A baseline ecosystem services assessment of the Sheffield Lakeland landscape Author: Dr Alison Holt Reviewed by: Dr Jim Rouquette Natural Capital Solutions Ltd Contact details: www.naturalcapitalsolutions.co.uk [email protected] Tel: 07973 332758 Report prepared for: Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust January 2018 Executive summary The Sheffield Lakeland area lies between the western edge of the city of Sheffield, and the moorland slopes of the Peak District National Park. It encompasses the watersheds of Sheffield’s main rivers, including eight reservoirs that provide drinking water to surrounding areas and beyond. It is also an area important for the conservation of biodiversity with nationally and internationally important habitats and species. The area has a rich cultural heritage and many visitors are drawn to the recreational opportunities and aesthetic experiences that the area offers. The Sheffield Lakeland is also a place where people live and supports livelihoods associated with the land, for example farming and grouse moor management. These activities sit alongside the other values placed on the landscape outlined above, and create challenges for the sustainable management of the area. Declining biodiversity, habitat degradation, diffuse pollution, rising recreational numbers and flooding are increasing pressures. This project uses a natural capital approach to assess the ecosystem services provided by the Sheffield Lakeland area. This will serve as a baseline by which to compare the success of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership projects. The first step was to understand the extent of the natural capital assets (habitats) in the area. A qualitative assessment was made of the level of provision of the full range of ecosystem services provided by the Lakeland area. Five ecosystem services have been spatially mapped (reduction of air pollution, reduction of storm water runoff, carbon storage, opportunities for cultural ecosystem services and provision for flora and fauna. Three further services have been non-spatially quantified (carbon sequestration, air pollution reduction and timber production). A natural capital asset register has been created. It shows that improved grassland covers the largest percentage (26%) of the Sheffield Lakeland area, with significant areas of bog habitats (17%), woodland (15%), heather (9%) and heather grassland (9%). Acid grassland, rough grassland and arable assets feature at smaller extents (~5-6%). These assets support a wide range of provisioning, regulating and cultural services. The most significant delivery is of drinking water provision, with agricultural production and cultural services, such as recreation and aesthetic experiences also being supported to a high level of provision. Regulating services tend to be at a lower level due to the predominance of agricultural activity and grazed grassland. The spatially and non-spatially quantified ecosystem services show the importance of the woodland and bog habitats for storing carbon, reducing storm water runoff, providing areas for recreation and habitat for biodiversity. Woodland is also important for timber production and the reduction of air pollution, particularly on the urban fringes where airborne pollution is higher. Other habitats play a role in some of these services, but to a much smaller degree. The breadth of Sheffield Lakeland Partnership projects can potentially increase the capacity of the area to provide ecosystem services across all categories of services. The projects focused on habitat creation, the promotion of natural flood management and woodlands for water planting, are likely to increase the delivery of important regulating services such as water quality regulation, flood alleviation, air 2 quality regulation, carbon sequestration, and increase recreational opportunities as well as improving habitat for wildlife. Other projects that are focused on improving access to the natural environments, creating locally inspired art and music, will also increase the cultural services. In order to achieve the aspirations of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership project, there is a need to promote the sustainable management of multiple ecosystem service benefits. There are trade-offs between the provisioning service of agricultural production promoting a dominance of improved grassland, and the delivery of other regulating ecosystem services such as water quality regulation, flood alleviation, carbon sequestration and erosion control. It is key to understand which habitats can be extended or created, as well as restored to better quality, and where these should be targeted to maximise the provision of multiple services. Given the predominance of agriculture, it would be worth considering the feasibility of Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes to incentivise management towards creating more diverse habitats, or reducing specific impacts. Opportunity mapping and existing hydrological modelling should be used to target the planting of woodlands for water, to ensure that benefits can be gained across a wide range of services. Collaboration with partnerships for improving moorland habitat would also be beneficial for water and carbon storage benefits. Exploring the sites where recreational opportunities, both physical and experiential, can be created alongside the benefits discussed above should be a priority. Careful expansion of the ‘Outdoor Economy’ is required so as not cause a decline in the natural capital that supports the cultural services. Promoting the natural capital approach to sustainable management among the members of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership may be very useful. Land owners and moorland managers particularly are becoming more familiar with the natural capital concept. Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes that offer additional income to change management practises may be a real incentive for management change, certainly if societal pressure to change management practices continues to rise. It has not been possible to complete a comprehensive quantitative baseline assessment of the ecosystem services in the Sheffield Lakeland area. Important gaps are recreation, health and well-being and agricultural production. These could be included with access to further data and resource. A proposal for reviewing the ecosystem service provision of the Sheffield Lakeland area after the projects have finished is being written. It would be useful to express any increases (or losses) in ecosystem services in monetary terms at this stage. This shows the value of the enhanced public benefits, and will be a convincing way to present the impact of the SLLP project to key decision-makers and land managers. 3 Contents Executive summary ....................................................................................................... 2 Contents ....................................................................................................................... 4 1. Background ............................................................................................................... 5 1.1 The natural capital approach ............................................................................. 6 1.2 Methodological approach .................................................................................. 8 2. Natural capital baseline assessment for the Sheffield Lakeland area ...................... 9 3. Ecosystem service provision baseline assessment ................................................. 21 3.1 Qualitative ecosystem services assessment ..................................................... 21 3.2 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: spatial mapping ....................... 21 3.3 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: non-spatial estimation ............. 31 3.4 Summary ........................................................................................................... 31 4. Impact of on-going initiatives ................................................................................. 32 5. Impact of the SLLP projects on ecosystem service provision ................................. 33 6. Summary and recommendations ........................................................................... 33 7. Future work ............................................................................................................ 34 Technical Appendix ..................................................................................................... 36 References .................................................................................................................. 42 4 1. Background The Sheffield Lakeland (SL) area lies between the western edge of the city of Sheffield and the moorland slopes of the Peak District National Park, Langsett Reservoir and the Little Don Valley in the north and Redmires Reservoirs and the Rivelin Valley in the south. The area is characterised by moorland slopes and cloughs, enclosed gritstone upland, slopes and valleys with woodland, reservoirs and scattered settlement, and urban fringe. It is an important area for the conservation of biodiversity, with the western margins designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protected Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and encompassing other nationally important habitats for wildlife. It is also important for freshwater, with water flowing from the high moorlands, through valleys and streams into the rivers of Sheffield. The reservoirs that capture