**5. Analysis of stakeholder engagement**

**Figure 8** summarises the conceptual framework for engaging with stakeholders. Detailed analyses of the results of a Willingness to Pay survey and interviews with riparian, other landowners and government agency stakeholders are reported elsewhere. Reports of the Lunan Catchment Management Group meetings can be found at the project website (see Footnote 1 above).

The following list summarises some key findings of this engagement process:

1.It is challenging to demonstrate technical feasibility

The development and validation of the model to assess the impact of management scenarios on water levels and flow routing was a complex and timeconsuming process. The project was set up with both technical and social science goals, which needed to run in parallel, yet each of which had uncertain outcomes;

2.Predicted benefits are quite thinly spread across users

The multiple benefits of the scheme for flood risk, low flow risk, and ecological conservation was seen as a selling point for a Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme, but in practice it diluted the beneficial impact for each stakeholder and made the technical justification of the scheme based on robust evidence, more challenging;

3.The strongest concerns are for long-term management and legal issues

The catchment has historically supported a series of working water mills for grain processing, and there is still historical memory of water disputes arising from these. While none of these mills are now operating commercially, there is still a recognition that active water management has the potential for dispute and legal challenge. A "benign neglect" approach, based on passive management, is therefore favoured by some. Governance systems to deal with such issues are generally weak in Scotland;

4.Among those in favour of "Water for All", there were no clear champions

The multiple benefits aspects of the proposed scheme has meant that it has proved difficult to identify a single agency with sufficient interest to promote proposals. This has changed recently, with a more unified strategy to promote the benefits of the scheme for wetland ecological conservation;

5.The need to dedicate time and energy to pursuing approval for installation and management after installation

The costs of demonstrating the proof-of-concept elements of the research project have detracted from the pursuit of management and governance planning post-installation and have led to adoption of a proposal that is more passive (reinstatement of blocked spillway) rather than active (management of a remotely operated tilting weir);

6.Insufficient or doubtful benefit to stakeholders

The need for co-ordinated long-term planning and the existence of likely trade-offs (e.g. between up-and downstream interests; between wetland ecology and farming; between fisheries and irrigators; around issues of access to

*The Challenges of Managing Water for Wetland Ecology, Flood Mitigation and Agriculture… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98727*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Conceptual framework for engagement with agencies, land users and other stakeholders.*

the environment) has led to some stakeholders considering the work required to achieve benefits is incommensurate. Few stakeholders have a comprehensive overview of benefits;

7.Lack of precedence

Except on larger, well regulated catchments with strong fisheries, hydroelectric, water supply, navigation, abstraction or sewerage interests, such as the Tay, the Tweed, the Clyde, the Dee and the Forth, or on those designated for Priority Action under the Water Framework Directive, there is little precedence for local Catchment Management Groups and for use of hydraulic structures for integrated management;

#### 8.Need for drainage boards in Scotland?

Recent legal precedent elsewhere has led to a highlighting of the potential for drainage boards to be established in Scotland. The Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Board (River Earn catchment) and the North Glasgow Drainage scheme (River Kelvin and Scottish Union Canal) are recent examples where legally binding governance schemes have been established. The River Leven is also regulated by sluice gates on Loch Leven, but the governance of these gates is based on anachronistic rules developed in the context of obsolete industries downstream.
