Led by: [Hayley Fleming]

Hayley Fleming (HF) gave a verbal update on the report. The TAG had met on 7^th September and its next meeting was 21^st October. Significant effort had been focused on the working groups and getting those off the ground.

The working groups would cover: evidence, regulation, farm advice, poultry, and innovation and projects. The served two purposes: firstly, to identify projects that would be plugged into the action plan. Secondly^, to identify gaps and issues that were beyond the TAGs ability and to sort out and bring these to the board.

Each working group would have a chair and the aim was to start populating those groups with people to be involved. Partners should contact the boards with nominees for the chairs. The groups would require a good mix of people who would not be afraid to ask hard questions and challenge things.

HF Felt there was value in having a vision for the Wye and what it will be like in 10, 20 and 50 years.

Rachael Joy (RJ) suggested that a vision would be a complex area and the national position was very fluid and unclear on policy at the moment. This would anchor some of the choices available at local level.

RJ also noted that there was existing legislation already in place or being planned.

RJ Noted there would be issues around climate change, the heating of the river and the changing of flow rates, all of which would make creating a vision of the Wye very complex and simply asking people what such a vision would look like could lead to dashed expectations.

RJ Stated that she had asked Clare Dinnis to assist with a related piece of work and understood that Wye and Usk were doing some work in that territory. The board would need a proper policy paper to anchor that debate in.

RJ Some working groups have governance arrangements in place and it’s important that we clarify governance systems for all other work streams, for example the evidence working group.

RJ TAG needed to be ‘light touch’ on areas where there was strong governance and clarify governance in other areas, this would allow TAG to focus in on a lot of the gaps.

RJ Stated that there was a need for TAG to be clear on what the product was, was it a business case, project proposal or piece of advice? What’s the product and what’s the outcome?

ES enquired about funding for the working groups.

RJ Explained that funding went back to resolving the governance issue. If the board was clear on who the lead authority was for each of the work streams, then there could be some accountability for funding and resourcing. Herefordshire and the Wetlands project was given as an example.

CM agreed that clearer governance and clarity on the roles of the leads of working groups was needed.

It was noted that private projects funded by the private sector would fall under the remit of the innovation working group.