Consultation outcome

Significant water management issues: summary of consultation responses

Updated 12 August 2026

Summary of responses

This Significant Water Management Issues (SWMI) consultation ran between November 2025 and May 2026. We received 111 online responses in total. Respondents included environmental organisations, water companies, farmers, businesses, local authorities, partnerships, community groups and members of the public. Their responses will help shape the next river basin management plans and guide the actions needed to protect and improve England’s water environment.

A clear message emerged throughout the consultation. People want to see faster progress, stronger collaboration and action that tackles the causes of environmental decline, not just the symptoms. Many respondents called for long-term thinking, stronger delivery, better use of evidence, improved funding arrangements and a more joined-up approach that recognises the connections between water, nature, climate, communities and economic growth.

The consultation shows strong support for a more ambitious approach to protecting and improving England’s waters. People want cleaner rivers, healthier habitats, stronger communities and action that matches the scale of the challenge.

The strongest message we heard is that lasting improvement will come from working together. By combining sound science, strong partnerships, effective regulation, long-term investment and practical action on the ground, we can restore nature, strengthen resilience, adapt to climate change and create healthier waters for people and wildlife.

Examples of the topics that consultees referred to include the following (not exclusive or listed in any particular order):

Climate change must shape every decision

Respondents consistently described climate change as one of the greatest long-term threats to rivers, groundwater, wetlands, estuaries and coastal waters, requiring action across all sectors.

There were strong calls for better climate data, clearer guidance, stronger legislation and greater confidence among planners and decision-makers to act.

Catchment-scale action delivers the greatest benefits

Many respondents emphasised that water challenges should be addressed through joined-up, catchment-based approaches rather than isolated projects.

Many highlighted the need to manage rivers, land, nature, water resources and coastal environments as connected systems from source-to-sea.

Better evidence, monitoring and open data are essential

Access to clear, reliable and openly available data was identified as critical for understanding pressures, targeting investment and measuring success.

Respondents called for integrated datasets across sectors, more local monitoring, real-time information and improved communication of scientific evidence.

There was a call for additional datasets and expanded monitoring programmes, particularly in areas where evidence is still emerging.

Nature-based solutions have an important role to play

Wetland creation, river restoration, sustainable drainage, peatland recovery, floodplain reconnection and coastal habitat restoration were widely supported.

Respondents recognised that natural solutions could improve water quality, reduce flood risk, support biodiversity and increase climate resilience at the same time.

Stronger regulation and enforcement remain important

Across multiple themes respondents raised concerns that existing regulation is not always enforced consistently or effectively.

Many supported clear standards, proportionate enforcement and stronger accountability alongside education, incentives and advice.

Long-term investment is critical to success

Short funding cycles were identified as a major barrier to lasting environmental improvement.

Respondents called for stable, multi-year funding for restoration projects, partnerships, monitoring, infrastructure and maintenance.

Prevention is better than treating damage

Respondents consistently favoured preventative action rather than relying solely on treatment or remediation after harm has occurred.

Concerns included wastewater pollution, agricultural runoff, chemicals, urban runoff, plastics, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), road pollution and other emerging contaminants.

Farmers need trusted advice, practical support and fair incentives

Respondents supported a balanced approach that combines regulation, financial support, market incentives and locally trusted advice.

There was strong support for long-term relationships, catchment-scale delivery and practical guidance that helps farmers protect water while maintaining viable businesses.

Partnerships are vital for delivery

Catchment partnerships and other local collaborations were widely recognised as essential for turning strategy into action.

Respondents called for stronger support, clearer roles, better data access and sustainable funding to help partnerships achieve lasting outcomes.

Nature recovery depends on tackling multiple pressures together

Respondents recognised that pollution, habitat loss, invasive species, climate change and water scarcity all contribute to biodiversity decline.

Many supported an integrated approach that combines habitat restoration, pollution reduction, nature-based solutions and long-term stewardship.

The feedback received through this consultation will play an important role in shaping the next river basin management plans and the actions needed to secure a healthier water environment for future generations.

1. Introduction

Water is essential to healthy communities, thriving wildlife and a strong economy. Clean rivers, lakes, estuaries and groundwater support wildlife, provide water for homes and businesses, help food production, and contribute to the health and wellbeing of communities. But our water environment faces growing pressures.

We are updating the river basin management plans published in December 2022 so that they continue to address the biggest pressures facing our water environment. As part of this work, we are carrying out 3 statutory consultations:

• Working Together, which ran from 14 November 2024 to 14 May 2025
• SWMI (this consultation)
• Draft River Basin Management Plans, which will run for 6 months from 22 December 2026

This report summarises responses to the SWMI consultation which ran from 20 November 2025 to 20 May 2026.

We asked for views on:

• which challenges matter most
• what action is needed
• where you believe more should be done

The responses provide valuable evidence, insight and local knowledge. They will help shape future decisions and inform updates to the river basin management plans. By working with partners, organisations and local communities, we can better protect and improve the waters that people and nature depend on.

What this report summarises:

• the number of responses submitted
• the types of organisations responding
• how people responded
• the key messages we heard
• how those messages will help shape future river basin management plans

In some areas, consultation feedback has already helped us identify actions and priorities. In others, work is still ongoing as we develop the best approaches.

The next opportunity to comment on proposed actions will be during the Draft River Basin Management Plan consultation in December 2026.

2. How we ran the consultation

We ran the consultation from 20 November 2025 to 20 May 2026. It was hosted on Citizen Space, our consultation website.

We received 96 online responses through the online consultation platform.

This report provides an overview of the consultation responses and themes raised.

We also received additional email responses that are not included within the figures or graphics in this document. However, they have been considered alongside the online responses when developing the summary of findings and key messages.

3. Summary of key findings and actions we will take

Thank you to everyone who took the time to contribute to this consultation.

This document summarises your responses. We are using your voice to shape the future approach to managing our water environment and updating the existing river basin management plans.

Consultation statistics

Table 1: Number of responses by river basin district (RBD)

RBDs	Number of responses
Anglian	19
Humber	20
North West	8
Northumbria	8
Severn	8
South East	14
South West	11
Thames	10
Dee (English part)	2
Solway Tweed (English part)	5
All RBDs	35

Table 2: Summary of responses by individuals, organisations and group

Category	Number of responses
Catchment partnerships	14
Charity or community group	25
Local Authority	7
Rivers Trust	6
Water and utility company	11
Government and public bodies	6
Individuals	28
Others	10
Total	107

Table 3: Summary of national and local responses

Organisation	Number of responses
Locally operational organisation	36
Nationally operational organisation	27

Climate change

Climate change is happening now. In England we will experience hotter and drier summers, warmer and wetter winters, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme events like heavy rain, floods and heat waves. This has many implications for our rivers, groundwater, wetlands and coasts, and how they are managed. Climate change is a challenge that will be with us for many years to come regardless of global action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This is because significant quantities of these gases are already in the atmosphere, locking us into continued change.

Question 1: What do you think is most needed to support environmental planners to make informed decisions to deliver measures in the context of climate change?

There were 113 responses to this question. While respondents were asked to select a single option, many felt that more than one option was needed, with several stating that all were essential.

What you said and our response

The strongest message from respondents was that helping people, places and the environment adapt to climate change requires 4 things working together:

• high quality evidence
• skilled practitioners
• clear guidance
• a strong legislative framework

Many respondents explicitly stated that all 4 measures presented in the consultation (open access datasets, training, legislation, bespoke products and guidance) are necessary and mutually reinforcing.

Reliable, open access and future focused data were identified as essential. Respondents stressed the need for more accessible and usable spatial evidence, including climate projections, hydrological data, abstraction volumes, land use information, flood risk information and water quality information. Many reported that existing datasets are fragmented, difficult to access, outdated, or not presented in a format or at a spatial scale that supports practical decision making. There were repeated calls for integrated, standardised datasets and tools that help planners understand the cumulative effects of climate change on water resources, habitats, biodiversity and environmental resilience.

Many respondents highlighted the need for training and professional development. They stressed that planners require the skills and confidence to understand climate science, interpret evidence appropriately, apply it consistently, and work effectively across organisational and sectoral boundaries. One respondent highlighted differences in the core climate change planning assumptions used by government departments and English regulators and called for greater consistency.

The need for stronger legislation and clearer regulatory expectations was a consistent theme. Many highlighted that climate change considerations are too often treated as optional or given insufficient weight in decision making. They called for legislation that clearly defines when and how climate change must be incorporated into environmental planning, supported by effective enforcement mechanisms. Several respondents viewed legislation as the foundation for investment in data, training and guidance, while helping to ensure consistent decision-making.

Respondents also highlighted the importance of integrated, catchment scale and systems-based planning. Climate change was repeatedly described as a complex challenge that affects water quantity and quality, biodiversity, flood risk, agriculture, infrastructure and communities simultaneously. Many advocated joined-up approaches that connect environmental planning with wider water management, nature recovery, spatial planning and climate adaptation objectives. There is support for cross-sector collaboration, shared evidence bases, and planning frameworks that recognise the interconnected nature of environmental systems.

Finally, many respondents identified nature-based solutions (NbS) as a key component of climate-resilient environmental planning. River restoration, wetland creation, floodplain reconnection, woodland planting, sustainable drainage systems, and wider catchment restoration were all cited as measures capable of delivering multiple benefits for biodiversity, water management and climate adaptation. Respondents argued that planners need better guidance, evidence and practical tools to identify, assess and implement these solutions effectively.

Climate change is placing growing pressure on our water environment, and we need a clear and consistent approach across government and regulators to plan for its impacts. We will ensure our guidance reflects the government’s minimum planning assumption of 2°C of global warming by 2050 and the Climate Change Committee’s advice to consider the possibility of 4°C warming by the end of the century. As we consider future reform, we will explore how climate adaptation can be more clearly reflected in the statutory framework while maintaining the core goals of protecting and improving water quality.

Good decisions depend on reliable evidence. We will work with the Met Office and environmental planners across England to improve the climate information and data available to support adaptation and better understand current and future pressures on the water environment. This includes exploring opportunities to expand data available through the Catchment Data Explorer, such as information on future river flows and water temperatures. We are also developing an environmental planning capability framework for Environment Agency staff and will consider how its principles could support the wider planning community.

Water levels and flows challenge

Water taken from rivers and aquifers supplies homes, farms and businesses and enables economic growth. As the climate changes and our population grows, our demand for water will also grow.

At the same time, lower river and groundwater levels can damage habitats and reduce the resilience of wildlife populations. As a result, many of our rivers cannot sustain a healthy environment for fish, insects and plants. Reduced flows can also increase the impacts of polluting chemicals washed into rivers from soils and roads because they are less diluted.

Question 2: What criteria should we consider when deciding where to prioritise abstraction reductions?

There were 95 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents supported a risk-based approach that focuses first on protecting the environment while recognising social, economic and water supply needs. The most common view was that reductions should be focussed in areas where abstraction causes the greatest ecological harm, particularly in sensitive and designated sites such as chalk streams, wetlands, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Ramsar sites, headwaters and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Respondents emphasised that these habitats are highly vulnerable to low flows and that damage may be difficult or impossible to reverse.

Many respondents emphasised the need to consider both existing and future water stress. They supported prioritising catchments already experiencing chronic low flows, groundwater depletion, drought vulnerability or declining water levels. There was widespread recognition that climate change will increase pressure on water resources, and that future drought risk, changing recharge patterns and long-term resilience should inform decisions.

The need for a robust evidence base was also frequently highlighted. Respondents argued that reductions should focus on locations where there is clear evidence that abstraction is a primary cause of ecological harm and where intervention is likely to deliver measurable benefits. Many stressed the importance of local ecological data, monitoring results, hydro-ecological modelling and catchment-specific evidence, rather than relying solely on modelled flow indicators.

Responses recognised that abstraction is often one of several pressures affecting river health, alongside pollution, nutrient enrichment, sewage discharges, habitat degradation and rising temperatures. Many suggested that the greatest environmental benefits would come from tackling these pressures together where reductions can form part of broader catchment restoration programmes.

Alongside environmental priorities, respondents consistently emphasised the need to protect essential human water needs. Public water supply, public health, sanitation and food production were frequently identified as priority uses. Many argued that reductions should avoid disproportionate impacts on communities while encouraging greater efficiency through leakage reduction, demand management and water-saving measures. We continue to work with Ofwat, government and water companies to monitor and improve water efficiency, reduce leakage and manage the demand for water. We also monitor and report on water company performance and the delivery of the actions in their plans.

The availability of alternative water sources or mitigation measures was also considered important. Respondents supported prioritising reductions where options such water recycling, rainwater harvesting, winter storage reservoirs, aquifer recharge, water trading and demand reduction exist. Areas where users could adapt more easily, or where environmental benefits could be achieved at lower cost. Water recycling can play an effective and increasingly important role in securing water supplies. It enables water companies to maximise their available resources. We encourage water recycling to be considered as part of a diverse range of supply and demand solutions – see our Water recycling for public water supply: Environment Agency position statement. We agree that rainwater harvesting can be an effective way to reduce consumption from public water supplies as long as there are sufficient safeguards for public health and the environment if the quantity of water taken does not harm the environment – see our Rainwater harvesting: regulatory position statement.

There was strong consensus that groundwater and aquifer abstraction reductions should be prioritised where they deliver the greatest ecological benefit, particularly for chalk streams, spring-fed systems, wetlands and other groundwater-dependent habitats. They stressed that decisions should be evidence-based, consider groundwater-surface water interactions and climate resilience, and avoid unintended consequences through adaptive, catchment-scale management rather than blanket reductions.

Several respondents highlighted the need to assess deliverability and unintended risks such as groundwater flooding, subsidence, contaminant mobilisation, impacts on navigation, connected water bodies and local infrastructure. This reflected a broader view that abstraction management should take a whole-catchment approach and avoid creating new environmental or social problems.

Finally, respondents frequently raised wider economic and social considerations, including food security, business resilience, employment, affordability and community wellbeing. While most supported prioritising environmental protection, many emphasised the need for fair implementation, with appropriate funding, transition periods and support where reductions affect agriculture, local businesses or other economically important activities.

Overall, responses suggest that abstraction reductions should be prioritised where ecological sensitivity and water stress are greatest, and where there is strong evidence that intervention will deliver meaningful environmental improvements. These factors should be balanced with climate resilience, alternative water sources, deliverability and wider social and economic impacts through a joined-up, catchment-based approach.

Much of the action we currently undertake in our approach to reviewing abstraction licences and assessing evidence of impact is supported in the responses. Our work on Environmental destination (Appendix C) and water resources regional plans help us decide on longer term priorities that can be translated into shorter term regulatory action through our delivery programmes such as the Water Industry National Environment programme (WINEP) or Abstraction Permit Reviews. 

Chemicals in the water environment challenge

Chemical production and use have increased substantially over recent decades, with over 350,000 chemicals and chemical mixtures in commercial use today. Chemicals have always been an essential part of life, but the increasing quantity and diversity of synthetic chemicals have led to releases into the environment through their production, use and disposal. The types and uses chemicals are constantly evolving. This means that our understanding of chemicals, what to monitor and why, continues to develop.

Management of chemicals in the environment is complex and requires participation from all parts of society. Local, national, and international measures can be implemented to manage chemical risks. The Environment Agency works with many organisations to manage and regulate chemicals. Together, we improve our understanding of chemicals, their behaviour in the environment, and the risks they may present, through shared research and evidence.

Question 3: What more could we do to provide you with information and materials to help you understand the challenge posed by the chemicals in the water environment?

There were 92 responses to this question.

See question 6 for a combined response.

Question 4: What action do you intend to take, if any, in tackling the challenge posed by chemicals in the water environment (for example influencing others, communicating the problem to others, changing your behaviour)?

There were 92 responses to this question.

See question 6 for a combined response.

Question 5: If there are any citizen science initiatives you feel could support this area of work, please provide details:

There were 77 responses to this question.

See question 6 for a combined response.

Question 6: What additional action do you think public bodies need to take to regulate or address chemicals in the environment to achieve environmental objectives?

There were 93 responses to this question.

What you said and our response to questions 3 to 6

Responses indicate that improved monitoring and transparency are essential. This includes the need for more frequent testing, wider coverage of chemicals, real-time data, and public access to results through clear, user-friendly platforms. Better understanding of chemical pathways, combined effects of mixtures, and ecological impacts was also identified as important.

Many responses said that data and information should be easier to access, published proactively and promoted more effectively. Making data and information available and accessible to everyone involved in, or affected by, the management of chemicals is essential if we are to tackle chemical pollution in the environment.

The Environment Agency supports this by publishing environmental data, including water quality and chemical monitoring information, sharing evidence with regulatory and research partners, and working with organisations such as water companies, the Health and Safety Executive and UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) to help all parties to better understand and manage chemical risks. This supports the delivery of the government’s PFAS Plan, which is based on scientific evidence, collaboration and improving public access to environmental information. The Environment Agency also publishes research, maintains public registers of environmental permits and permissions, and regulates activities that may cause pollution. We will continue to improve access to environmental information and work with partners to raise awareness of available data, evidence and guidance, helping people make informed decisions about the environment.

Responses also said that citizen science initiatives could be better supported, and collected data could be better utilised. The Environment Agency supports over 200 citizen science projects, enabling communities to contribute to understanding and protecting their local environment. The data collected through these projects provides valuable local evidence that helps inform environmental decision-making. Working with partners, the Environment Agency develops monitoring tools, guidance and frameworks, including its Technical Advisory Framework, to ensure citizen science data is collected consistently and to a high quality standard. This strengthens confidence in the evidence, improves understanding of environmental pressures and supports action to protect and enhance the water environment.

Many responses expressed a desire for collaboration across regulators, stakeholders, public bodies and industry to identify and reduce sources of chemical pollution. Managing chemicals in the environment is complex and requires everyone with a role to play to work together, from preventing pollution at source to regulating activities and providing oversight. The Environment Agency works closely with regulators, water companies, public bodies, industry and the agricultural sector to identify and address chemical risks, including those from wastewater, highways, farming practices, pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines. This also includes working towards the delivery of the government’s PFAS Plan, which aims to protect people, wildlife and the environment from harmful PFAS by improving understanding of their sources, tracking their movement through society and the environment, and reducing exposure through collaboration and the adoption of safer alternatives. The Environment Agency supports coordinated action to reduce chemical pollution and improve environmental outcomes through initiatives such as the PFAS Regulators Group, the Chemicals Investigation Programme, Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) and Integrated Pest Management.

The need to address pollution at its source rather than relying on end-of-pipe treatment was a common theme. Many contributors argue that industries, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and household products are the primary drivers of chemical pollution, and that individual actions alone have limited impact. Many responses reflected the need to take action before chemical pressures become environmental problems, rather than responding after harm has occurred. Respondents stress that legislation is often reactive, addressing problems only after they become widespread. Stronger regulation, earlier intervention and even bans on particularly harmful substances are suggested. A more proactive approach is needed, supported by scientific research, horizon scanning, and collaboration with universities. In addition, the “polluter pays” principle is emphasised, with suggestions that producers should bear the cost of removing harmful substances.

Protecting people and the environment from chemical pollution means identifying risks early and acting before harm occurs. The Environment Agency uses science, evidence and environmental monitoring to identify emerging chemical risks and target action where it can have the greatest impact. It does this through its Prioritisation and Early Warning System (PEWS) which identifies high-risk chemicals, prioritising substances of emerging concern to help direct early policy and regulatory action. The PFAS Risk Screening Tool helps identify and prioritise current and historic sites that have the potential to pose environmental risks to the water environment due to PFAS contamination. This enables targeted regulatory action, including assessments of discharges from sectors such as aviation, metals, textiles, and paper. The Environment Agency promotes source control measures where environmental thresholds are exceeded and works closely with government, industry, academia, communities and international partners to address chemical pollution, including delivering actions from the government’s PFAS Plan. It also contributes to international collaboration through networks such as NORMAN, helping to identify emerging risks and support coordinated global action, while continuing to share evidence and expertise to reduce pollution at source and protect the water environment.

There was a strong theme in the responses that there should be greater investment in both water resource and wastewater infrastructure, as well as in monitoring of chemicals. Water companies are making significant investments to reduce chemical pollution and improve the resilience of water infrastructure through the WINEP. This includes more than 700 environmental improvement measures for chemicals supported by £387 million of funding, including £70 million for chemical investigations, alongside water quality monitoring and installation of new treatment technologies to address existing and emerging chemical risks through the current delivery cycle (AMP8). Additional investment includes:

• £1.8 billion to expand sewage treatment capacity
• £300 million to improve resilience to flooding and power outages
• an £8 billion programme to 2030 aimed at strengthening water supply resilience, reducing demand and cutting leakage

Longer term plans also include major infrastructure projects, such as 10 new reservoirs, 9 water transfer schemes and 2 desalination schemes by 2050.

Many responses highlight that improving water quality requires tackling both pollution sources and water availability. Lower river flows increase the concentration of pollutants, making dilution through higher water levels one of the fastest ways to improve water quality. Maintaining flows, investing in sewage treatment and preventing excessive abstraction are therefore seen as critical priorities.

Public awareness and education play an important supporting role. Clear labelling, targeted campaigns and accessible information can help people and businesses make informed choices. However, lasting improvements depend on regulation, enforcement and coordinated action across sectors to reduce pollution and protect the water environment.

Invasive and non-native species challenge

An invasive non-native species (INNS) is any non-native animal or plant introduced outside its natural past or present distribution which can cause damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live.

Preventing the introduction and spread of invasive non-native species is an essential part of improving the water environment, alongside managing and mitigating the impacts of species that are already present.

Question 7: Are there any barriers stopping you adopting good biosecurity when you are in or near water?

There were 74 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents agreed that the main barriers to good biosecurity are practical and behavioural. A common theme was a lack of public awareness, with many respondents reporting that biosecurity, and the reasons for adopting it, are not widely understood. It was noted that campaigns such as “Check, Clean, Dry” are well known among specialist groups but have limited reach among casual river users, recreational visitors, dog walkers and the wider public.

Education was consistently identified as the most important solution. Suggestions ranged from school curriculum content and national awareness campaigns to improved signage at access points and more targeted communications through user groups and local organisations.

Alongside awareness, respondents highlighted the practical difficulties of implementing biosecurity measures. These included the lack of washdown facilities, cleaning stations, running water and equipment storage at recreational sites. These challenges were particularly acute for volunteers, community groups and recreational users who may travel between multiple sites in a single day. Biosecurity procedures can be difficult to apply consistently where large numbers of volunteers are involved or where sites are remote and inaccessible.

Resource and cost constraints featured strongly throughout the responses. Environmental organisations, trusts and partnerships described shortages of staff, funding and time, making it difficult to maintain biosecurity facilities or provide ongoing training. Respondents who manage their own sites highlighted the challenges of maintaining good biosecurity where there is public access or where activities on adjacent land are outside their control. Many felt that while organisations can manage their own staff and volunteers, they have little influence over the actions of visitors and other users who may inadvertently spread invasive species.

Several respondents felt that biosecurity is not embedded strongly enough in day-to-day practice across all sectors. There was support for improved coordination between regulators, local authorities, water companies, landowners and recreational groups. Respondents felt that there were insufficient enforcement and limited incentives to follow good biosecurity practice. Some respondents expressed frustration about perceived inconsistencies in regulatory interpretation, priorities and delivery across regions, particularly in relation to Environment Agency teams and water company expectations and called for clearer national standards and more consistent implementation.

There was broad support for a prevention and pathway-based approach to invasive non-native species (INNS) management, with respondents recognising the importance of targeting key introduction and spread pathways through biosecurity, awareness raising and behaviour change.

Overall, respondents supported biosecurity principles but argued that increased awareness, practical infrastructure, long-term funding and stronger coordination are essential to make good biosecurity practice routine and effective at scale, helping to prevent the spread of INNS. We’ll use your feedback to help update the INNS challenge narrative and shape our future approach.

Question 8: Do you think that our approach to INNS is appropriate?

There were 72 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents were generally supportive of the current approach to INNS, particularly its emphasis on prevention, biosecurity and partnership working. However, it was noted that delivery relies heavily on volunteers, partnerships and local groups, and many felt that greater funding security and investment in infrastructure are needed to support these efforts.

Prevention was repeatedly described as the most cost-effective and realistic strategy. There was agreement that once species become established, they are often extremely difficult, expensive or impossible to eradicate. Responses also recognised the value of national coordination through initiatives such as the GB Non-Native Species Secretariat.

Several examples of successful collaborative, sector-led programmes were highlighted, including the Water Industry INNS Working Group, the Aquatic Biosecurity Partnership and the Check, Clean, Dry campaign. Partnership-led initiatives such as the Yorkshire Floating Pennywort Forum, Waterlife Recovery Trust mink eradication programme, South West Crayfish Partnership, Local Action Groups and regional INNS strategies were cited as evidence that coordinated, catchment-scale approaches can successfully improve biosecurity, awareness, surveillance and invasive species management when supported by sustained funding and leadership.

Despite this support, many respondents felt that the current approach lacks sufficient ambition and funding. A common view was that the policy framework is sound in principle but is not being delivered effectively enough on the ground. There were concerns that the approach remains overly dependent on voluntary action and would benefit from clearer expectations, stronger accountability and more effective enforcement.

Many felt there has been insufficient investment in awareness raising, biosecurity infrastructure, monitoring and long-term management. Others highlighted a lack of consistency, with priorities and levels of action varying depending on local capacity, available resources and regulatory interpretation.

A frequently suggested solution was a more coordinated catchment-scale approach, which could help address the problem of isolated control and eradication projects being undermined by recolonisation from elsewhere. There was widespread support for expanding regional and catchment-scale planning, integrating invasive species management into broader environmental recovery programmes and strengthening the role of catchment partnerships. Improved data sharing, species mapping and monitoring systems were also identified as priorities, with several respondents advocating for a single national platform for invasive species records and management activities.

There were differing views on herbicide use, with some respondents highlighting successful applications and others advocating greater use of alternative approaches such as biological controls, grazing and habitat restoration. Some respondents also felt that greater attention should be given to controlling pathways of introduction, including plant imports, pet releases and recreational activities. A number believed that invasive species management should feature more prominently within regional planning and regulatory frameworks, with stronger links to biodiversity recovery and wider water environment objectives.

Overall, responses suggest that stakeholders support the strategic direction of the current approach but see significant opportunities to strengthen delivery, improve coordination and increase investment in long-term prevention, monitoring and management to better protect waterways, habitats and native species from the impacts of INNS. Your feedback will be used to help update the INNS challenge narrative and shape our future approach.

Question 9: Please share any challenges or good experiences relating to prevention, control, eradication and management

There were 65 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Responses highlighted both the scale of the challenge posed by INNS and the considerable successes that can be achieved through sustained collaboration and long-term commitment. As with the responses to question 8, the difficulty of maintaining management efforts over extended periods was a recurring theme. Respondents repeatedly noted that effective control and eradication programmes can require years of consistent action, whereas funding is often only available through short-term projects. This mismatch was viewed as one of the greatest obstacles to success. Organisations described difficulties retaining expertise, maintaining momentum and securing resources for follow-up work once initial funding has ended. Volunteer fatigue, limited staffing and increasing workloads were also widely reported.

Coordination emerged as another major challenge. Many respondents explained that invasive species do not respect ownership boundaries, making catchment-scale action essential. Participants highlighted difficulties securing access to private land, reaching agreement across multiple stakeholders and coordinating activities across complex catchments.

Data fragmentation was another recurring issue, with records spread across different organisations and platforms. Many respondents argued that the absence of shared information makes it harder to target resources effectively and track progress over time. Several respondents called for improved data sharing, more consistent recording of invasive species and greater use of mapping tools to support early detection, coordinated action and evaluation of management outcomes.

Alongside these challenges, respondents provided many examples of successful prevention, control and eradication initiatives. Successful management of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, floating pennywort and American mink was reported in a number of catchments, demonstrating that progress can be achieved where interventions are sustained over multiple years. Several respondents described local action groups, catchment partnerships and volunteer networks as critical to success, helping to build awareness, coordinate delivery and maintain long-term effort.

Respondents also highlighted the importance of citizen science, technological innovation and shared learning. Platforms such as INNS Mapper and iRecord were praised for supporting surveillance and early detection, alongside optimism about emerging approaches such as eDNA monitoring and biological controls.

Across the consultation there was a strong sense that successful management depends on combining national coordination with local action, supported by robust data, stable funding and professional leadership. Respondents frequently pointed to examples where long-term, catchment-scale approaches had successfully slowed the spread of invasive species, protected priority habitats or supported eradication efforts.

Overall, respondents were optimistic that meaningful progress is possible, but stressed that lasting success will require continued investment, stronger collaboration and a shift away from fragmented, short-term interventions towards coordinated catchment-scale programmes that can protect habitats and wildlife over the long term. Your feedback will be used to help update the INNS challenge narrative and shape our future approach.

Physical modification challenge

Physical modifications are one of the most widespread and long lasting pressures affecting the water environment. Over the years rivers, estuaries and coasts have been altered to support activities such as flood risk management, navigation, land drainage, development and agriculture. These changes include straightened river channels, barriers to fish movement, disconnected floodplains, modified coastlines and changes in the way water and sediment move through catchments. While some modifications continue to play an important role, many no longer do, and yet they continue to degrade habitats, reduce biodiversity, disrupt natural processes and weaken climate resilience. Tackling these pressures is essential to restoring natural processes and creating healthier, more resilient catchments and coasts.

Question 10: What duties, powers and responsibilities could present, or future water regulators have to effectively respond to, and deliver measures for, physical modification pressures across rivers, catchments and coasts?

There were 84 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents broadly supported a more joined-up approach for regulators in addressing physical modification pressures through river basin management planning. A common theme was the need for a catchment-scale approach that restores natural river, floodplain and coastal processes to improve the health of water bodies and deliver benefits for biodiversity, flood resilience and climate adaptation. Many respondents highlighted the importance of removing or modifying barriers that disrupt natural processes, improving river connectivity, and better aligning decisions across flood risk, planning and environmental management. Many responses emphasised the importance of clear responsibilities, effective regulation and proportionate enforcement. They highlighted the need for regulators to work across organisational and land ownership boundaries, improve coordination between stakeholders and make greater use of evidence and monitoring to target and evaluate actions. Partnership working with landowners, local authorities, environmental organisations and catchment partnerships was widely seen as an important part of delivering practical improvements.

A smaller number of respondents took a different view, arguing that existing powers are generally sufficient and that the main challenges relate to funding, staff capacity, implementation and enforcement rather than the need for additional regulatory powers. Some emphasised the benefits of incentives, education and partnership approaches alongside regulation, while others highlighted the need to balance environmental improvements with navigation, heritage, flood risk management and other social and economic considerations.

Responses supported a more strategic, catchment-based and outcomes-focused approach to tackling physical modification pressures, while recognising the need to consider local circumstances and existing uses of water bodies and their surrounding environments.

The responses reinforce the importance of catchment-scale approaches that integrate habitat restoration, flood resilience, fisheries, and water quality objectives. This aligns with ongoing work to improve the management of physical modification pressures through catchment-based approaches. We are committed to proportionate regulation that delivers environmental outcomes. We are running an Earned Autonomy programme which has been created to enable nature recovery projects to be delivered more quickly and efficiently. We have published 2 position statements regarding low risk impoundments and low risk abstraction for nature recovery actions and fish or eel passage. These were developed in partnership with stakeholders and take a more proportionate, risk-based approach. The feedback will help inform future policy, regulatory and project delivery activity, supporting more integrated and effective environmental outcomes, and inform the ongoing development of river basin management plans.

Question 11: How might these duties, powers and responsibilities evolve to support delivery of measures to deliver water body environmental objectives and wider nature recovery, climate resilience and sustainable development?

There were 81 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents generally supported a more integrated and outcome-focused approach to delivering environmental objectives. Many felt there should be a stronger focus on long-term, catchment-scale planning that supports water body recovery alongside wider goals for nature recovery and climate resilience. Many respondents highlighted the importance of aligning action across river basin management plans, Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs) and other relevant frameworks to improve coordination and delivery. Many also emphasised the importance of effective implementation, supported by sufficient resources, monitoring and regulatory oversight. Respondents highlighted the need for clear priorities, measurable outcomes and a strong evidence base to guide decision-making and demonstrate progress. There was broad support for removing unnecessary barriers to environmental improvement, including simplifying regulatory and permitting processes where appropriate, while maintaining environmental protections. Partnership working was widely seen as essential to delivering outcomes at catchment scale and recognising the links between physical modification, water quality, biodiversity and climate pressures.

A smaller number of respondents took a different view, suggesting that the priority should be to improve delivery of existing responsibilities rather than creating new duties or powers. Some argued that additional plans, strategies and governance structures risk adding complexity without necessarily delivering better outcomes on the ground. Others felt that environmental objectives should remain the primary focus, rather than being balanced equally with social and economic considerations, while some emphasised the importance of local and sub-catchment solutions over broader strategic frameworks.

We recognise the strong support for a more strategic, coordinated and outcome-focused approach to delivering environmental improvements when addressing physical modifications, and the emphasis on delivering practical environmental improvements and building long-term resilience in rivers, wetlands and wider ecosystems. Your feedback will help shape ongoing work to mainstream natural flood management, delivering peat restoration and woodlands for water as part of the Nature for Climate programmes and improve integration across environmental objectives by maximising delivery through mechanisms such as PR29 and Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes.

Question 12: How should success in addressing physical modification pressures be defined and measured in environmental, social, and economic terms?

There were 78 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents generally supported a broad definition of success that puts environmental improvement at its heart, while also recognising the wider benefits that healthier water environments can deliver for people and local economies. The most frequently cited measures of success focused on restoring natural processes, improving river and floodplain connectivity, removing barriers to fish passage and species and habitat recovery. Many respondents highlighted the importance of measurable environmental outcomes, such as improved ecological condition, increased biodiversity, and greater resilience to future pressures including climate change and flooding. There was broad support for using existing River Basin Management Planning and Water Framework Directive measures, alongside appropriate local monitoring and evidence to demonstrate progress.

Many respondents also recognised the social and economic benefits that can arise from improved river, estuarine and coastal environments. These included increased access to rivers and blue-green spaces, recreational opportunities, community involvement and improvements to health and wellbeing. Economic benefits were often linked to reduced flood risk, lower long-term management costs, greater resilience and the wider value provided by ecosystem services. Across all themes, respondents emphasised the importance of robust monitoring and evaluation, with success being judged by measurable environmental improvements rather than simply by the number of projects delivered.

While there was strong support for considering environmental, social and economic outcomes together, a minority of respondents felt that environmental recovery should remain the primary measure of success. Some argued that river basin management plans and the Water Framework Directive are fundamentally environmental tools and that social or economic measures should not dilute this focus. Others warned against relying too heavily on natural capital or monetary valuation approaches, noting that biodiversity and ecological recovery may not always be fully captured through economic assessments. There was also concern from some respondents that wider social or economic objectives, such as recreation or development benefits, should not be pursued at the expense of achieving environmental outcomes. Overall, responses supported a catchment-based approach to measuring success, with environmental improvement viewed as the foundation for wider benefits to communities, nature and local economies.

Respondents said that they valued the demonstration of tangible environmental outcomes while also understanding the wider benefits that healthier water environments can provide. This understanding will support the ongoing development of the Environment Agency’s open access Ecosystem Service Map Explorer tool, and inform how we assess and communicate progress through river basin management planning, including the use of established monitoring frameworks and evidence. It also reinforces the value of considering ecological recovery, resilience and wider catchment benefits when evaluating restoration measures delivered through existing programmes and delivery mechanisms.

Agriculture and rural sector challenge

Agriculture shapes much of England’s landscape and is vital to the country’s environmental and economic wellbeing, supporting food production, rural economies, biodiversity, recreation, cultural heritage, and resilience to floods and droughts. Farming can deliver many benefits for people, places and nature. However, it can also place significant pressure on the water environment through pollution, water abstraction, and habitat degradation. Improving water quality requires collective action. By working together, we can improve the health and resilience of the water environment while supporting sustainable food production and thriving rural businesses.

Question 13: How effective do you think current government policies, such as agri-environment schemes (for example payments for environmental land management), or targeted habitat restoration, are in improving water quality?

There were 86 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Current government policies were viewed as a positive step in the right direction but respondents felt they are not yet delivering improvements at the scale needed to achieve water quality objectives. Effectiveness was described as partial or limited, with respondents noting that while there are local successes and examples of good practice, these have not translated into consistent, catchment-wide improvements. Many characterised progress as incremental, with water quality still falling short of statutory targets.

A major constraint identified by many respondents is the voluntary nature of schemes, which leads to uneven uptake and limited participation from higher-risk or more intensive farming operations. This is compounded by weak spatial targeting. Around two-thirds of respondents called for better targeting of funding and interventions towards highest-risk areas or aligned with catchment priorities. Funding and scheme design were also widely cited barriers. Many respondents argued that payments are insufficient to offset the costs or risks of changing land management, particularly on productive land, while around half highlighted that schemes are overly complex, frequently changing and too short-term to support long-term decisions. These factors reduce farmer confidence and limit uptake of more ambitious measures. In addition, around half of respondents called for stronger regulation and enforcement, arguing that voluntary incentives alone are unlikely to deliver the required level of change.

Targeted habitat restoration was widely recognised as effective in reducing sediment and nutrient runoff and delivering wider environmental benefits, but respondents consistently emphasised that it cannot compensate for dealing with ongoing pollution at source. Across responses, there was strong consensus that policies are most effective when they are well targeted, adequately funded, supported by advice and local delivery, and implemented at catchment scale.

Overall, respondents suggest that achieving significant improvements in water quality will require a more coordinated approach that combines long-term funding, improved targeting, stronger regulation and robust monitoring of outcomes.

We recognise that government-funded agri-environment schemes play a vital role in supporting regulatory approaches by incentivising improved land management and biodiversity outcomes, and that it is important to maintain funding at a level that continues to support these benefits. We also acknowledge that progress to date has been incremental and variable across catchments, reflecting both the complexity of diffuse pollution and the time lag between implementation and measurable improvements.

Comments about the voluntary nature of schemes are noted, which can lead to uneven uptake, particularly among higher risk or more intensive farming systems, as well as the need for more effective spatial targeting of the Sustainable Farming Incentive, similar to Higher Tier schemes, to help deliver greater water quality improvements where they are most needed.

We also recognise feedback regarding funding levels, scheme complexity and the need for greater long-term certainty to support farmer confidence. Defra continues to refine scheme design to improve accessibility and overall value, while ensuring that payments better reflect the costs and benefits of environmental delivery. Alongside this, we agree that regulation has an important complementary role and are taking steps to ensure our regulatory approach is clear, proportionate and effectively enforced.

There was broad agreement that while habitat restoration is an effective tool, it must be combined with action to reduce pollution at source. We remain committed to a more coordinated, catchment-scale approach that integrates incentives, regulation, advice and monitoring to protect and improve water environments.

Question 14: How effective do you think farming regulations are in dealing with agricultural pollution?

There were 85 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Most responses generally agreed that farming regulations are necessary but only partly effective, with most respondents concluding they are not yet delivering enough control of agricultural pollution. While some respondents acknowledged that regulations such as the Farming Rules for Water provide an important baseline, these were generally seen as insufficient on their own to drive meaningful improvements.

A common theme was that enforcement and regulatory capacity need to be strengthened. Many respondents frequently highlighted perceived low inspection rates, lack of follow-up, and minimal use of penalties, which together reduce compliance and undermine confidence in the regulatory system. Several felt that breaches are common but rarely sanctioned, creating a perception that rules can be ignored.

Some responses felt that regulations are overly complex, unclear or applied inconsistently, making them difficult for farmers to understand and implement. Ambiguity in key rules, for example around nutrient application or “reasonable precautions”, and fragmentation across different regulatory frameworks were seen to contribute to inconsistent compliance. Others felt that current regulations do not fully address all pollution pathways, particularly emerging contaminants, soil health issues and cumulative impacts at catchment scale.

There was also agreement that regulations alone are not enough to deliver system-wide change. Many respondents stressed the need for a more joined-up approach that combines regulation, incentives, advice and catchment-scale coordination. Around half highlighted that advisory support and collaborative approaches, such as farmer engagement and partnerships, can be more effective than enforcement alone in driving behaviour change, particularly when backed by financial support. At the same time, there were repeated calls for stronger baseline standards, clearer rules and more proactive, preventative regulation, particularly in high-risk catchments.

Overall, respondents suggest that while farming regulations provide a vital foundation, their effectiveness is currently constrained by limited enforcement, complexity and a lack of integration with wider policy tools. Improving outcomes will require a systems approach that combines clear, enforceable rules, sufficient regulatory resources, targeted inspections and alignment with incentives and advisory support, alongside a shift towards catchment-scale and preventative approaches to managing agricultural pollution.

We agree that regulation alone is insufficient to deliver the scale of improvement required, and that an integrated approach combining regulation, incentives, advice and catchment-scale coordination is essential. Supporting this, Defra is working on regulatory reform, and the Environment Agency has significantly strengthened its regulatory programme in recent years.

In the 2025 to 2026 financial year, 4,410 inspections of non-permitted farms were carried out, using a catchment-based approach targeted at areas with the highest risk of pollution and contributing to more than 19,000 inspections since April 2021. Additional funding will allow the farm inspection programme to expand further and deliver 6,000 inspections each year by 2029.

We recognise that policy gaps also present key challenges, particularly in relation to soil and groundwater protection. Soil health has historically been under-prioritised, with poor compliance against existing rules, despite its critical role in controlling pollution pathways. Groundwater faces increasing pressure from both legacy and current pollution and requires stronger, more targeted protections.

Question 15: What kind of advice and support do farmers and land managers need to take effective action to improve water quality?

There were 81 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Several respondents noted that farmers and land managers require a combination of practical, locally based advice and long-term financial and technical support.

Across responses, there was broad consensus that advice is most effective when tailored to local conditions, and grounded in the realities of farming businesses, rather than generic or one-off guidance. Most responses stressed the importance of one-to-one, on-farm advice and locally relevant support, and many highlighted that farmers engage best when advice is delivered by trusted independent advisers or local organisations and when it is supported by clear, practical examples and peer learning.

Access to funding was also seen as essential, and improving water quality often requires upfront investment in infrastructure upgrades, nutrient management or land-use change. Without reliable funding, even well-designed advice is unlikely to be implemented. There were strong calls for long-term funding certainty, capital grants and ongoing revenue support, as well as clearer guidance on how to access and combine different funding streams. Many emphasised that farmers must be able to run viable businesses while delivering environmental improvements.

A common theme was the need for a more joined-up approach with a recognition that advice is often delivered by multiple organisations, which can lead to confusion and inconsistent messaging. Advice, funding and regulatory requirements should work together more effectively and be easier to navigate, with integration between government bodies, water companies and advisory services seen as essential to improve clarity and uptake.

There were also comments on the importance of knowledge, skills and access to data. Many felt that farmers need a better understanding of how their actions affect water quality. Many respondents called for improved access to local data and practical tools, peer-to-peer learning, farm clusters and demonstration farms were widely viewed as effective ways to build knowledge, understanding and confidence.

Overall respondents highlighted that advice is most effective when it is long-term, built on trusted relationships and integrated into wider farm decision-making. There was broad agreement that improving water quality requires a whole-farm, whole-catchment approach, combining advice, incentives, regulation and collaboration.

We acknowledge that farmers and land managers require practical, trusted and locally tailored advice, alongside sustained financial and institutional support, to take effective action to improve water quality.

Delivering river basin management plan (RBMP) measures successfully will depend on providing accessible, high-quality advice that reflects local environmental conditions and farm business realities. This includes expanding one-to-one advisory support, strengthening the capacity of programmes such as CSF, and supporting farmer-led initiatives such as clusters and demonstration farms. Between April 2021 and March 2026, over 2,000 improvement actions were referred to CSF following Environment Agency inspections.

We also recognise that advice alone is insufficient without appropriate financial support. Delivering water quality improvements often requires upfront investment and long-term changes to land management. Continued development of targeted ELM schemes and other funding mechanisms will be critical to uptake.

Access to data, tools and local evidence can help inform decision-making and demonstrate the benefits of action. We will continue to work with partners to improve access to information. This will help farmers target action where it can have the greatest impact on improving and protecting water quality.

Question 16: Who do you think is best placed to provide advice to farmers and land managers?

There were 81 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Responses generally agreed that no single organisation is best placed to provide advice. Instead, they favoured a coordinated, multi-partner model built on trusted local relationships.

Respondents were aligned in saying that advice is most effective when delivered by individuals or organisations that farmers trust, understand local farming systems and can provide practical, tailored guidance. This commonly includes CSF advisers, independent farm advisers, local environmental NGOs (such as Rivers Trusts, Wildlife Trusts and Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group), and water company advisers, all of whom were frequently cited as credible and effective sources.

A common theme was the importance of keeping advice separate from regulatory enforcement. Many respondents felt that advice is less likely to be trusted when delivered directly by regulators and is often more effective when provided by independent advisers or partnership organisations. Government bodies such as Defra, the Environment Agency and Natural England were seen as playing a vital supporting role, providing policy frameworks, funding and technical guidance rather than acting as the primary source of advice.

The value of peer-to-peer learning and farmer led advice was highlighted particularly through champion farms and demonstration farms that can show practical solutions in action. Farm clusters and farmer networks were widely viewed as effective ways to share knowledge, build trust and encourage behaviour change.

The need for better coordination between advice providers to avoid duplication, inconsistent messaging and “advice overload” was noted. Farmers often receive input from multiple sources, including agronomists, government schemes, NGOs and supply chain organisations, which can be confusing if messages are not aligned. As a result, there were frequent calls for a joined-up, catchment-based approach, with catchment partnerships or similar bodies acting as coordinators to bring together expertise, align messages and tailor support to local priorities.

We acknowledge the consensus that no single organisation is best placed to provide advice and that effective delivery requires a coordinated, multi-partner approach built on trusted local relationships.

A range of organisations, including CSF advisers, independent advisers, environmental NGOs, water company advisers and farmer-led networks all have an important role to play, and the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between advisory and regulatory roles to build trust and encourage engagement is recognised.

Catchment partnerships provide an effective model for coordinating advice, aligning funding and regulatory priorities, and tailoring support to local circumstances.

Peer-to-peer learning and farmer-led approaches are proven components of effective delivery. Supporting farm clusters, demonstration farms and knowledge-sharing networks can help build confidence, show what works in practice and increase the uptake of best practice.

Question 17: How can trust in advice to farmers and land managers be strengthened?

There were 78 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Across submissions there was agreement that trust must be earned and maintained over time through stable, locally delivered and practical engagement. The importance of long-term relationships and continuity of advisers were emphasised, noting that frequent policy changes, short-term projects and high turnover of advisory staff undermine confidence. Many respondents stressed that farmers are more likely to engage when they work with a trusted adviser over several years, supported by stable funding and clear, consistent policy direction.

A further key theme was the need for independent, locally relevant and evidence-based advice. Respondents said that advice is more trusted when it is clearly separate from enforcement activities and commercial interests, and when it is grounded in local data, practical experience and proven outcomes. Conflicting or generic advice was frequently cited as a barrier to trust, leading to strong calls for better coordination and more consistent messaging across organisations. Many also emphasised the importance of demonstrating that recommended actions are both effective and compatible with running a viable farm business, including clear evidence of environmental and financial benefits.

Many respondents recognised the value of peer-to-peer learning and farmer-led engagement in strengthening trust. Farmers are seen as more likely to adopt advice when it is demonstrated by other farmers operating in similar circumstances, through farm clusters, demonstration farms or local case studies. These approaches help reduce perceived risk and make advice tangible and credible. There was also strong support for developing advice with farmers, ensuring that guidance is practical, relevant and informed by real-world constraints.

The need for clearer, more transparent communication and less complexity was a recurring theme. Advice must be easy to understand, proportionate and aligned with funding and regulatory requirements. Trust is reinforced where farmers have confidence that long-term funding schemes will continue, clarity on expectations and assurance that policies will not change unpredictably. Positive, supportive engagement, rather than purely compliance-driven or punitive approaches, was also seen as important in building constructive relationships.

We agree that trust in advice is critical to enabling effective action by farmers and land managers, and that it depends on consistency, credibility and long-term relationships rather than single interventions. Building trust requires stable, long-term advisory support delivered through trusted local relationships. Programmes such as CSF, alongside partner organisations and farmer-led networks, play an important role in providing practical, locally relevant advice grounded in real farm systems.

Peer-to-peer learning and co-design approaches are also key components of trust-building. Supporting farm clusters, demonstration farms and knowledge-sharing networks will help ensure advice is practical, credible and informed by real-world experience. Greater coordination across advisory providers will be important to ensure consistent messaging and reduce complexity for farmers navigating multiple sources of support. This will help farmers make confident decisions that protect and improve water quality while supporting resilient farm businesses.

Question 18: Based on your experience, what types of evidence or monitoring would help build confidence in understanding agriculture’s impact on water quality?

There were 79 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Across submissions there was widespread recognition of the need for more comprehensive and accessible monitoring, with clearer links between farm practices and environmental outcomes.

Most respondents also emphasised the need for wider water quality monitoring coverage, particularly at catchment, tributary and field scale with many noting that existing monitoring is too limited, focusing mainly on larger water bodies and lacking coverage of headwaters and smaller streams, where agricultural impacts are often most pronounced.

A common key theme, raised by many responses, was the need for high-frequency and event-based monitoring to capture changes over time. Respondents highlighted that agricultural pollution is often episodic, associated with rainfall, slurry spreading or seasonal activities, and therefore requires continuous or flow-triggered monitoring rather than periodic sampling. There were also frequent calls for monitoring a wider range of indicators, including nutrients, sediments, pesticides, pathogens and emerging contaminants, alongside physical and biological indicators such as turbidity, macroinvertebrates and ecological condition.

Many respondents were in agreement about the importance of better source apportionment data and highlighted the need to better distinguish agricultural pollution from other sources, such as wastewater or urban runoff, using techniques such as sediment fingerprinting, nutrient tracing, and catchment modelling. There was a call for better integration of datasets, linking farm management practices, land use data and water quality monitoring to provide clearer evidence of cause and effect and support targeted interventions.

There was also an emphasis on making evidence more locally relevant, accessible and useful for action. Landowners and managers are more likely to engage with monitoring where it:

• relates directly to their land or catchment
• demonstrates the impact of interventions over time
• shows clear links between actions and outcomes
• highlights additional benefits such as improved soil health or cost savings

Respondents frequently highlighted the value of openly sharing monitoring results, including through user-friendly platforms, case studies and feedback to farmers.

Several raised the role of citizen science and farmer led monitoring in expanding coverage and building trust. They noted that citizen science networks can provide high resolution data and act as early warning systems, particularly when combined with statutory monitoring. Similarly, involving farmers directly in monitoring programmes was seen as effective in improving understanding, ownership and behaviour change.

Finally, there was support for long-term, integrated monitoring approaches that capture trends over time and account for lag effects, particularly for nutrients in soils, bed sediment and groundwater. Respondents stressed that short-term datasets do not provide enough evidence to demonstrate the impact of interventions or build confidence in policy effectiveness.

We recognise the strong stakeholder view that improving confidence in understanding agriculture’s impact on water quality requires comprehensive, targeted and transparent monitoring, with clearer links between land use, land management practices and environmental outcomes.

Water quality monitoring needs sufficient spatial and temporal coverage to include headwaters, smaller watercourses and priority catchments where agricultural impacts are most significant. High-frequency and event-based monitoring is important for understanding episodic pollution risks associated with rainfall, seasonal practices and land management activities. A broad suite of indicators covering chemical, physical and biological parameters support a more complete understanding of water quality and ecological health.

We acknowledge the importance of robust source apportionment and data integration. Linking water quality data with land use, farm management practices and catchment characteristics helps to distinguish agricultural pressures from other sources and target interventions more effectively. The use of environmental tracing techniques such as sediment fingerprinting can provide valuable supporting evidence alongside traditional monitoring. Strengthening the integration of monitoring data across organisations, including regulators, water companies and catchment partnerships, will support a more consistent and accessible evidence base.

Citizen science and farmer led monitoring can play a valuable role in increasing coverage, engaging local communities and improving understanding of pollution pathways when supported by appropriate quality assurance. Making monitoring data accessible and locally relevant is key to supporting behaviour change. Providing farmers and land managers with clear, practical evidence, such as before-and-after results, local risk mapping and demonstration of co-benefits, helps build confidence in the effectiveness of interventions and supports action to protect and improve water quality.

Question 19: How should regulation, financial support, and market incentives be balanced to help the farming sector reduce its contribution to water pollution?

There were 75 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

There was a strong consensus across respondents that reducing agricultural water pollution requires a coordinated approach that combines regulation, financial support and market incentives, with each playing a complementary role. Most supported a blended approach in which regulation sets a clear baseline, financial support helps farmers make changes, and market mechanisms help sustain long-term improvements. However, many felt the current balance is not effective, highlighting weak enforcement and fragmented incentives.

A consistent theme was that regulation should provide a clear and enforceable baseline, with well defined and consistently applied minimum standards to ensure a level playing field and prevent harmful practices. At the same time, respondents emphasised that regulation on its own is not enough, particularly for diffuse pollution, and needs to be risk based and targeted.

Financial support is seen as essential to enable change, given the upfront costs, ongoing management requirements and potential loss of income. There was strong support for long-term, stable funding and better targeting, alongside concerns that uncertainty undermines uptake and long-term planning. Schemes such as CSF have been under-resourced in recent years, restricting access to advice and guidance.

Market based incentives were widely seen as important for scaling up and sustaining improvements beyond regulatory compliance, but respondents noted these are not yet fully developed and can create conflicting pressures. Many called for better alignment across supply chains and fairer returns for farmers to support more sustainable practices. Across responses, there was a clear emphasis on better integration of regulation, funding and market incentives at catchment scale, supported by cross-sector coordination and alignment with local priorities.

We acknowledge the consensus that an effective approach to reducing agricultural water pollution requires a balanced and integrated combination of regulation, financial support and market incentives.

Regulation provides an essential baseline, setting clear and enforceable minimum standards to prevent pollution and ensure a level playing field across the sector. Strengthening compliance through targeted, risk-based regulation remains a priority, particularly in high-risk sectors and catchments. However, we recognise that regulation alone is insufficient to deliver the scale of change required, particularly in addressing diffuse pollution, and must be complemented by other mechanisms.

Financial support plays a critical role in enabling and de-risking change, and fully funding schemes such as CSF remains important. Delivering water quality improvements often requires investment in infrastructure, changes to land use or ongoing management practices that may reduce short-term returns. ELM schemes and other mechanisms will continue to support farmers in adopting practices that deliver public goods, including improved water quality. Ensuring funding is stable, well targeted and aligned with catchment priorities will be key to increasing uptake and achieving outcomes at scale.

Market based incentives have an important role in sustaining change beyond compliance by rewarding environmentally sustainable production. This includes the development of supply chain standards, natural capital markets, and other mechanisms that recognise and value the environmental services provided by farming.

Effective delivery will depend on integrating these mechanisms at catchment scale and working in partnership across sectors. Aligning regulation, funding, advice and market incentives through catchment planning and partnerships will help ensure that interventions are targeted where they are most needed and deliver the greatest benefit. Embedding principles such as “polluter pays” and “public money for public goods” will further support a fair and effective transition while helping to protect and improve water quality for people, nature and future generations.

Towns, cities and transport challenge

More than half of the world’s population now lives in cities, and in England that figure is even higher, with 83 percent of people living in urban areas. Urbanisation and transport places pressure on the environment and are a source of pollution. These include run-off from urban areas and transport infrastructure (including roads), industrial discharges, urban development, poor and unmaintained drainage infrastructure, and misconnections. Past industrial activity has also left a significant legacy of contaminated land, soils, and water. As towns and cities continue to grow, tackling these pressures will be increasingly important to protect and improve the water environment.

Question 20: What do you see as the main causes of pollution in urban areas?

There were 93 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Responses identify multiple, interconnected sources of urban water pollution, stressing that the problem is complex, widespread and often underestimated, beyond high-profile issues such as sewage.

A dominant theme was the importance of surface water runoff from impermeable surfaces and transport infrastructure, which is widely recognised as a major source of pollution. Rainwater flows over roofs, roads and car parks, collecting pollutants such as microplastics from tyres, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, road salts and sediments, which are then discharged into watercourses. Poor maintenance of drainage systems and unmanaged discharges can worsen these impacts.

Sewage and wastewater infrastructure issues are also highlighted. Combined sewer overflows, ageing systems and insufficient capacity, exacerbated by urban growth and climate-driven rainfall, lead to untreated or partially treated wastewater entering the water environment. Misconnections, where household or commercial wastewater is wrongly connected to surface drains, are identified as a widespread but under-addressed source of pollution.

Respondents also emphasised diffuse urban pollution from everyday human activity, including litter, fly-tipping, household chemicals, detergents, pharmaceuticals, oils and improper waste disposal (for example, fats, paints and wipes entering drains). Several noted that public awareness of these impacts is generally low.

Other sources raised included industrial pollution, landfill leachate, construction runoff and historic contamination, alongside the growing issue of microplastics, including intentionally added plastics from products and industrial processes.

Finally, urbanisation itself was identified as a key driver. Increasing impermeable surfaces, loss of green space and poorly planned development can increase runoff and place additional pressure on drainage systems.

Overall, respondents called for a joined-up, catchment wide approach, combining better infrastructure, regulation, planning and public awareness to tackle the cumulative pressures on water quality.

The sources and contributors of pollutants in urban diffuse discharges are difficult to identify and apportion to individuals. This makes enforcement and regulation of such discharges difficult in many cases. The Environment Agency therefore takes a collaborative approach to these issues, providing technical advice where appropriate and working with partners to identify pressures, improve understanding and support action to protect water quality.

Water industry wastewater challenge

The water industry plays a vital role in making sure that wastewater from homes and businesses is safely treated and returned to the environment. This helps to protect our health and the health of our waters.

Wastewater pollution has in the past damaged rivers, streams, groundwater, coastal waters, and soils. Treated wastewater returned to the environment has become much cleaner over the last 30 years. However, the water industry’s environmental performance has stagnated and, in certain cases, deteriorated in recent years.

Question 21: Which pollution issues linked to water industry wastewater should be prioritised and why?

There were 90 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents frequently emphasised the need to address the root causes of pollution. Recurring issues raised included the asset age, infrastructure capacity and resilience, population growth, and climate change. There were requests for a more catchment-based approach and greater regulation and enforcement of discharges, alongside improved monitoring and transparency.

The Environment Agency will expand real time monitoring and reporting of discharges. The continuous water quality monitoring programme applies to storm overflows and wastewater treatment works (WwTWs) and requires sewerage undertakers to implement water quality monitoring upstream and downstream of discharges. This data will improve our regulation of high-priority assets and will be made available to the public, ensuring transparency and providing near real-time information on water quality.

The feedback showed strong support for prioritising action based on catchment needs, focusing first on the most harmful discharges and those entering rivers that are not achieving good status under the Water Environment Regulations.

The Environment Agency will require companies to produce and follow drainage and wastewater management plans (DWMPs) to maintain, improve, and extend robust and resilient drainage and wastewater systems that can cope with long-term pressures, including those identified in the responses. We will also implement the actions set out by Defra in their response to the Independent Water Commission.

The most frequently raised issue was the discharge of untreated sewage and the risks that spills from combined sewers can pose to wildlife and people’s health. There was concern about non-storm related and unpermitted spills, and about the impact they are having on public confidence in local water quality and people’s ability to enjoy and use rivers and other waters for recreation. Respondents called for major reductions in the frequency and duration of these spills, supported by better asset management. Misconnections were also a common concern raised in consultation responses.

The Environment Agency will continue to implement the storm overflow discharge reduction plan and require all companies to monitor and report all overflows and investigate the causes of dry-day discharges.

Regulation and enforcement will be strengthened, introducing penalties for non-compliance and further increasing the number of inspections giving us greater oversight and strengthening our ability to act where it is needed, including on storm overflows, targeting work on assets causing the greatest environmental harm and those with high frequency overflows.

Nutrient loading was another key topic raised in the consultation feedback. Responses raised concerns that allowing prolonged discharges of wastewater that has been treated but still contains high levels of nutrients could be contributing to ecological failure, particularly in sensitive or low flow catchments. Consultation responses suggested that this issue receives less attention than issues such as storm overflows.

Through the Asset Management Period (AMP) 8 we will work with water companies to significantly reduce the total phosphorus load discharged into freshwater, as required by the Environment Act. By December 2030, the Environment Agency aims to have reduced phosphorus loadings from treated wastewater by 55% against the 2020 baseline, with a further reduction to 80% by 2039. We will review and tighten permit limits through environmental programmes, targeting nutrient reductions in sensitive and failing catchments. We will also consider when it is appropriate to review what is technically achievable for effluent removal at WwTWs.

Respondents also emphasised emerging contaminants and forever chemicals as a growing concern particularly PFAS, pharmaceuticals and microplastics. Concerns were raised about the lack of treatment and regulation of emerging contaminants and the risks they pose to water quality because of their persistence and ability to bioaccumulate. The use of sludge was also raised due to the risk of contaminants entering soil and then returning to rivers and other waters through run-off.

We will continue working with water companies to steer investigations and monitoring of emerging contaminants, in both wastewater and sludge, through programmes such as the Chemical Investigation Programme. Building our understanding of these chemicals will help us develop effective regulatory approaches and better protect the water environment.

These actions will ensure that the priority pollution issues identified through the consultation are addressed in a targeted and evidence-led way, focusing on the greatest risks to water quality, wildlife and public health.

Question 22: Which measures do you think should be prioritised in dealing with wastewater pollution?

There were 81 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Most respondents identified investment in wastewater infrastructure and treatment capacity as the highest priority. Many felt that existing sewerage and treatment systems are no longer fit for purpose due to population growth, urban expansion and climate change. Respondents called for upgrades to treatment works, improvements to maintenance programmes, and enhanced treatment processes capable of removing emerging contaminants such as PFAS.

Reducing sewage spills and storm overflow discharges was another major concern. Respondents called for increased action to prevent dry-weather spills and reduce combined sewer overflows, along with increasing network storage capacity and resilience, and strengthening compliance with discharge permits and consent conditions. Several respondents expressed significant concern about ongoing sewage pollution and expected stronger action to stop pollution reaching rivers and coastal waters.

There was also strong support for sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), rainwater harvesting and wider use of measures to manage surface water. Suggested actions included retrofitting SuDS into existing urban areas and making SuDS mandatory in new developments, introducing household rainwater harvesting and water reuse, and managing runoff at source.

Many respondents also highlighted the need for stronger enforcement, with calls for more rigorous enforcement of permit conditions and adequate funding and resourcing of regulators. Some respondents also questioned the effectiveness of current approaches to enforcement and supported the application of the polluter pays principle.

We will implement the storm overflow assessment framework to investigate high-spilling storm overflows and continue to implement the storm overflow discharge reduction plan. We will also roll out spill frequency threshold permitting and other updated storm overflow permitting approaches to reduce excessive overflow operation.

Event duration monitoring data will be used from storm overflows to improve transparency and better target investigations, alongside the continued support of SuDS where appropriate. We will also implement the actions detailed by Defra in their response to the Independent Water Commission.

Respondents also highlighted the need to prevent pollutants from entering the wastewater system. Measures that were suggested included restrictions on harmful substances such as PFAS and microplastics, enhanced monitoring and treatment for these pollutants, Extended Producer Responsibility schemes and public education on sewer misuse. A recurrent theme among the responses was that source control is more sustainable and cost effective than relying on end-of-pipe treatment. There was also widespread support for enhanced monitoring and evidence gathering, including the use of continuous monitoring technologies and expanded testing for emerging contaminants.

Concern over nutrient pollution, particularly from phosphorus and nitrogen, was also widely raised. Respondents supported continued efforts to reduce nutrient pollution from wastewater discharges, particularly in sensitive rivers and SSSIs.

Catchment and system-based approaches were also raised as a key priority. Respondents recommended that wastewater pollution be considered alongside wider pressures such as agriculture and abstraction. Many recommended coordinated catchment-scale planning, with measures tailored to local needs rather than relying on generic national solutions.

We will support the delivery of RBMP measures and catchment-based partnerships to tackle nutrient and chemical pollution that is preventing water bodies from achieving good status.

We will also work with water companies through the WINEP to reduce nutrient and chemical pollution, improve wastewater treatment and address storm overflows.

Monitoring and evidence gathering will be expanded for emerging contaminants, including PFAS, to inform future regulation, and we will support the use of NbS and catchment-scale approaches to help protect and improve the water environment.

Question 23: Is the balance right between taking short term solutions and considering longer, more nature friendly solutions?

There were 74 responses to this question.

What you said and our response

Many respondents felt that the current balance is too heavily weighted towards reactive short-term solutions and supported a greater emphasis on long-term, catchment based and nature friendly solutions. Support for NbS and catchment-based approaches was driven by their potential to improve resilience, help communities and ecosystems adapt to climate change, support biodiversity and deliver wider environmental benefits. SuDS, wetlands and sewer separation were all raised for their ability to better manage rainwater and, in turn, improve the resilience of wastewater infrastructure. At the same time respondents recognised that these should complement traditional infrastructure upgrades.

It was highlighted that increasing infrastructure capacity addresses pressures from population growth, and ageing assets that may not be addressed solely by NbS. For this reason, respondents felt that continued investment in infrastructure remains essential. Respondents felt that striking the right balance between the 2 approaches would help tackle immediate problems while building the long-term resilience of water bodies. It was also noted that there should not be a focus on choosing one approach over another, but on ensuring the most appropriate methods are used in each catchment, with solutions tailored to local water environment needs.

Many respondents believed the current planning and funding cycles, including asset management plan and price review cycles, can act as a barrier to long-term investment in nature friendly solutions. It was suggested that these programmes favour short term investment that does not address the underlying causes of pollution.

Several responses highlighted the need for greater monitoring and research to support wider implementation of NbS.

Source control was also raised. Responses called for preventing pollutants from entering the system in the first place, rather than relying on downstream treatment to remove them. One example, called for behavioural changes to be encouraged through awareness campaigns, including reducing the use of chemicals and pollutants such as microplastics and cleaning solutions. It was felt that tackling pollution at its source would be more effective than trying to remove it at the end of the pipe.

We will continue to support both immediate and longer-term solutions to address the root causes of pollution, recognising that NbS can play an important role in improving the water environment. We will also continue to support conventional treatment approaches where they are needed to meet legal requirements and environmental deadlines.

Catchment-based and NbS will continue to be promoted where they can deliver sustainable outcomes and improvements to water quality and climate resilience, and we will continue to work with partners to identify NbS that are suitable for local catchments and can deliver lasting environmental benefits.

Alongside this we will continue to support investment in conventional wastewater infrastructure to protect the environment and meet environmental standards, recognising that NbS may not be appropriate in all circumstances. We will use local, site specific evidence to inform decisions.

We will continue to influence long-term planning through mechanisms such as DWMPs, ensuring current and future environmental pressures, as well as resilience needs, are considered when identifying solutions, alongside encouraging the use of NbS.

Environmental monitoring and stakeholder engagement will improve our understanding of how effective NbS are in different places and circumstances.

Question 24: How can new data and technologies help to address pollution from water industry wastewater?

There were 75 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents frequently raised the need for increased monitoring, with frequent calls for real-time monitoring of wastewater discharges, receiving waters and storm overflows, as well as public access to environmental data. Several respondents felt that monitoring of storm overflows should include information on discharge volume, pollutant concentration, environmental impact and spill duration. There was also support for making water company data more openly available to improve transparency and help build public trust.

The value of continuous water quality monitoring, such as telemetry and smart sensors, was highlighted by many respondents, who viewed these technologies as important tools for identifying pollution incidents quickly and helping organisations act before harm occurs, rather than responding after the event.

A recurring theme was the potential for improved decision-making using tools such as data analysis, predictive modelling and artificial intelligence (AI). Respondents highlighted their potential to identify pollution hotspots, detect patterns in asset performance and predict failures before they happen.

Respondents also recognised the importance of new technology in wastewater treatment itself. Technologies mentioned specifically included advances in phosphorus and nutrient removal, quaternary treatment processes, filtration technologies, and advanced oxidation technologies that can remove emerging contaminants such as PFAS, pharmaceuticals and microplastics. There was widespread support for trialling new treatment approaches alongside the funding and regulation needed to support their wider use.

There was strong support for bringing together data from different sectors. Respondents highlighted that combining wastewater, river, rainfall, ecological and catchment information could support more effective catchment-scale planning and decision making. Respondents expressed support for shared data platforms, greater collaboration between organisations, and more data driven local environmental decision making.

Many respondents identified citizen science as an important, yet underutilised, evidence source. There was widespread support for using citizen science alongside regulatory monitoring to improve geographical coverage and provide valuable local insights that may not otherwise be available to regulators. Several respondents also recommended that citizen science data be considered for use within formal decision making processes.

In response the Environment Agency will expand continuous water quality monitoring to provide stronger evidence on water quality and pollution. We will use data from event duration monitors and other monitoring systems to improve our understanding of storm overflows and their impacts and work with water companies and partners to improve data sharing, transparency and accessibility, including the use of catchment-scale datasets.

We will support the Water Industry Chemical Investigation Programme and other monitoring programmes to increase understanding of emerging contaminants and trial new treatment technologies alongside encouraging innovation in advanced wastewater treatment technologies, including approaches that improve the removal of pathogens and emerging pollutants.

We will continue to work with partners to develop tools, guidance and frameworks to support a standardised and connected approach to citizen science monitoring of the water environment and use improved data and evidence to move towards a more preventative and outcomes focused approach to reducing wastewater pollution.

We will consider the use of near real time effluent quality monitoring at WwTWs.

Pollution from abandoned mines challenge

Mining has played a major part in our rich industrial history, but this also has led to thousands of abandoned mines left scattered across our landscape. Most of these mines closed well over 100 years ago but they still can pollute our rivers, harm fish, river insects and ecosystems, and potentially have an adverse impact on economic activity.

Question 25: What can be done to address pollution from abandoned mines in these river basin districts?

There were 49 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents recognised that pollution from abandoned mines is a significant, long-term environmental legacy issue that requires sustained, coordinated action. Many supported site specific remediation that combines engineered and NbS, which is closely aligned with the objectives and approach of the Water and Abandoned Metal Mines (WAMM) Programme, a partnership between Defra, the Environment Agency and The Mining Remediation Authority (MRA). The WAMM programme works towards a statutory target set out in the Environment Act 2021 to halve the length of rivers (1,491 km) identified in the baseline survey, as polluted by abandoned metal mines by 2038. The programme works alongside the MRA’s Coal Programme which focuses on preventing and remediating water pollution associated with historic coal mining and currently operates 47 coal mine water treatment schemes within England.

Respondents highlighted the need for monitoring, evidence gathering and a better understanding of catchments affected by mine pollution to develop effective solutions. This reflects a key phase of the WAMM Programme’s delivery model with interventions based on a catchment scale approach that assesses the sources, pathways and receptors through catchment studies and water quality monitoring. The treatment schemes and diffuse interventions implemented through the WAMM programme and Coal programme reduce pollution entering the water environment, including chemicals such as arsenic, iron, copper and zinc, and priority substances such as cadmium and lead. The WAMM programme is on track to meet the interim target set out in Defra’s Environmental Improvement Plan to deliver 55 catchment studies, 8 mine water treatment schemes and 20 diffuse interventions by 2030.

The support for NbS such as wetlands, reedbeds, sediment retention features and stabilisation were also reflected in the responses. The WAMM Programme recognises the value of these approaches as part of the options appraisal process when developing remediation measures and NbS already implemented within the programme have provided evidence of improved biodiversity and landscape benefits. The interventions are designed on a site specific basis to ensure unintended impacts on protected habitats, species or historic features are avoided. 

Many respondents commented on accountability and fairness for abandoned mines. There is a statutory defence that protects operators of mines abandoned prior to 1 January 2000 against prosecution for knowingly permitting ongoing water pollution. The WAMM and Coal Programme addresses pollution from mines abandoned before this date. Today, mining operators are subject to improved regulatory controls, including the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, which place obligations on operators to prevent pollution, protect the water environment and manage site closure responsibly.

We will continue to work with partners through the Water and Abandoned Metal Mines Programme to reduce pollution from historic mining and improve affected rivers. Using monitoring, catchment investigations and targeted interventions, including NbS, we will focus action where it can deliver the greatest environmental benefits.

Decline in nature challenge

Biodiversity, the variety of living things, is essential to our survival on this planet. It is the interaction between biodiversity and non-living natural resources that generates most of the benefits to society, including air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat and materials for shelter.

Many water dependent habitats such as coastal and freshwater wetlands, rivers, lakes and ponds have been lost, isolated, modified and polluted. Species that depend on them are also in decline; threatened by pressures from our use of land and water, either directly, from the wider catchment, or more widely from climate change and the introduction and spread of invasive non-native species.

Question 26: What do you see as the biggest opportunities and barriers to scaling up and accelerating nature recovery through these approaches?

There were 88 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents saw significant opportunities to scale up nature recovery, but there are financial, social, regulatory and structural barriers. We agree that partnership working is key to deliver improvements for nature. It can help align different policy drivers and ambitions across sectors in a coordinated way.

Many highlighted the important role of Catchment Partnerships and LNRSs in bringing multiple organisations and sectors together and identifying opportunities to deliver improvements at scale work. Some respondents suggested that focusing on small water bodies and headwaters could maximise benefits for nature recovery at relatively low cost. Others recommended focusing on larger areas such as National Parks and coastlines.

NbS were widely supported and can provide multiple benefits when designed well. Specific examples include:

• peatland, wetland and saltmarsh restoration to reduce sediment and nutrients entering watercourses
• wet woodland and riparian restoration to support flood risk management, nature recovery and historic landscape character
• beaver re-introduction to improve water quality and create floodplain wetlands

Delivery of improvements, including NbS, needs to be planned at a catchment scale using a source-to-sea approach. Respondents felt this would allow interventions to be planned and targeted more effectively. Good planning is seen as important because of the interconnected nature of ecosystems. Some suggest using a Natural Capital Approach to assess the benefits delivered. This would help demonstrate the value that the natural environment provides. Several responses identified initiatives such as Biodiversity Net Gain and ELM schemes as ways to deliver benefits at scale.

The most frequently cited barrier is funding. Many respondents called for stable, long-term investment to support delivery, ongoing maintenance, and monitoring, alongside incentives for landowners, farmers and land managers. Other barriers included fragmented landownership and competing land use priorities identified as making delivery at scale difficult and complex planning and permitting processes. Some responses recommend streamlined approvals for projects that aim to improve the environment. Respondents felt that gaps in coordination, skills and delivery capacity across regulators can result in delays and affect the ability to deliver projects successfully.

Many respondents also recognised that pressures on the natural environment are making it more difficult for nature to recover. Pollution, physical modifications, INNS and inappropriately designed development are some of the issues highlighted. Respondents highlighted the importance of robust data and monitoring, alongside clear, enforceable regulation are needed, to support action and drive environmental improvement.

How could these challenges be overcome (are there good examples we can learn from)?

Respondents told us that accelerating nature recovery requires stronger governance and a bolder approach. Stronger enforcement, funding and greater public engagement are all needed. Many supported integrated, catchment-scale approaches, where water, agriculture, planning and infrastructure are managed together through long-term, adaptive frameworks. Coordination was seen as essential to provide effective, large scale benefits, and we agree that a partnership approach can support this.

Stable multi-year funding opportunities were again raised as a way to overcome barriers to delivery. Respondents also called for streamlining regulation, increasing acceptance of risk where appropriate, and exploring approaches such as regulatory sandboxes, blended finance and simplified planning and permitting for NbS. Innovative approaches such as blended finance and outcome based payments were identified as ways to drive behaviour change and accelerate environmental improvements.

Education, awareness and initiatives like citizen science were identified as important ways to build understanding of environmental issues and encourage wider participation in nature recovery. Respondents felt that sharing practical examples of successful projects (for example, the return of wildlife species) and visible ecosystem recovery can help build public support and confidence.

Practical examples of successful collaboration across sectors that break down siloed ways of working were seen as particularly valuable. Some found it difficult to identify examples that successfully overcome these challenges. Examples provided by others include:

• Catchment Based Approach (CaBA) and individual Catchment Partnerships
• Rivers Trusts
• Protected sites strategies
• The Oxcam Growth Corridor
• The Wylye Landscape Recovery Scheme
• South West Peatland Partnership

We recognise that nature recovery requires coordinated action across catchments, supported by strong partnerships, good evidence and long-term investment. We will continue to promote catchment-based approaches and NbS through future river basin management plans to improve water quality, support biodiversity and build climate resilience.

Question 27: What data and information do you need to target investment and action to deliver wildlife-rich water habitat and benefits for water-dependent species (locally and on a larger scale)?

There were 71 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Responses highlight that while a large amount of data is available, it is not always easy to access, use or understand. Many supported a centralised, user friendly data platform that hosts open access ecological, hydrological, spatial and socio-economic information would reduce duplication of effort and support collaboration. Respondents highlighted that giving partners and individuals the ability to upload, interpret and share data would increase its value. We agree that long-term data on species distribution, habitat condition and connectivity, water quality, river flows, pollution sources, land use and climate risks are crucial to understanding where nature recovery is needed and how it can be achieved.

Respondents want to be able to use data to drive action. For example, using ecological data to create opportunity maps that identify where NbS can deliver multiple benefits. To do this, respondents identified that good baseline data is required. LNRSs were recognised as a good example of using baseline data to identify opportunities for improvement. Some also highlighted that information on ecosystem function and resilience can be more useful than water body status and can help identify where action would have the greatest long-term impact.

There is strong support for improved monitoring, including maintaining long-term monitoring points, higher resolution local monitoring and real-time monitoring. It was emphasised that monitoring should be evidence led, following the source-pathway-receptor principle, and be used to support regulation and enforcement. Monitoring also needs to be able to adapt to new and emerging threats, such as microplastics and persistent chemicals such as PFAS.

As well as focusing on data and monitoring, respondents also asked us to consider how we communicate our data and monitoring results so that people can clearly understand what they mean and why they matter. This is increasingly important for business cases seeking to demonstrate the value of ecosystem services and ecosystem restoration, helping organisations and investors make informed decisions and unlock funding for nature recovery.

Question 28: What actions are needed to enable the recovery of estuarine and coastal environments, ensuring they deliver long-term benefits for biodiversity and climate resilience, while supporting thriving coastal communities?

There were 60 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents told us that recovering coastal and estuarine environments requires coordinated action at scale. Many strongly emphasised that these environments are directly influenced by land use and interventions across the catchment, so a holistic, source-to-sea approach is essential. We recognise the impact that pollution can have on our coastal environments, including sewage discharges, agricultural runoff and chemical inputs. These pressures not only reduce water quality but can also damage valuable habitats such as seagrass meadows, saltmarshes and mudflats.

There was strong support for restoring natural processes through NbS. Saltmarsh creation, dune restoration, seagrass recovery and managed realignment were highlighted as creating wildlife rich habitats that support priority species, while also providing valuable ecosystem services such as improved water quality, natural flood management and increased resilience to climate change.

Many of the issues highlighted as barriers to the recovery of estuarine and coastal environments are common across wider nature recovery. These include:

• a lack of stable, long-term funding
• a need for more coordinated partnership working
• complex permitting, including for projects that deliver environmental benefits

An additional challenge raised is the integration of land based and freshwater plans and policies with marine plans and policies. Respondents called for more joined-up working between regulators in this area.

As well as being important ecological assets, responses highlighted that coasts and estuaries are important for recreation, food production, industry and heritage. There was support for sustainable coastal economies, recognising that these depend on healthy coastal ecosystems. Some activities raised greater concern, including trawling, dredging and intensive industry.

Respondents highlighted that support for coastal communities is crucial to protecting and restoring coastal and estuarine environments. These communities face unique challenges, including coastal erosion and rising sea levels.

Local partnerships challenge

Significant improvements in the water environment have been delivered over the last few decades through regulation and enforcement. However, many of the challenges facing the water environment are complex and cannot be addressed by any one organisation acting alone. Improving the water environment increasingly depends on effective partnership working. Collaboration in identifying, planning and delivering action can also bring opportunities to deliver additional and wider outcomes and benefits for local communities through working in an integrated way, for example, improving access to good quality blue and green space.

Question 29: How can local delivery partnerships be strengthened to better achieve priority outcomes in the water sector, while preserving their unique local relevance?

There were 86 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents emphasised that local delivery partnerships, particularly Catchment Partnerships, are central to protecting and improving the water environment, but are currently constrained by insufficient resources, unclear roles and limited authority. Many felt that partnerships have strong local knowledge, relationships, and the ability to coordinate action across sectors, yet lack the funding, capacity and governance frameworks needed to deliver improvements at the scale required.

Long-term funding, replacing short term and competitive grant cycles that limit planning and delivery was the most frequently raised issue. Respondents felt that dedicated, fulltime staff and stronger financial support would allow partnerships to move from basic coordination to long-term planning, programme design and delivering practical improvements on the ground. There is also strong support for giving partnerships a clearer mandate and potentially statutory status, enabling them to influence planning, investment and regulatory decisions more effectively.

Responses highlight the importance of bringing together a wide range of partners, including farmers, landowners, industry, local authorities, researchers and communities. Expanding participation, potentially through water company licence conditions or stronger incentives, would help ensure that all key actors contribute to solutions. Improved data sharing, training and knowledge exchange are also seen as essential for strengthening collaboration, making better use of expertise and avoiding duplication of effort.

Respondents highlighted the need for better integration across governance levels, linking local partnerships with national strategies and emerging regional planning bodies. Partnerships should act as a “missing middle” between policy and delivery, turning national priorities and long-term goals into action that works for local places and communities.

Finally, responses stress that partnerships must remain locally flexible and community focused while being supported by clearer national direction, stronger enforcement of environmental regulations and better coordination. Overall respondents supported, strengthening local delivery partnerships while retaining the flexibility and local focus that makes them effective. We agree that local delivery partnerships play an important role in delivering water sector outcomes through their local knowledge, stakeholder relationships and ability to coordinate action across organisational boundaries.

Our evaluation evidence highlights the importance of long-term investment in both partnership capacity and project delivery. Stable funding for coordination and partnership staff can support continuity, relationship building and strategic planning, while longer term delivery funding can provide greater certainty for implementation and improve the effectiveness of interventions.

We also agree on the importance of strengthening links between local delivery partnerships and wider regional and national planning processes. Local partnerships can play a valuable role in turning strategic objectives into practical action on the ground and ensuring that local knowledge informs decision making.

Recent increases in investment in Catchment Partnerships reflect growing recognition of the contribution that collaborative, catchment-based approaches can make to improving environmental outcomes. Future reforms should seek to strengthen partnerships’ ability to deliver environmental improvements, while preserving the flexibility, local relevance and collaborative nature that make them effective.

Question 30: What information, guidance, or tools do local partnerships need to drive action towards a healthier water environment with broad environmental, social, and economic benefits?

There were 76 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents highlighted the need for adequate funding, clear guidance and access to high quality data to support effective delivery. Many felt partnerships would benefit from better access to integrated environmental data, mapping tools, monitoring information and decision tools. Respondents highlighted the value of data that is easy to access, understand and use in local decision making. Without sufficient capacity, even well established partnerships struggle to implement actions, engage stakeholders and maintain momentum.

Clearer government guidance and accountability frameworks were also seen as important. Respondents called for stronger alignment between national policy, local delivery and regulatory frameworks to help target action and measure progress. Many highlighted the importance of knowledge sharing, training and access to examples of successful delivery. Contributors emphasised the need for centralised data platforms, mapping tools, real time monitoring dashboards and decision support systems to combine water quality, hydrology, land use and ecological data. Respondents pointed out that standardised monitoring frameworks, including citizen science, would improve transparency, build trust and support evidence-based decision making.

Responses also highlighted the value of collaboration and knowledge sharing, including partnerships with universities, NGOs and local communities. Training, mentoring and shared learning, alongside practical guidance and case studies, can help more organisations adopt approaches that work, particularly NbS.

Community engagement was also identified as a key enabler of change. Respondents felt that accessible information, simple actions and outreach activities can empower local people to participate meaningfully in protecting and improving their local environment.

Overall respondents noted that delivering real change requires a combination of funding, clear policy direction, robust data, practical tools and strong collaboration, enabling partnerships to turn plans into effective, lasting improvements for people, places and nature.

We agree that local delivery partnerships require adequate resources, access to robust evidence and clear governance arrangements if they are to deliver lasting improvements for the water environment.

We understand the importance of long-term investment in partnership capacity, including dedicated staff and stable funding arrangements. Without sufficient resources, partnerships may struggle to maintain stakeholder engagement, build delivery pipelines and turn plans into action.

We also recognise the importance of accessible, high-quality data and evidence to support effective decision making. Work is already underway across the sector to improve the availability, integration and use of environmental data, monitoring and evidence. Continued investment in data infrastructure, information sharing and analytical tools will be important to support the prioritisation, targeting and evaluation of actions.

Collaboration, knowledge exchange and skills development also have an important role to play in strengthening partnership delivery. Sharing learning across catchments, sectors and organisations can help improve efficiency, build capability and support the wider adoption of effective approaches.

As water governance and planning arrangements continue to evolve, attention should be given to ensuring that local delivery partnerships have clear roles, effective links to regional and national decision making, and access to the funding, data and tools needed to contribute effectively to environmental outcomes. Any future arrangements should retain the flexibility needed to respond to local priorities and circumstances and support action where it can deliver the greatest benefits for people and the environment.

Strategic Environmental Assessment scoping challenge

A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) assesses the likely environmental effects of a plan and helps ensure environmental considerations are fully integrated into decision making.

SEAs were undertaken on the 2009 and 2016 updates to the river basin management plans (RBMPs). The 2022 river basin management plans did not require an assessment. Following a screening determination, we, as the responsible authority, have concluded that an SEA is required for the 2027 river basin management plans. 

This consultation sought views on whether the proposed scope of the assessment is appropriate and whether any additional information should be considered.

Question 31: Do you agree that we are focussed on the potential environmental effects?

There were 63 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Respondents generally agreed that the Strategic Environmental Assessment for river basin management plans covers the key environmental issues, but does not provide enough depth, integration, or practical effectiveness. While many respondents agree that major topics such as water quality, biodiversity, climate change, and land use are included, there are consistent concerns that assessments are too high level and fragmented, often treating pressures in isolation rather than recognising how they work together as part of interconnected systems.

A recurring theme was the need to consider cumulative impacts and integrated analysis. It was noted that environmental problems such as nutrient pollution, climate impacts, and physical river modification interact in complex ways, yet the approach does not fully capture these combined effects. Some felt that groundwater systems, small water bodies, and upper catchments are underrepresented and should receive greater consideration within the assessment. Respondents also called for greater clarity on methodology, monitoring, and outcomes. Many responses call for clearer objectives, measurable indicators, and better alignment with conservation targets, such as those for protected sites and priority habitats. Without this, it is difficult to assess whether proposed measures will achieve ecological recovery rather than just preventing further decline. There are also concerns raised over data gaps and potential bias, particularly around pollution sources.

Monitoring is highlighted as tending to focus on regulated industries, potentially overlooking diffuse or unregulated pollution, and failing to reflect conditions on the ground. Respondents also stress the need to better integrate social, economic, and recreational considerations alongside environmental factors.

Overall, respondents viewed the Strategic Environmental Assessment approach as a positive and comprehensive starting point, they believe it requires greater detail, improved data, stronger integration, and a clearer link to local action and delivery to fully address environmental challenges. We will use the feedback received to strengthen the Strategic Environmental Assessment and supporting evidence base.

The Environmental Report which will be published alongside the draft RBMP in December 2026 will clearly set out the Strategic Environmental Assessment and the objectives in more detail. It will explain the Strategic Environmental Assessment methodology and assessment framework including how environmental topics and their interactions will be assessed. It will also identify opportunities to avoid or reduce negative effects and maximise positive environmental outcomes.

The assessment framework considers social, economic and recreational effects. It also considers how cumulative effects will be assessed including potential in-combination effects known as intra-plan effects (between environmental topics) and inter-plan effects (between the river basin management plans and other plans, policies and programmes).

The Strategic Environmental Assessment uses evidence from the river basin management plans and the water body scales Programme of Measures. It is not possible to consider the detail of individual local water features, such as ditches and ponds, within the assessment process; these will be considered where relevant at the project level.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment will consider protected sites through the biodiversity assessment framework, and will also consider local sensitivities, including designated sites, within both RBD management catchment assessments. The strategic Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the river basin management plans will also consider the effects of the plan on protected sites. The strategic HRA and RBMP Strategic Environmental Assessment will be undertaken concurrently so that each assessment will inform the other and both assessments will have consistent outcomes.

We are continuing to work with partners like Natural England and Natural Resources Wales regarding conservation targets for protected sites and protected habitats.

The Environmental Report will set out the detailed monitoring requirements for any likely significant effects resulting from the assessment.

The feedback we have received will be used to strengthen the methodology of the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Report.

Question 32: Is there any other information that we should be considering as part of the assessment?

There were 53 responses for this question.

What you said and our response

Many of the issues raised in response to this question were also raised under Question 31, particularly the need for:

• greater clarity on the assessment methodology
• stronger consideration of cumulative effects
• improved use of evidence
• clearer links between the assessment and environmental outcomes

Respondents also raised concerns about how baseline information on water body status is presented, and how evidence from previous planning cycles and past data will be used to inform future actions.

Respondents identified a lack of clear methodology and assessment criteria, as well as uncertainty about how impacts on protected sites, habitats, and species will be evaluated, particularly in relation to specific Conservation Objectives and stricter site level targets, which may go beyond Water Framework Directive requirements. As a result, respondents found it difficult to determine whether the RBMP will adequately protect sensitive environments.

Contributors also called for better data and local knowledge, with increased use of catchment level evidence, citizen science, and on the ground experience, which can reveal issues not captured in national datasets.

Concerns were raised about gaps in regulatory alignment and accountability, including whether existing planning, permitting, and agricultural controls are sufficient to prevent environmental harm.

We will use all the feedback received to strengthen the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Report and to update the supporting evidence where appropriate. We have noted where specific issues have been raised and will use these to inform both the baseline and our assessment.

Water body classifications provide the starting point for understanding environment pressures. We use additional evidence including citizen science data, water quality modelling and permit compliance to take a risk-based and proportionate approach to reviewing the baseline classification evidence. Any updates are reported on the Catchment Data Explorer. Groundwater systems, including local sensitivities and pressures, will be considered as part of the catchment level assessment. Legacy pressures, such as pollution from abandoned mines, will also be reflected in the baseline and assessed where relevant.

The developing programme of measures contains many new measures which will be assessed for environmental impacts as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Evidence challenge

Question 33: Let us know if there is an issue you consider significant which hasn’t been covered in this consultation (tick box that applies or add under ‘other’):

There were 82 responses for this question.

Table 4: issues that were not covered in this consultation

Issue	Number of responses
Fine Sediment	36
Plastics	33
Microplastics	51
Pollution from abandoned mines	11
Pollution from private domestic treatment plants	41
Other	25

What you said and our response

Respondents highlighted several issues that they felt should receive greater attention within future river basin planning.

The main specific issues raised were:

• microplastics
• pollution from private treatment plants
• fine sediment
• plastics
• pollution from abandoned mines (for all RBDs)

Some respondents also stressed that pollution from roads, especially outside urban areas, is under-recognised despite evidence of significant impacts from high-traffic routes and drainage outfalls. Alongside this, respondents referred to a range of legacy and diffuse pollution sources, including abandoned mines, landfill leachate, septic tanks, misconnections, and agricultural runoff. Many comments highlighted how these pressures can interact across a catchment, noting that while some may appear minor individually, their cumulative impact can be significant and should be better reflected in planning and management frameworks.

Finally, respondents frequently expanded beyond specific pollutants to highlight broader systemic and emerging challenges, including climate change, water scarcity, flooding and drought, groundwater risks, and emerging contaminants such as PFAS and pharmaceuticals. There was a recurring call for a more integrated, catchment-based approach that considers interactions between pressures, long-term resilience, and ecological health. Several responses emphasised that current frameworks are too narrowly focused on water quality alone, and called for stronger recognition of wider environmental processes, improved regulation and enforcement, and a more joined-up approach to planning to address interconnected pressures on the water environment.

The issues raised reinforce the need for a catchment-based approach that considers how multiple pressures affect the water environment.

Data overview

Of the 3,019 responses across all consultation questions (excluding blank responses), 478 (16%) made specific reference to data related matters. The responses indicate a growing expectation for open and accessible environmental information. The accessibility, quality and use of data are all important themes that were raised that cut across many of the challenges and opportunities explored in the consultation. 

The most common data-related issue raised by respondents was the need for better access to existing datasets and greater transparency. Respondents also called for additional datasets and expanded monitoring programmes particularly in areas where evidence is still emerging such as PFAS, and climate change. Many respondents highlighted the need for data from different sectors and organisations to be brought together in a single, accessible location. They felt this would make it easier for people to find, understand and use both existing and new information to support evidence-based decision making and deal with water challenges better. 

3. Next steps

The SWMI consultation is the second of 3 statutory consultations that will help inform the next river basin management plans.

We will now use the feedback from this consultation to develop the draft river basin management plans. These will set out the actions needed to protect and improve the water environment, and the role that organisations, communities and individuals can play in delivering them.

The draft plans will be published for a 6-month statutory consultation from December 2026. This will provide an opportunity for anyone with an interest in the water environment to review the proposed actions and tell us whether they will deliver the improvements needed.

Alongside the draft plan we will also publish an Environmental Report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the river basin management plans. This will set out the likely environmental effects of the draft plan and there is an opportunity to comment upon this report as part of the consultation.

We will carefully consider all feedback before finalising the plans. The final river basin management plans will then be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval and published in December 2027.

Timeline

Completed: SWMI consultation.

December 2026: Draft River Basin Management Plans and Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report published for consultation.

December 2026 to June 2027: 6-month consultation period.

December 2027: Final River Basin Management Plans published following approval by the Secretary of State.

This consultation is an important step in helping us shape a healthier, more resilient water environment for people, places and nature.

4. List of respondents

Affinity Water Limited

Aire Rivers Trust

Angling Trust

Anglian Water Services Ltd

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

British Rowing

Bristol Avon Catchment Partnership

Calder Rivers Trust

Cambridgeshire County Council

Canal & River Trust

Catchment Partnership

Chesterfield Canal Trust

Clean Rivers Trust

Dorset Catchment Partnership

Douglas Catchment Partnership

East Suffolk Council

Environmental Industries Commission (EIC)

Essex & Suffolk Water

Fidra

Fish Legal

Forest Town Nature Conservation Group

Forestry Commission

Freshwater Habitats Trust

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Hampshire Avon Catchment Partnership

Historic England

Idle Catchment Partnership

Inland Waterways Association

Institute of Fisheries Management (IFM)

Joint Northwest Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Committee

Local Authority

Local Environmental Group

Lune & Wyre Fisheries Association

Lune Rivers Trust

Marine Conservation Society

Mersey Rivers Trust

National Association of Agricultural Contractors (NAAC)

National Farmers’ Union of England & Wales

National Highways

National Trust

Natural England

Norfolk Environment Food and Farming

Northumbrian Water

Peak District National Park Authority

Pennon Group

Plymouth Marine Laboratory

Portsmouth Water

Project Groundwater Northumbria

River Action UK

River Lark Catchment Partnership

River Restoration Centre

Ross on Wye Angling Club

Royal Yachting Association (RYA)

Sailing Association

Severn Trent Water

Somerset Catchment Partnership

South Downs National Park Authority

South Oxfordshire District Council

Southern Water

Stormwater Shepherds UK

Tamar Catchment Partnership Steering Group

Thame Catchment Partnership

Thames Water

Test & Itchen Catchment Partnership

Torne Catchment Partnership

UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA)

United Utilities

Upper Itchen Restoration Community Interest Company

Vale of White Horse District Council

Water Care Catchment Partnership

Weaver Gowy Catchment Partnership

Wessex Rivers Trust

Whitchurch Conservation Group

WildFish

Wildlife and Countryside Link

Wilbraham River Protection Society

Wiltshire Fishery Association

Worcestershire County Council

Yorkshire Water