SESSION 1 – Reviewing maps and messages

We will present you with some of the projects maps and the messages to facilitate this session. Your group leader has in-depth knowledge about how they were developed.

  1. What do you think of the maps and how they link to the projects messages about wetlands of the future?
  1. What do you think is particularly valuable about the scale we have adopted and the presentation of local issues, maps and case studies?
  1. Would you like us to tweak any of the projects main messages and if so in what way? Is what we are saying clear?

QUESTION 1: Maps

Map 1 – Theoretical historic extent of wetlands (indicative map)

  • We could supplement this map with an understanding (or a calculation) of what we could never get back to wetlands
  • It is important to understand, and express, that we are not comparing like with like between the ‘historic’, and the ‘current’ maps
  • If we can show the drivers for change along side the presentation of this map it would add real value
  • This map does have a big impact (when comparing historic to current) on perceptions about how much wetland there used to be. However, this impact is dependent on the timeframe. If we had looked at 10,000 yrs ago it may be different. Need to be crystal clear what timeframe we are looking at and that case studies are available that show more local loss
  • Could consider splitting uplands and lowlands, but acknowledge that we can’t achieve this fully by habitat type at the national scale

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- The maps interpretation note needs to be clear and supplemented with supporting info

- A decision needs to be made about whether to split this map into upland and lowland historic wetlands

Map 2 – Current extent of wetlands (indicative map)

  • The grey background of England is needed since it is best not to have gaps in maps
  • Need a clearer definition of what ‘current’ is since the data it is based on is of variable timescales, and doesn’t take into account recent activity and efforts
  • Need an interpretation note about why small SSSIs are not visible at the scale presented here
  • It could be helpful to distinguish between uplands and lowlands
  • An inset map for a specific area and habitat would be useful as would a pie chart to show extents in the past, current and future – and supplement this with information on how little of the resource is in good condition of any kind
  • Need to consider how we indicate the quality on the current extent map. We have used both inventory and SSSI data, both of which is of varying quality. Wetlands on map 2 may be interpreted as all being good quality wetland otherwise
  • A regional split would be useful for media purposes and could be formed from
  • Regional maps
  • Local case studies in each region
  • Clearly shows the change between the maps, and how fragmented wetlands have become
  • This is clearly an overestimate, and is not comparing necessarily like with like since the historic wetlands would have been complex mosaics of freshwater, saline and terrestrial wetlands. Some of the inventory data is poor quality wetland, and so we may be sending the wrong message about the amount of effort that may be needed on existing wetlands. Splitting out the inventory data might provide a useful way of showing that quality needs improving and could be added to the future pale pink areas

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- The maps interpretation note needs to be clear

- A decision needs to be made about whether to split this maps into upland and lowland current wetlands

- We need to seek ways to better reflect quality issues, and other sensible refinements

Map 3 – Future wetlands (indicative map)

a)single colour b) double colour

  • b) Is the better map, as it is useful to see the distinction between the current and future wetland areas. However, we could use better colours to distinguish them from each other
  • The future wetland map needs to include priority areas for all habitats to be more representative
  • A graph of habitat target areas is important for policy makers so they can see that the potential is huge and easily meets the existing targets and beyond
  • These 3 vision maps are most important, with the individual habitat potential maps as the next level of technical information. Present these map as being the most important, and the individual habitat potential maps as the supporting technical information
  • This map could be misleading if the uplands and lowlands are not differentiated since the activity needed is different over a 50-year time-span
  • Before publishing we HAVE to seriously consider the issue of where we want wetlands, rather than where they could go
  • If this is a vision, why isn’t there more light purple? Shouldn’t we be aiming high, in the knowledge that we’ll be lucky to get 10% of what you aim for. Whatever we present will be downscaled, maybe to 80% of the light purple
  • It needs to be clearer where existing wetlands are vs those needing restoration, or where creation of new wetlands is wanted
  • The interpretation note needs to clearly describe what we mean by a wetland in the future, and that some of the data may be showing transitional areas e.g. Anglian coast
  • Need to make it clear whether this map really is ‘The best possible opportunities for wetland creation and restoration’ Or, the best opportunities for making extensions to existing large scale wetland.
  • Maps may make more sense if they were diagrammatic
  • The map should provide an overall impression, and it is starting to do that and puts things into context
  • If you are working locally it does provide an insight in to scale of action from a national perspective
  • This map should clearly show areas that are not defensible, even if they are high-grade agricultural land like much of the broads
  • No one seems horrified by the scale of action for wetlands that we seem to be showing – useful way of showing that the potential is great and our ambition is also great
  • Need to carefully couch this map in terms of ‘could’, rather than ‘will’ be wetland
  • We are showing mosaic areas – since freshwater wetlands on the coast will become saline in many cases. Again, it isn’t like with like. We should black out the areas on map 3 that will clearly have a dominant saline influence in 50-years time.
  • It is important to have two versions of the future map: one for upland, the other for lowland – they will have more impact that way and the issues are quite different. The upland map should show potential for future improvements, as well as improvements in quality otherwise it won’t have the political impact it needs to have which is that lots of work is needed in the uplands. Take the pale purple off the upland wetland map and insert it as the pale purple in this third map
  • A large map of this will be useful as first contact
  • Clarity on a map of ‘what could be’, which isn’t necessarily related to ‘what was’
  • Maps always look out of context, or can be seen so. Interpretation notes must always come with package
  • Maps don’t convey why we want these future wetlands – acknowledge the limitations
  • All very useful for local projects to see how they fit in – need broader range of buy-in to these maps

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- The maps interpretation note needs to be clear

- Consider developing a two-tone map distinguishing new from future, and enhancement from creation if possible

- Add in top sites from all habitats where feasible or appropriate

- A decision is needed over whether to split the presentation of the map into upland and lowland

- Clearly define what can be, from what we want or should be, and the kinds of conditions that will give rise to the ‘should’

Map 4 – Habitat creation potential for coastal and floodplain grazing marsh

  • The scale of potential in the map legend is difficult to interpret. A quantitative scale would make it easier to interpret the shading on the map.
  • Legend text needs to be amended from ‘baseline’ to ‘conditions supporting habitat’
  • It might be useful, on these more technical maps, to show all the main settlements
  • Could consider reduce the individual habitat maps to 3 overarching maps:
  • Freshwater lowland wetland (raised bog, fens, grazing, reedbed)
  • Upland wetland (e.g. blanket bog)
  • Coastal marsh
  • ‘Choices maps’ could be helpful to show areas where decisions will have to be made between different habitat types and flood defence options
  • Consider that messages about areas for new wetlands could be sold more effectively at a lower resolution

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- The maps interpretation note needs to be clear

- Colour and interpretation of legendneeds to be decided

- Consider combining individual visions together

Map 5 – Lowland wetland priority areas for the historic environment

  • Be clear that this map describes lowland wetlands and there is currently no data for uplands (ok to say no data at present for the blank areas on the map). Otherwise, the map suggests there is no historic environment potential in the Pennines.
  • Need to change how pixellated this map appears before including it into the main third map
  • Change the title so that it is clear that these areas are where survival of the historic environment resource is greatest

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- The maps interpretation note needs to be clear

- Decide whether or not to absorb these priority areas into the 3rd map

Map 6– Grazing marsh and the tidal floodplain

  • Title – make clearer what we are showing
  • The impact of the map is that that a large proportion of the best areas for wetlands appear under threat, or are unsustainable
  • This is a good map since it presents the challenge of future wetlands in the tidal floodplain nicely
  • It’d be useful to supplement this map with information about the number or % of sites that will be lost within this time-frame
  • To farmers, grade 3-4 agric land is still capable of producing quality crops and so the weighting may not be justifiable from their perspective
  • The presence of large areas of potential flood plain grazing will probably scare land owners and farmers who farm such areas – need to be careful of language and presentation here
  • Small areas having potential are not clear on this scale
  • Need to clarify that this is a map where new wetland would be an addition to existing wetlands
  • Interpretation note needs to make it clear what the data layer is that we are using and what it takes into account
  • As a first approach, the scale of the map is very helpful in introducing the concept, also for placing the national context
  • Case studies needed to supplement the presentation of this map – useful for people beginning to take things on board – ie they’re interested in the possibilities – possibly not that useful for an initial introduction and launching the scheme (to the average landowner)

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- The maps interpretation note needs to be clear

- A decision is needed on whether to ‘blank’ out all saline areas on all maps, or only on the major 3rd map

Map 7 – Airport safeguarding zones

  • Looks like quite a threatening map, and we shouldn’t present it without being clear on what action we are calling for policy makers to do as a result
  • Useful to get an idea of how this relates to existing wetlands, not just future wetlands when presenting it
  • Other issues to consider are coastal access, ports and nuclear power stations. Low flying areas rather than 13km buffer may be a more accurate means of illustrating bird strike risk. This dataset is available through the MOD.
  • Need to balance this with positive issue maps which represent opportunities in light of future land use change, rather than negative constraints which give the impression that to opt for wetlands excludes all other land uses, particularly in light of wanting to promote the multiple benefits of wetlands to society
  • This map may not be suitable for the public domain, but will be useful as a practical and policy tool in strategic planning
  • We need to acknowledge potential conflicts with our vision but be clear on where the mapping should stop
  • Airfields need to be presented in terms of size and usage. Small airfields are not affected by bird attack, but larger airfields may have a case
  • Re-consider just how relevant having the sub-catchments in the background is

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- The maps interpretation note needs to be clear

- Co-present this map with supporting statistics

- Explore access to low fly area MOD datasets

- Remove catchments from backdrop

- A decision is needed on how to incorporate and nest this maps within products

QUESTION 2: Scale

  • Simple contact details on the website are useful as it gives a nice overview of what projects are going on. Anyone potentially wanting to look at an example of local visions can find one relatively close by
  • Need to work on filling the gaps as currently some areas look empty. Add in the ecosystem services report case studies for a start
  • Could add a picture of the area where each project is or a simple map describing geographic location

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- A decision is needed on the amount of effort that is spent filling out the local visions component of website

QUESTION 3: Messages

  • Everyone has a role - but only in appropriate places where they are likely to be the key deliverer. No talk of glory - talk of rehabilitating, enabling and creating
  • Make it clear that we are planning for wetlands to benefit ecosystem services and need to define in messages all these multiple benefits to society of wetlands
  • Clarify that the value of wetlands, including the historical resource, should be used to influence future development
  • Wetlands are still important to people now, not just historically for food water etc and these are presented as being in opposition. Avoid the word vernacular and don’t ever say ‘sad’ because we need to be upbeat
  • Wetlands provide opportunities for people to continue to live a sustainable life – not provide it in the future
  • Rivers message – so what? Talk of generally restoring natural processes for public benefit which will include clean water and flood storage
  • Don’t say ‘spatial tools’, say ‘maps’ in any messages. An appropriate place also needs clarifying = where wetlands an co-exist and deliver multiple benefits
  • When we say assist people be explicit about what that is every time
  • Be upfront about what is so special about wetlands
  • When we say high ecological value, be much more explicit abut what this means
  • A high level message must state a link to the BAP process, and should say that potential ‘far exceeds’ the current targets, rather than reducing our aspirations to a mere doubling
  • Time is needed to comment on messages since these deserve much more attention than currently given in this workshop
  • Must say upfront that HE wetlands are best preserved in-situ, unique, irreplaceable and that change is needed to preserve what is left
  • ‘archives’ change to ‘heritage’
  • Need to split the technical side of the project from the messages and focus on where and what for
  • Messages should not be viewed as being foisted on people, and should make it clear that we seek security in the long term in relation to funding for wetlands
  • Create and communicate a clear understanding about the role of the national map and the role of messages

KEY LEARNING POINTS:

- Steering Group needs to decide how to take forward wording and selection of key messages

- A decision is needed on the level of consultation on key messages, in addition to consultation on maps

SESSION 2 – Options around the launch

We will present you with some ideas, but do have a think about similar launches and initiatives that have, or have not had the impact you hoped for. Our project launch will be primarily aimed at senior policy makers. Our aim is to have the project welcomed by government, and supported by an MP.

  1. Where would you like to see us launch the projects maps and messages? Who in particular would you like to see endorsing or supporting the work from the partners?
  1. What would you like us to do, or develop together in advance of this to mutual benefit?
  1. What do you think you need to do in advance of a launch?
  1. What would be an appropriate measure of success for the launch from your perspective?

QUESTION 1: Where/Who

  • There is a range of audiences, so there should be a range of messages for a launch People have different understandings of what a wetland is, and what is meant by ‘flood’
  • Regional launches rather than a national one might be preferable and have greater impact
  • Focus the launch in key wetland areas – Humber head levels, the wash, Wicken Fen, as the local picture of losses and potential in those areas would help
  • SYNERGY event
  • Might conflict with the Pitt review of flooding – need a team to review this and work with it
  • Not the usual suspects should be lined up locally to demonstrate deliverability on the ground in conjunction with a launch (delivery through IDBs, Ribble, Edendale, lake district, farmers and landowners, Hull headwaters) – and certainly one at every dot on the map
  • Identify target audiences carefully and consider multiple launches if need be. The warm and the cold might need different approaches and different launch nuances
  • Definitely hold it on an existing wetland, such as the London Wetland Centre which holds a couple of hundred people
  • Avoid World Environment Day
  • Elliot Morley? What is he up to now…

KEY LEARNING POINTS: