Flood Risk Reduction

Introduction to Payments for Ecosystem Services Dr. Bruce Howard (Co-ordinator EKN) & Dr. Chris Sherrington (Principal Consultant, Eunomia) What Are Ecosystem Services? • Benefits we derive from the natural environment • Provision of: • Food, water, timber What Are Ecosystem Services? • Benefits we derive from the natural environment • Regulation of: • Air quality, climate, flood risk What Are Ecosystem Services? • Benefits we derive from the natural environment • Cultural Services: • Recreation, tourism, education What Are Ecosystem Services? • Benefits we derive from the natural environment • Supporting Services: • Soil formation, nutrient cycling Payments for Ecosystem Services PES Principles • Voluntary • Stakeholders enter into PES agreements on a voluntary basis • Additionality • Payments are made for actions over and above those which land managers would generally be expected to undertake Bundling and Layering • Bundling • A single buyer pays for the full package of ecosystem services • E.g. agri-environment scheme delivering landscape, water quality etc. on behalf of public • Layering • Multiple buyers pay separately for different ecosystem services from same parcel of land • E.g. peatland benefits of carbon sequestration, water quality and flood risk management may be purchased by different buyers Payments for Ecosystem Services UK interest in PES PES timeline 1990 New York Long-term Watershed Protection Vittel, NE France Costa Rica forest protection 2000 UK - Visitor Payback schemes UK - United Utilities SCaMP1 2010 UK - Exploratory pilots Upstream Thinking Defra pilots Round 1 (2011-12) Fowey River UEA and Westcountry Rivers Trust Hull Flood risk Land Trust Poole Harbour catchment RSPB South Pennines Crichton Carbon Centre Round 2 (2012-13) Peatland code Birmingham City University Tortworth Brook Bristol Avon Rivers Trust Leeds-Liverpopol Canal Canal & River Trust; JBA Consulting Pumlumon Project Mongomeryshire Wildlife Trust River Lea in Luton Cranfield University Visitor Giving Schemes Birmingham City University Cotswolds Catchment FWAG South West Round 1 Round 3 (2014-15) Energy for Nature RSPB Round 2 Holnicote Estate National Trust, Penny Anderson Associates Round 3 Irwell Catchment Lancashire Wildlife Trust Smithills Estate The Woodland Trust Winford Brook Catchment Eunomia Learning points? • Many years required for development • Trusted intermediaries are valuable • Flexibility: ‘PES-like’ schemes • Business case: market appraisal, security for land owner Defra PES Pilot: Winford Brook Project Partners Issues in the Catchment • Flood risk Issues in the Catchment • Soil erosion Catchment Overview Demand for Ecosystem Services • At outset, most likely sources of demand thought to be: • Bristol Water • Seeking to reduce cost of removing silt from Chew Magna Reservoir • Wessex Water • Seeking to avoid nutrient removal costs at waste water treatment works. In order to comply with the WFD, in the absence of measures to manage nutrients in the catchment, phosphorus removal treatment will have to be put in place by 2027 Demand for Ecosystem Services • Also anticipated interest from: • Environment Agency • Flood risk reduction and water quality • Natural England • Given the importance of some of the unimproved grassland within the catchment • B&NES and North Somerset Councils • As lead local flood authorities Sources and Pathways - Types 40 35 30 25 20 Frequency 15 10 5 0 OR ADP POR PI PO PDD FR FD TR RR PI DD UR UK Agricultural Livestock Conduits A. & I. Other Sources and Pathways Sources and Pathways Sources and Pathways Sources and Pathways Sources and Pathways Demand for Ecosystem Services • Bristol Water • Silt removal • Deferring the requirement to dredge saves money • Each cubic metre reduction in erosion is worth (in PV terms) between £666 and £1,025 (depending on the longevity of the reduction) • Raw water quality • Reducing likelihood of algal blooms in Chew Valley Lake • Costs unclear – as is any reduction in likelihood from reduced nutrients from CMR Demand for Ecosystem Services • Wessex Water • Wastewater nutrient removal • Reducing P to a 2mg/litre limit has been modelled and costed for two STWs near Yeovil, and compared with a catchment management alternative • Wessex finds that using catchment management typically solves water quality issues at one sixth the cost of treatment alternatives • The capital cost of treatment at a STW to deal with P from the catchment is £2m - £5m • Catchment management would cost £300k - £800k Demand for Ecosystem Services • Wessex Water • Reduced likelihood of sewer flooding • However, not possible to identify flood risk reduction potential from possible measures in the catchment – EA modelling only of ‘within stream’ changes rather than land management changes • Therefore, while there is likely to be a benefit in reduced sewer flooding, it is not possible to quantify at present Demand for Ecosystem Services • Environment Agency • Water Quality and WFD • Winford Brook failing to achieve GES due to physical barriers to fish movement – not something that can be addressed through land management changes • However, a WFD requirement to reduce levels of P further downstream in the River Chew – reductions in the Winford Brook catchment would help • Funding cuts mean no possibility of a financial contribution to PES fund Demand for Ecosystem Services • Environment Agency • Flood Risk Reduction • Benefits of schemes proposed for Chew Magna are estimated to be circa £10 million, meaning the interventions qualify for £830,000 central government funding • Least expensive option £4 million, but remainder of funds would have to be sourced locally • EA position is that there is not enough evidence on effectiveness of potential interventions within the catchment to deliver flood risk reduction • Also funding constraints – no possibility of a contribution to the PES scheme Demand for Ecosystem Services • B&NES • Unable to commit funding at present but able to assist: • Providing drainage consents where works require these • Identifying illegal or ‘quasi-legal’ activities undertaken by farmers that affect watercourses • North Somerset • Unable to commit funds at present • Natural England • Funding for catchment available via CSF (since January 2015) http://ecosystemsknowledge.net/ resources/tools-guidelines/pes.

Load more