Background Studies of the Ythan estuary show steadily increasing levels of nitrates and phosphates in recent years, contributing to an increase in the growth of green macroalgae in the estuary waters and potentially resulting in a negative impact on the supply of food for birds. Current approaches to regulating this problem are only partially effective. While the estuary site has RAMSAR status, the designation does not protect the site from the impacts of activities upstream or more general impacts such as pollution of the adjacent sea area. Designation as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) also will not protect the site from pollutants other than nitrogen (e.g. phosphorus and soil particles). Unless the local community is encouraged to take responsibility for the state of the river and its associated habitats, and to instigate a voluntary response to tackle the problems facing the river, significant damage may be done to its natural heritage in future years. Similar sites exist throughout the EU, where diffuse pollution sources make protection through top-down regulation problematic. New approaches to environmental protection in these areas are now needed. Objectives The project aimed to introduce measures to help reduce inputs of a range of pollutants, and thereby to enhance the river’s ecological status and to provide a model of best practice for the involvement of local communities in these issues. The project also aimed to reduce the growth of algae in the estuary. As such, the project set out to assess the value of taking a community involvement approach to developing sustainable land management practices in the Ythan river catchment in order to achieve more wide-ranging results than would otherwise be achieved through Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) designation or agri-environment schemes alone. Practical actions were to include: Use of a farm demonstration site to disseminate best practice, particularly to the local farming community; Working with local farmers to increase applications to agri-environment schemes, to develop nutrient budgeting, to produce water management plans and to encourage the use of buffer strips; Bringing together anglers, walkers, local residents and national agencies to select and manage restoration work on sections of the river to create areas of semi-natural habitats; Working with local residents and others to monitor changes in water quality and other indicators. The project planned to encourage the application of innovative techniques to land management issues. The work would also take forward a number of local Biodiversity Action Partnerships (LBAPs), and offer a way of linking up multiple agri-environment applications into an area-specific project. Results The project was managed and implemented well, and as far as possible all tasks were completed. The activities of the project are described below: Forty-seven public events were organised by the project. These attracted a wide range of people from the local community and raised awareness about a variety of environmental issues related to water management. Town-dwelling people were educated about waste management. Water Quality Data was collected over a three-year period. Local people (supported by Environment Agency staff) were involved in water quality sampling at 8 sites and in 50 river habitat surveys. Two demonstration farms were established to illustrate the benefits of agri-environment schemes and nutrient budgeting. Seven walks around these farms were arranged for local farmers. The farms were also promoted in the press. Nutrient Budgeting software aimed at farmers was designed by the University of Hertfordshire. Training courses were run and 62 farmers were helped to complete nutrient budgets. It is likely that this software will continue to be used in the future by farmers and farming advisors. The project reports a potential for an average 15 percent reduction in fertilizer use on the farms involved in the project. The development of buffer strips was promoted by encouraging farmers to join the Rural Stewardship Scheme. Two hundred farmers were contacted, the application rate to RSS was improved and by the end of the project over 70km of buffer strip had been established. Water sampling data indicates a reduction in suspended solid in neighbouring streams. The project worked with farmers to produce water management plans for farms adjacent to water courses. One hundred and two water management plans were completed. A variety of interventions aimed at improving the riparian environment were implemented. River restoration sites were selected by local communities and work on 12 sites was completed. A large forestry management plan was implemented for the Gight Woods at Methlick and 2200 broad-leaved trees were planted at 35 riparian sites. The project monitored both the physical and biological condition of the river and estuary and social attitudes to the river over the life of the project. Estuary monitoring work was carried out using four sets of aerial photographs (collected in August each year). One set of satellite imagery was collected for comparison. Bird counts were carried out every two weeks for two years. Two social surveys were carried out, at the beginning and end of the project, in the Ythan catchment and in comparison catchments in north-east Scotland. These surveys assessed peoples’ attitudes to the project and to water management. The project carried out a comprehensive dissemination package that focussed on local and regional dissemination because of the participatory nature of the project but nevertheless included significant national and European components. An active and useful web site was established at http://www.ythan.org.uk, which contained a lot of information about the project. The project also hosted a major conference in October 2004. Whilst the impact of the project on water quality in the Ythan Estuary will be impossible to assess in the immediate future, the project successfully demonstrated a range of interventions to raise awareness of the river and mobilise interest in mitigation projects in the local community. The final report summarises the lessons learned as follows: The need for organisations involved in partnership projects to remain flexible. The need for organisations to be able to consider a wider range of issues than their own individual remits. The very real level of commitment and interest which exists in the wider community and which is often an untapped resource. The need to broaden the opportunities for involvement as much as possible. The successful involvement of the wider public in professional activities such as survey work offers a useful opportunity to increase participation and understanding. The requirement for a flexible funding system in order to allow full public participation in the decision making process. The increased time requirement when working with many stakeholders in partnership and when dealing with wider groups, such as farmers, on a one-to-one basis. The impact of increased awareness amongst local people is an intangible element and difficult to measure. Nevertheless some indication can be taken from the fact that so many of the project volunteers are keen to continue and develop the work of the project in the future. Raising awareness amongst local people could also enable them to exert an influence on wider environmental issues, so that their views are taken into account by government organisations and land managers working on their behalf. This project has been selected as one of the 21 "Best" LIFE Environment projects in 2005-2006