in SSSIs. A WLMP is ‘an agreed schedule of operations for each water control structure within
a given area, outlining target water levels for specified periods during the year or agreed re-
sponses to certain conditions’ Swash, 1993. The operating authority is responsible for drawing up
the WLMP, and in the case of SSSIs, there must be close consultation with English Nature in
England or the Countryside Council for Wales. Since water level management is so important for
certain species, these WLMPs, if implemented, are potentially important in a wetland restoration
context.
The domination of IDBs by farmers, especially in this historic context of their role in land
drainage and the ensuing environmental damage, provides a reason why they have been severely
criticised by those representing environmental in- terests. For example, Buisson 1991 called for the
abolition of IDBs and transfer of their responsi- bilities to the National Rivers Authority now the
Environment Agency. A decision-making pro- cess, which places power in the hands of the
farmers and landowners, led to a ‘vociferous call for reform from the nature conservation move-
ment’. Baldock et al. 1990 also explained the negative influence that IDBs had in the Somerset
Levels and Moors. They were described as being ‘a law unto themselves’ and ‘at the heart’ of the
prevailing conservation problems on the Levels and Moors.
However, not all reports of the actions of IDBs have been so negative. George 1992 notes how
the Lower Bure, Halvergate Fleet and Acle Marshes IDB altered water levels in some of its
arterial drains so that graziers could take advan- tage of the ESA’s provision, enabling 942 ha of
marsh qualifying for tier one payments in 1988 to meet the tier two criteria. This suggests that at
least some IDBs do help facilitate farmer involve- ment in schemes and that they can respond to the
collective needs of farmers in a conservation context.
5. Summary of the findings from a survey of IDB representatives
Given these changes, a survey was undertaken of IDBs to investigate the extent to which they
have taken up their conservation responsibilities and to examine their potential role in wetland
restoration Dunn et al., 1994. The survey was of 62 boards across the country 25 of the total. It
was decided to concentrate on IDBs within Eng- land. A wide geographical mix of IDBs was
achieved, covering the counties of Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk,
Cambridgeshire, Kent and Somerset see Table 2. The survey was in the form of semi-structured
face-to-face interviews. We will summarise some of the main findings.
All of the boards that were visited were aware of their obligations to further conservation under
the 1991 Drainage Act. Although very few had a written conservation policy, all said that they did
have a strategy within which they worked and that conservation was considered in everyday op-
erations and decisions taken. There were varying degrees of enthusiasm among different boards
ranging from those who were very pro-active and wanted to take the initiative in creating new habi-
tats and enhancing the environment to those who were more reactive and wanted to be seen to be
doing something purely from a public relations point of view.
Table 2 Coverage of the total area of internal drainage districts
Agricultural area ha
a
Number of SSSIs PRIVATE
Number of IDBs Total area ha
Area pumped
a
623 930 223
1 135 907 1 030 693
Total in England 248
62 338 027
100 238 658
Sample 380 064
25 32
44 38
of total 33
a
Estimates.
Most of the IDBs felt that their management practices had changed in recent years to incorpo-
rate conservation measures, although the type and extent of measures varied considerably across
boards. Several boards had extended the use of environmental management practices, which were
initially introduced in SSSIs to cover the rest of their districts. In general, the smaller, more tradi-
tional boards, which had fewer staff, were less involved in environmental practices. The larger
boards which covered a broader area were more often involved in activities such as creating new
habitat, planting trees and hedges and drawing up agreements with local wildlife trusts. Since larger
boards were more likely to contain land owned by conservation bodies or SSSIs, it is not surprising
to see a relationship between size of board and conservation interest. Perhaps what matters here
is not the size of the board per se, but rather whether conservation bodies own land in the loca-
tion and are therefore represented on the board.
One of the larger boards, the Kings Lynn Con- sortium, had a separate conservation committee.
This comprised seven people and included a board member who worked for English Nature,
another who was a trustee of the Norfolk Natu- ralists Trust, two academic ecologists and the
chief conservation officer of the Broads Author- ity. This board is working with English Nature to
create a GIS system which will help show what areas should be conserved. Another group of
boards had a full-time conservation officer whose post was grant-aided by English Nature. It is his
job to liase with the environmental bodies and set out the IDBs’ conservation strategy. Many of the
other boards had a conservation committee, and with only one exception, the representatives inter-
viewed indicated a good working relationship with conservation bodies.
Most of the IDB respondents could identify at least one area where it would be possible to
re-create wetland, although the size of the area varied considerably. In East Anglia, most of the
boards had certain pockets of land, usually on the extreme edges of the catchment, which were self-
contained and which, with the owner’s consent, could practicably be turned into wetland areas
with minimum risk of flooding to the surrounding area. Those interviewed emphasised feasibility is-
sues in identifying suitable land: that the area should be at the upstream end of the pumping
system, that it is a self-contained area independent of the adjoining drainage systems and that there is
a fresh water supply to keep the levels high. The ability to manage the raising and maintenance of
high water levels precisely often depends on the presence of considerable water management in-
frastructure. Ironically, in the absence of further investment in infrastructure, this criterion would
make wetland restoration more feasible on flat or gently sloping land, which also tends to be most
profitable for agriculture. In fact the areas which the clerks or engineers identified as being most
suitable for wetland restoration were often on the highly productive agricultural land, rather than
on the areas of lower grade land in the district. This highlights the complexity involved in balanc-
ing the opportunity cost and environmental benefits in identifying land suitable for wetland
restoration.
All of the IDB respondents stated that they would be willing to help in any scheme that
involved water level management as long as that was what rate-payers required. They would have
to undertake substantial feasibility work to ensure that raising water levels in one area would allow a
safe level of flood protection for other land users. The larger IDBs in particular were keen to have a
very pro-active role. This suggests the potential responsiveness of IDBs to economic opportuni-
ties, as opposed to their having a narrow preoccu- pation with agricultural production.
6. Potential of the new water management institutions and the need for reform
