Sustainable Severn Forum - 9th December 2015

1. Governance and the Tidal Thames
A Talk for Sustainable Severn, December 2015
by
Adam Guy
Ex-Programme Manager, Thames Estuary Partnership
Office for the Vice-Provost (Research), University College London

2. Is governance ‘ownership’?

3. Owners or stakeholders?
Citizens
State Companies

4. Who owns the Thames Estuary?

5. The City?

6. The Country?

7. A wasteland?

8. Thames history
• 12th Century - Crown sold river to City for cash
• Aldermen administer a huge and disparate conflict-riven territory
• 18th Century - Thames Commission
• Uncoordinated bunch of country squires and riparian landowners
• River full of obstructions and experienced material decline and pollution
• 19th Century - Thames Conservancy
• Bazalgette row led to ownership change in tideway riverbed and soils
• Eventually incorporated Thames Commission as well
• 20th Century - Thames Water Authority and PLA
• TWA > National Rivers Authority > EA, and Thames Water utility co.

9. Historical governance problems:
Navigation
Access
Pollution

10. Current governance problems:
Navigation
Access
Pollution

11. EA governance paradigm
Society
Environment Economy

12. So who governs or funds the Estuary?
Port of London Authority (PLA)
• Navigation, safety, obstructions
Environment Agency (EA)
• Ecology, safety, quality
Corporation of London (‘The City’)
• Health, imported foods
Thames Water
• Water supply, waste, & quality
Greater London Authority (GLA)
Essex and Kent County Councils
• Planning, development, people
The Public?
Safety
Socio-economic Environment
Integrated (Water)
Management

13. A fulcrum in funding?

14. Opportunities: Socio-economic

15. Crossrail

16. Opportunities: Ecological

17. Thames Tideway (Tunnel)

18. Opportunities: Safety

19. TE2100

20. Why governance opportunities?
• Socio-economic
• Talent pipeline: Crossrail > Thames Tunnel > TE2100
• Embed emerging Natural Capital/Ecosystem Services
• Ecological
• Habitat Creation: Managed Realignment
• Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS)
• Modal transport shift - road to river
• Safety
• TE2100 - Flood Security: New funding models
• EU WFD - Water quality: Sharing responsibility

21. Governance model: Partnership

22. Criticism: Still too top-down?
Local stakeholder
• NIMBY
• Why can’t I walk my dog?
• Rewilding - dangerous?
• No surrender to the sea
• Language gaps
• Science blind
• Deny climate change
• Eco-burn/blind
• Interest groups
• Local
• Developers
• EU policy
• NGO/Voluntary

23. Research approach
• Alternative to ‘stakeholder consultation’ methods
• Heimat or ‘belonging’ rather than policy/funding
• UK Research Council - NERC/EPSRC Funding
• Create product - reproducible, cross-applications

24. One values-driven solution?
• Capture uncertainty - interval method/fuzzy logic
• Reduce ‘big-man’ effect - proportionate, no ‘loss’
• Clear audit trail - why/how did we decide that?
• New conservation ‘grammar’
• Values: why [do we care about our environment]?
• Elements: what [things are we talking about]?
• Properties: how [do we change these things]?
• Ultimately - iterative link to cost-benefit decisions
• i.e. how do we decide what to spend to get the best ‘value’

25. Method

26. Analysis

27. Results 1: Why? = Values
Value Stakeholder’s Perspective Personal Perspective
Rating Rank Rating Rank
Health (phys/env) 7.166 1 6.935 2
Health (protection) 6.769 2 6.249 6
Future Opportunities 6.607 3 5.879 9
Adequate Resources 6.59 4 6.315 5
Knowledge/Heritage 6.325 5 6.324 4
Aesthetic Pleasure 5.651 6 7.486 1
Spiritual/Philosophical 5.651 6 6.153 8
Meaningful Occupation 5.473 8 6.691 3
Recreation 4.979 9 6.164 7

28. Results 2: What? = Elements
Element Adequate Resources Aesthetic Pleasure Recreation Health (Protection)
Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank
Hard Flood Defence
Structures
6.411 5 6.828 4 7.294 3 7.483 3
Soft Flood Defence
Structure
6.561 4 7.466 3 7.534 1 7.633 2
Sewage Treatment
Work
8.27 1 7.918 2 7.231 4 7.756 1
Fish/Eel
Passes
4.903 8 4.682 7 5.172 7 3.959 8
Fish 6.03 6 5.868 6 6.565 6 4.181 7
Shellfish 6.711 3 4.092 8 4.186 8 4.289 6
Riverside Vegetation 5.104 7 8.439 1 7.228 5 7.318 4
Disease
Species
8.203 2 6.531 5 7.316 2 6.896 5

29. Results 3: How? = Properties

30. Future governance research?
• Universities:
• Plymouth, Nottingham, Western Australia?
• Partnership or stakeholder model of management
• Seek active management group making changes
• Appropriately scaled problem/management group
• Fluvial or coastal, or other governance problem?
adam.guy@darkwaters.org.uk