Detailed funding information

In 2008, SEPA received funding from the Scottish Government to promote the restoration of the water environment – rivers, lochs, coastal estuarine and wetland systems – to achieve river basin management planning objectives.  For the financial year 2010–2011 the fund contains £1 million.

The funding is to assist in delivering the obligations of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 by contributing to the delivery of the objectives specified in the river basin management plans (RBMP). The Scottish Government intends the fund to assist delivery of objectives in situations where the use of regulatory powers is not appropriate. The fund is expected to cover situations such as:

  • restoration of the morphology (ie the condition of the banks, bed and shore) of the water environment where the damage was caused by historic activities;
  • control of invasive non-native species;
  • provision of treatment for discharges from abandoned non-coal mines[1].

How funding decisions are made

SEPA chairs a Restoration Appraisal Group, which recommends whether to fund an application submitted to the restoration fund. The group consists of representatives from Scottish Government Fisheries, Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate, Scottish Natural Heritage and Forestry Commission Scotland. SEPA is responsible for deciding whether to agree to the group’s recommendations.

Until recently, restoration funding was reactive to applications proposed by external third parties. This experience of assessing projects for funding led the group to develop a series of principles which form the basis of its decision-making. It also highlighted that not all WFD RBMP targets could realistically be delivered by third-party driven projects alone. Therefore a percentage of the fund is now allocated to SEPA led projects that are strategically important to the delivery of the river basin management plan and its targets. 

The catchment approach

River restoration experience in other countries has shown that success is more achievable when funds are directed towards strategically designed and managed catchment scale projects rather than piecemeal or small scale restoration projects (such as site specific re-engineering of beds and banks). With this mind the Restoration Appraisal Group has moved towards promoting catchment scale approaches to ecosystem restoration, working with the natural processes at a larger scale.

Some examples of the catchment approaches to restoration already supported by SEPA and the fund are:

  • catchment scale assessment of and removal of fish barriers which impede the migration of fish;
  • restoring the natural river form and processes in some of the 14 diffuse pollution priority catchments;
  • natural flood management demonstration projects – identifying and promoting natural approaches to flood risk management;
  • catchment scale control of riparian invasive non-native species.

Most funding allocated during 2007 and 2008 was directed to restoring the water environment in rural areas. SEPA however does seek to work with local authorities and others to deliver improvements to the water environment as part of projects to regenerate and enhance urban areas.

The restoration fund will continue to contribute to stakeholder initiated projects which are potentially smaller scale but address locally important problems.   

The Eddleston Water

This is an example of a project which has taken a catchment approach to habitat restoration. Its aim is to deliver costed options for reinstating natural processes along the Eddleston Water, combined with assessing the potential of natural flood management.

The Eddleston Water is a significant sub catchment in the upper Tweed that is channelised throughout most of its course. Whilst water quality is good and urban pressures limited, the morphology of the water body is badly degraded. The Eddleston Water also frequently floods an area of Peebles at the downstream end of the water body. This scoping study aims to:

  • carry out a desk study to ascertain the historical morphological changes that have taken place through use of aerial photos and OS maps;
  • carry out a historical hydrological summary of the catchment;
  • survey the site and outline a list of possible restoration options including the areas suitable for meander restoration, flood bank removal, riparian fencing, establishment of floodplain woodland etc;
  • outline the possible costs of the various options;
  • contact landowners and establish their position with regards to restoring the water course;
  • explore with SEPA the possibility of installing hydrological monitoring equipment at the weir found on the Eddlestone just above where it meets the Tweed in order to gather base line data;
  • assess/model the potential for natural flood management in the catchment. 

It is envisaged that this project will lead to practical restoration works that will potentially improve the status of the water body under the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive. This work could help demonstrate the contribution natural flood management could make to alleviating flood flows in Peebles.  It could improve the habitat for key species such as salmon, water crowsfoot, otter and lamprey.  It could also increase the productivity of this tributary for juvenile salmonids thus contributing to the local economy. The upper reaches of the Tweed are the production powerhouses for the fishery in terms of spawning and juvenile recruitment, and this project could greatly increase the quality and quantity of habitat available.  The project could also improve the landscape and amenity potential of the valley.

This project, whilst led by the Tweed Forum, has many contributing partners, including SEPA, the Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Government, the Tweed Foundation, Borders Forest, Dundee University and most importantly, the landowners and farmers.

How we allocate money

To reflect the various drivers, SEPA has split the restoration fund into a series of categories. SEPA and externally proposed projects are subject to the same criteria but considered separately.

Strategic projects

SEPA allocates 45% of the fund to, and leads on, projects which have been prioritised as nationally important as part of the RBMP process.  The RBMP identifies two such projects:

  • removing barriers to fish migration;
  • delivering restoration projects in priority catchments affected by diffuse and morphological pressures.

Monitoring

Pre and post project monitoring is vital to gauge how successful projects and restoration methods/techniques have been. SEPA therefore allocates 5% of the fund to restoration monitoring to ensure that evidence  is collected on the effectiveness of funded projects.

Externally proposed projects

The remaining 50% of the funds is used to fund applications from external third parties. The funding percentages between the categories are not fixed – if the amount required to fund external projects is overspent then money can be moved from the amount allocated to internal projects. SEPA needs to be acknowledged on the front page of reports with text similar to the following: "This report was funded by the SEPA Restoration Fund."

Baseline information on pressures (update 14 September 2011)

For applicants considering barrier removal projects, there will soon be a requirement to follow the SEPA/SNIFFER 'Development of a Screening Tool for Assessing the Passability of Obstacles to Fish Passage' methodology before submitting barrier applications. We would prefer to see it applied from now onwards, but are not insisting on it at present.

SEPA will also not fund projects or research which aims to look for pressures.

Multi-year projects

We can offer funding in principle on multi-year projects, and depending on the project, we may be able to guarantee future years’ spending. You will not have to resubmit an application form for successive years’ funding for a multi-year project.

How we prioritise fund allocation

After deciding that a project is eligible to receive funding, SEPA then assigns it priority for receiving funds.

The main purpose of the restoration fund is to contribute to the delivery of the objectives and targets as set out in the river basin management plans. We therefore give higher priority to projects that deliver improvements to the classified status of the water environment. Higher priority is also given to projects which:

  • have a larger geographical scale of improvement;
  • will lead to a greater degree of improvement in morphology and ecology;
  • help to deliver river basin management plan objectives for 2015 as oppose to objectives identified for later planning cycles;
  • deliver immediate benefits to the environment as oppose to studies which identify actions to deliver environmental benefits.

Other funding priority considerations

In addition to the above considerations, we will also give higher priority to projects which can deliver a wider range of benefits. This is because restoration funding is more beneficial when it contributes to a project delivering objectives that go beyond improving the water environment – particularly when working in partnership with others. Therefore projects which also consider factors such as biodiversity, climate change, the economy and social benefits will be given higher priority than those that do not. However it is not essential that all projects try to cover all issues.

Finally, we will give higher priority to projects which only require part-funding from SEPA. This is because having project partners provide match and in-kind funding shows a commitment from them to deliver the project. Whether a particular project is funded can also depend on the demand for funding compared to the resources available. This can vary from year to year.

Design and monitoring studies

SEPA will fund restoration design and monitoring studies as part of a project application. Where we or a partner organisation has identified an impact through an environmental monitoring programme, we will fund further studies to identity and design costed restoration options. We will also fund, as part of the overall project, baseline monitoring and post-project monitoring to assess the effectiveness of restoration and inform any necessary management of a site. Monitoring will be funded when it is something which is not the funded organisation’s core business. For example we would not fund the RSPB to monitor birds, but we would consider funding them to monitor geomorphologic change.

As stated above, applications for design and monitoring studies will be given a lower priority than applications for on-the ground works. However, we expect all works to be appropriately assessed and designed following accepted good practice standards for restoration.

Other funding sources

SEPA works with other funding bodies to avoid any risk of double funding a project.

It is legitimate for two funding streams (except SRDP – see below) to fund the same project so long as the funding streams complement, not duplicate, each other.

One of the primary funding sources for environmental enhancement work in rural Scotland is the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP). This is a competitive scheme which funds a range of activities far wider than those associated with aquatic restoration. The restoration fund will not support activities that are funded or are under consideration for funding by SRDP.

It is recognised that although many projects and activities are eligible for SRDP funding, certain projects may never achieve the necessary points to qualify for it. This may be because the proposal falls below size thresholds or is a single co-ordinated project covering multiple land owners. The restoration fund still wants to fund such projects. In particular, the restoration fund will look to address catchment-scale impacts which would be difficult to address via a competitive scheme such as SRDP.

Funding example 1: Creation of a buffer strip on agricultural land

  • A farmer is required by the Diffuse Pollution General Binding Rules (GBRs) to ensure that agricultural activity, such as cultivation for crops (GBR 20) or significant erosion by livestock (GBR 19), does not occur within two and five metres of a river respectively. This is to protect the riverbank and to minimise diffuse pollution inputs. 
  • The restoration fund would not cover the expenses of a farmer to comply with a GBR because it is a regulatory compliance issue.
  • However, the fund would consider contributing to the funding of a buffer strip 10 metres from a river as part of a catchment-scale restoration proposal. This goes over and above the statutory requirement.
  • Restoration funding would also not be possible if SRDP funding had been received or where an application for SRDP funding was being considered. Checks to avoid conflict with SRDP funding will be carried out at the application and claim stages.

There will be some situations where the work to modify the water environment was funded by a Scottish Government scheme and has since then been “inherited” by the landowner. Restoration may impose unreasonable costs on the landowner (see

Funding example 2: A land drainage improvement project

  • Many rivers have been straightened and embanked in order to improve the quality and quantity of land available for agriculture, cutting them off from their floodplains.
  • This practice has also affected large areas of intertidal habitat.
  • The result is reduced in-stream and riparian habitat in affected reaches, with what remains often of poor quality or “less than good” status.
  • Many land owners were publically funded to carry out such land drainage projects and such schemes may be considered assets of land managers, from which they are deriving a benefit.
  • Where drainage schemes were built with public funds, it would not be reasonable to expect land owners to fund their removal and the subsequent restoration of the affected river or wetland.
  • Therefore the funding for removal of such land drainage works and restoration of the water environment can be considered by the restoration fund.

Interaction between funding and regulation

Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR)

We would not normally allocate funds to restoration activities where the measures are already part of an individual’s or organisation’s responsibility under existing legislation. SEPA can use the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) to address many of the affects on the water environment, including point source pollution, diffuse pollution, abstraction, impoundment and engineering work. 

SEPA can use CAR to require anyone responsible for an asset or activity to take mitigation measures to reduce any negative impact it has on the water environment. The responsible person(s) is defined as being the person who originally caused or knowingly permitted that negative impact. The following examples illustrate the relationship between the use of CAR and restoration funding.

Funding example 3: Damage to the water environment caused by weir operation

  • A hydropower company owns and operates a weir which diverts water.
  • The weir prevents fish passage and access to a large length of river as well as affecting sediment transport down the river.
  • The provision of a fish pass will not have a significant adverse impact on electricity generation. 
  • Under these circumstances SEPA would expect the operator to be responsible for funding the provision of a fish pass.

Funding example 4: Damage to the water environment caused by unauthorised engineering activity

  • A landowner or operator causes damage to a river by digging a straight channel through a meandering river and filling in the meanders.
  • Under these circumstances SEPA can clearly identify the person who carried out the controlled activity. 
  • SEPA would use its regulatory powers to ensure remediation of the site and would not consider any application for restoration funding to support this.

In cases where there is a redundant asset, the pressure can originate from many years ago and the responsible person cannot always be identified. Often the landowner is likely to have inherited responsibility for the asset. In such cases it is important that any mitigation measures the responsible person needs to take are reasonable and practicable. They must  take account of the costs, scale and complexity of the restoration measures, and any benefits that may be gained by the person.

Consequently we would, in most instances, expect the responsible person to undertake the necessary mitigation measures. However we will consider applications for restoration funding if the responsible person has inherited a structure with no associated commercial or economic activity. 

Funding example 5: Redundant mill weir

 

  • An abandoned weir constructed for a mill, which no longer exists, impedes the migration of all native fish species – salmon, eels and lamprey. 
  • The ownership of such weirs can be unclear but often falls to the adjacent landowner.
  • If no economic activity is associated with the weir, we may consider an application for funding from the adjacent landowner or a third party to remove or modify the structure.

 

Funding example 6: A non-operational dam owned by an industry eg distillery or Scottish Water

 

  • A dam, which is no longer used but still owned by an active distillery or Scottish Water, impedes the migration of all native fish species - salmon, eels and lamprey.  
  • In this instance, there is a “chain of responsibility” from the responsible entity (person) who originally caused or knowingly permitted the damage to the environment, to the current operator.
  • Under these circumstances we believe that the operator of the site should fund the mitigation work required. Consequently, the action would be required under the Controlled Activities Regulations, subject to an assessment that the measures are proportionate and practicable.

As explained above, we will consider applications for restoration funding where there are no, or limited, regulatory mechanisms available to address effects.

If an activity or structure causing an environmental impact also delivers an economic benefit to the owner or operator then they should fund any work required to mitigate the environmental impacts (eg trunk road, rail culverts). Some structures or activities which affect the environment do have a use – for example delivering a public benefit to society as well as an economic benefit to the operator or owner, such as flood defence schemes. We do not consider it appropriate to direct funding towards such assets. Ensuring that environmental impacts are minimised should be part of the cost of maintaining such assets. SEPA considers that it would be an appropriate use of the restoration powers proposed by the Scottish Government to require such organisations to deliver environmental improvements to the condition of their assets.

Regulation by other bodies

A final issue to consider is the interaction of the restoration fund with other regulatory bodies. The restoration fund will not be used to ensure compliance with any statutory requirements imposed by other bodies, for example the Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) rules. However, there is potential for the fund to aid works of this nature where the landowner is willing to go beyond the statutory requirement (see example 1).


  1. The Coal Authority is responsible for the treatment of pollution from abandoned coal mines.