local resident)

Mean annual discharge c. 0.8 cumecs; peak flood discharge in June 2007 c. 29.5 cumecs (1 in 150-200 year event?) NO PROBLEM RECRUITING MEMBERS AFTER THAT!

8 local residents of Ryedale selected

Not simply a talking shop, though

Emphasis on what people could BRING to the meetings, whether as scientists or locals ...

Meetings intended to stimulate generating a sense of „collective‟ competence With respect to the use of models …

Key aim: develop minimum information requirement (“MIR”) types of model to show how different interventions may affect flood risk .

Local knowledge: however obtained, to be exploited as best as possible in driving what should go in the MIR models and how they are applied.

Plausible outcome: „best‟ solutions shown by any MIR models probably need testing later e.g. using physics-based models HecRAS, ISIS, etc.

Underlying objective: improve understanding - amongst both specialists and non-specialists alike - of the potential viability of such measures, so that importantly useful possibilities are not overlooked.

Interrogating EA flood maps – where good, where not Trying out the bunding model A key functionality of the model was that the user could place any number of bunds in the catchment, in any spatial combination of interest, and see the calculated potential flood water storage Trying out HecRAS to clarify the problem of clearing vegetation from small channels (Is it important or not?) Interrogating EA flood maps – where good, where not

Trying out the bunding model A key functionality of the model was that the user could place any number of bunds in the catchment, in any spatial combination of interest, and see the calculated potential flood water storage

Trying out HecRAS to clarify the problem of clearing vegetation from small channels (Is it important or not?)

Reading group meetings to go through and understand the Pickering Flood Alleviation Scheme Option Report (by Babtie, for the EA), and also the EA‟s Derwent Catchment Flood Management Plan 2007 http://knowledge-controversies.ouce.ox.ac.uk/Ryedale exhibition/

The “Slowing the Flow at Pickering and Sinnington” project :

“To demonstrate how the integrated application of a range of best land management practices can help reduce flood risk at Pickering, as well as deliver wider multiple benefits for local communities.”

High profile exploratory pilot project, one of several in the country, with a range of stakeholder members, mostly from the “Practical, Financial” and “Institutional, Operational” sets:

Sinnington Parish Council DIGRESSION: East Sussex, Uckfield and the River Uck, and building „OVERFLOW‟

88.6 km2 to Isfield gauge, c. 73 km2 to just upstream of Uckfield Uckfield competency group also formed …

Members included local council members and people with professional (engineering and related) skills; later augmented by an ecologist and a water engineer

Need to consider wider range of intervention measures than in Pickering, across the whole catchment, such as:

- riparian buffer strips; - increased channel roughness e.g. LWD dams; - hedgerows; - tree corridors; - more general woodland and forestry; - channel widening, shallowing, changed sinuosity etc; - temporary storage ponds near channel heads; and - bunds in the floodplain (as for Pickering). Uckfield competency group also formed …

Members included local council members and people with professional (engineering and related) skills; later augmented by an ecologist and a water engineer

Need to consider wider range of intervention measures than in Pickering, across the whole catchment, such as:

- riparian buffer strips; - increased channel roughness e.g. LWD dams; - hedgerows; - tree corridors; - more general woodland and forestry; - channel widening, shallowing, changed sinuosity etc; -Triedtemporary to do thisstorage in CRUM3, ponds nearbut not channel possible, heads; particularly and as this model did - bunds in the floodplainnot (as allow for Pickering).for overbank flows!

These crucial for modelling effects of debris dams and buffer strips – led to development of a new model – “OVERFLOW” Key aim in building the OVERFLOW has been to provide an exploratory tool to improve understanding of how different intervention measures may help reduce flood risk.

1. Simplified, coupled, hydrological-hydraulic model 2. Uses „Flow time maps‟ to generate flood hydrograph 3. Applied to individual flood events (calibration needed for each event!) 4. Calculates runoff percentages and then accumulates and routes flow through catchment; „Manning map‟ accounts for channel, overbank and hillslope flow resistance Key aim in building the OVERFLOW has been to provide an exploratory tool to improve understanding of how different intervention measures may help reduce flood risk.

1. Simplified, coupled, hydrological-hydraulic model 2. Uses „Flow time maps‟ to generate flood hydrograph 3. Applied to individual flood events (calibration needed for each event!) 4. Calculates runoff percentages and then accumulates and routes flow through catchment; „Manning map‟ accounts for channel, overbank and hillslope flow resistance 5. Model uses simple rules to predict where and when stream flows exceed bank full and thence allows dispersion of shallow water flows across the bankside areas and the wider flood plain 6. Allows rapid implementation and testing of multiple small-scale interventions, by type and spatial arrangement

Full model description and explanation of how it has been applied is now being written up, 3 papers to follow in due course (Odoni and Lane, etc.) “Slowing the Flow” project - planned demonstration measures:

• Construct several low-level earthen bunds

• Plant 5 ha farm woodland

• Block moorland drains

• Implement sustainable forest drainage systems and review felling plans

• Implement a range of farm-scale measures

• Plant 50 ha riparian woodland

• Restore/create 100 Large Woody Debris dams Natural debris dams →

← Constructed debris → dams, intended to slow flows in channels and force flows out of bank, thereby encouraging shallow water flows in the flood plain and bankside areas.

Running the simulations; positive, neutral and negative …

June 2007 flood Nov. 2000 floods Eight test combination cases: Summary of main results for 8 cases, 2007 event:

Discharge, Test runs for the June 2007 flood, showing the effect of different intervention combinations cumecs on discharge at Ropery Bridge. For clarity, only output above 12 cumecs is shown. See text for explanation of the intervention arrangement in each case. 30 29 Baseline 28 Case 1 27 26 Case 2 25 Case 3 24 Case 4 23 Case 5 22 Case 6 21 Case 7 20 Case 8 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 Case Peak Flood 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 discharge, reduction Hours since midnight (00:00) on 25th June, 2007 cumecs 000s m3 Base 29.5 - 3: all sites 26.7 98 4: exclude Beck 28.4 29 7: 100 lwd dams 27.3 53 8: 100 lwd dams 28.7 23 Progress to end of May, 2011 ...

• 100 LWD dams emplaced in PBeck so far, more to follow as time and resources allow;

• LWD dams also to go on River Seven – MSc research by I-Hsien Porter at Durham, using OVERFLOW – also v. helpful in this respect;

• Hope also to get approval to put some LWD dams along the main Beck upstream of Lev. Station; Progress to end of May, 2011 ...

• 100 LWD dams emplaced in PBeck so far, more to follow as time and resources allow;

• LWD dams also to go on River Seven – MSc research by I-Hsien Porter at Durham, using OVERFLOW – also v. helpful in this respect;

• Hope also to get approval to put some LWD dams along the main Beck upstream of Lev. Station;

• Main bunds have funding, nearly all Ryedale district council, work to begin prob. June 2011 – c. 85,000 m3 storage, protect at 15 cumecs – would have provided complete protection against flooding in all of the prior events (99-2002) except June 2007;

• Bund design had to be updated in early 2011, to allow for bigger spillways, more stringent engineering requirement;

• Planning permission required from National Park and North Yorks CC, expected by c. 10th June; work to start on bunds immediately thereafter ... 64 65

Stakeholder engagement, part 4: thoughts and lessons

Thoughts following the collapse of the bund scheme …

- E.A. needed to enter into a research/project partnership with the other STF team members – it refused that option from the outset, and in its general approach it was too self-defensive, very reluctant to share detail of problems; - also cannot simply „take over‟ local ideas and want to work as if it (the EA) now owned them, and can take most of the credit; - needed to be much more open about what it was doing generally and why, particularly about design related problems, costs and so on; - the EA, and stakeholders generally, should be fully prepared to answer reasonable questions; - the EA cannot and does not know everything or have the answer to everything – and nor does anyone else, for that matter! – and it needs to find a way of working that can accommodate this fact; - since the EA appears to be able to sit as not simply both the judge and jury, but also as prosecution, defence, the police, and the court recorder, can it ever really be a genuine „stakeholder‟ as such? Stakeholder engagement, part 4: thoughts and lessons What worked in Pickering (and Uckfield), and in the STF project;

1. Improved context and general knowledge (“modelling in context ..”) - Local people have deep knowledge about their catchments and countryside; - Also have access to very useful meta-data e.g. photos, diary notes, newspaper cuttings, own observations etc., also know other people who may have deep knowledge about their locality and its history; - They are generally very interested and scientifically minded, even if they have no formal training or advanced education; also very eager to learn - What they say may not be couched in scientific language, but it is frequently good science, and sometimes very significant to a particular study! Stakeholder engagement, part 4: thoughts and lessons What worked in Pickering (and Uckfield), and in the STF project;

2. Exploratory working, trying to do science differently and better - Scientists (and other stakeholders?) working with locals can generate new ideas, new ways to look at old problems; - This can lead to development of potentially very useful, informative, resonant and powerful models – conceptual or quantitative – which can lead in turn to changes in the way problems are „framed‟ in the first place. - Exploratory working can lead to the development of exploratory (demonstrational) tools which allow many options to be tested quickly. Working as stakeholders in a project team (the STF project)

• Very useful and productive to be given a sense of other people‟s priorities or concerns, and benefit of their expert or local knowledge. Especially impressed with the contribution made by Forest Research and forestry colleagues, their general attitude and the work done; • Can also facilitate new ways of working, co-operation and a genuine partnership approach rather than standing back and leaving it up to one body or authority/agency to „solve‟ things; • BUT relies on communication and honesty between the stakeholders (even if matters kept strictly confidential within the project members until the date for going public) … the team members “need to know” as of right what the problems of the other members’ are if they are to act in concert and work together effectively. • Hence, single bodies should not present decisions as „fait accompli‟ (take it or leave it): budgetary and statutory constraints are understandable but still need openness, even if on the face of it nothing can be done - need to adopt a “Can-solve-will-solve” attitude to problems! • Matters of interpretation of policy, regulations, design problems or constraints etc. should certainly be opened up to discussion. • Matters of data limitation should also be discussed to see if ways can be found to get round the difficulties. BUT who should be a stakeholder? Depends on the questions being asked, the perception of risk, the framing of the problem and so on. BUT who should be a stakeholder? Depends on the questions being asked, the perception of risk, the framing of the problem and so on.

Consider the following questions in the context of hazard management, and how one might answer them (after Thomas Glader, University of Vienna …):

- What is the perception of risk (as distinct from hazard)? - WHY? (Can the perception be changed? Do we really need to do anything physical at all?)

- What happens if we do nothing? (This can itself be a very difficult question to answer, hence the need to ask it!) - What are the risk events that can be allowed to happen or occur? - What are the risk events that can never be allowed to occur (or only very seldom?) - Who is affected? - How would they recover? - Who decides? - Who pays? - Who benefits? 76 77 Some closing thoughts BEWARE of comfortable ways (models?) of working! Good science is not comfortable, but messy, and it takes time and commitment.

Good stakeholder engagement should (we hope) promote better science over the longer term, even though it may present problems in the short term … it is not a panacea!

Yes, usual ways of working may seem to make things more efficient, so that the pathways to „solutions‟ look clear cut … BEWARE of comfortable ways (models?) of working! Good science is not comfortable, but messy, and it takes time and commitment.

Good stakeholder engagement should (we hope) promote better science over the longer term, even though it may present problems in the short term … it is not a panacea!

Yes, usual ways of working may seem to make things more efficient, so that the pathways to „solutions‟ look clear cut …

BUT simply including stakeholders in projects (esp. practical and institutional stakeholders) can just be cover for imposing on people certain forms of science (types of modelling approaches and „solutions‟) which may turn out to be sub-optimal, and shuts down genuine exploration.

Wherever possible, take time to consider how stakeholders are to be employed and best exploited. In particular, take time to think through whether you are framing the problem correctly in the first place: ARE YOU PERCEIVING „THE PROBLEM‟ PROPERLY? And … ARE YOU REALLY RESPECTING THE PEOPLE? Thanks and acknowledgements:

Prof. Stuart Lane, University of Lausanne (formerly of Durham University) Dr Tom Nisbet, Forest Research Dr Huw Thomas, Forest Research Simon Marrington, Forest Enterprise Environment Agency, North East Region Ryedale Flood Research Group “Slowing the Flow at Pickering and Sinnington” project team members End slide