Ecosystems and values - a suitable case for water treatment? Joe Morris Cranfield University

Transcription

1 Ecosystems and values - a suitable case for water treatment? Joe Morris Cranfield University Context Economics Ecosystems Watery issues and examples Implications

2 Policy context: sustainable development Objectives: social, economic, environmental Resources/ Capitals and Limits Governance, Scale Development options: policies programmes projects PSA28 :to secure a diverse, healthy and resilient natural environment, which provides the basis for everyone's well being, health and prosperity now and in the future, and where the values of the services provided by the natural environment are reflected in decision making

3 Economic Concepts? Utility and welfare Scarcity, values and prices Opportunity cost Economic efficiency Markets and market failure Time preferencediscounting Values Benefits and costs Making Choices Achieving Outcomes

4 Natural capital and ecosystems Stocks, capital, assets Flows, services, benefits and costs Stocks of Natural (Ecosystem) Capital Ecosystem Functions Flows of Ecosystem Services Values and Stakeholders: Utility/wellbeing

5 Ecosystem functions and services in the landscape Production Food and fibre Forestry products Bio-energy crops Water supply Regulation Water balance Water purification Drainage Flood water storage Soil condition Soil carbon Greenhouse gas balance Habitat Biodiversity habitats Biodiversity species Carrier Transport infrastructure Settlement Industry Information/Cultural Public rights of way Recreation Cultural heritage Education / research Landscape value

6 THE MILLENNIUM ASSESSMENT USES A SIMILAR CLASSIFICATION MA, 2005

7 Notes Slide 8 From an economic perspective, the ecosystems framework can provide an opportunity to systematically assess, for a drought prone area, the likely impact of droughts on the stocks of natural capital and the flows of services that are of value to people. More specifically, it can help to determine: the type and magnitude of changes in ecosystems services attributable to droughts, a basis for the valuation of changes in services and benefits to people, the distribution of impacts amongst people and geographical areas, major sources of uncertainty and vulnerability.

8 Millennium Assessment links Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being

9 Ecosystem Valuation Framework Physical and chemical inputs Other capital inputs People Primary and intermediate processes Final ecosystem services Value of goods ES value Primary production Decomposition Unknown services Crops, livestock, fish Water availability Unknown Drinking water Food Soil formation Nutrient cycling Water cycling Climate regulation Weathering Pollination Evolutionary processes Ecological interactions Trees Peat Wild species diversity Natural enemies Waste breakdown Detoxification Purified water Stabilsing vegetation Climate regulation Meaningful places Fibre Energy Natural medicine Equable climate Flood control Erosion control Pollution control Disease control Erosion control Pollution control Good health Wild species diversity UNEP-UK NAE, 2009

10 Valuation methods Economic quantification Participatory deliberative methods Hybrid methods Thresholds safe standards

11 Economic Consequences of Soil Degradation water quality links? Services and goods Soil Degradation process Sealing Erosion Provisioning services Medium for crop growth Regulating services Atmospheric regulation (e.g. carbon storage) Water regulation Impact / Effect Food supply Fibre supply Benefits to society Food security Fibre (e.g. timber) security Soil organic matter decline Compaction Diffuse contamination Soil biodiversity decline Water filtration Cultural services Supporting services Nutrient cycling Above-ground habitat maintenance Below-ground habitat maintenance Fuel supply Regulate global temperature Reduce flooding Improved water quality Conserve habitats and species Fuel security Avoided damage costs to property Clean drinking water Non-use value Kibblewhite, 2009

12 The Costs of Soils Degradation Annual cost of soil degradation (M) ] Soil erosion due to agriculture a 45 Loss of soil carbon due to cultivation b 82 Flooding due to structural damage to soil c Sediment in urban drainage systems d Total a Soil erosion costs include: water treatment, damage to property and dredging stream channels [1] ; damage to crops [2] ; removal of sediment from watercourses [3] b Loss of soil carbon costs include: treatment, prevention, administration and monitoring [4] c Flooding costs include: property damage [5] d Urban sediment costs include: removal of sediment [6] 1] EA (2007): The total external environmental costs and benefits of agriculture in the UK [2] Evans, R. (1996): Soil Erosion and its Impact in England and Wales. Friends of the Earth Trust [3] British Waterways (2008): Consultation response [4] EA (2007): The total external environmental costs and benefits of agriculture in the UK [5] EA (2007): The total external environmental costs and benefits of agriculture in the UK [6] Reeves Source, Defra Soil Strategy,

13 Land use scenarios and ecosystems services :Beckingham Marshes: RELU Integrated Flood plains

14 Ecosystems: synergy and trade off Agricult 1 Landsc Financi 0.8 Recrea 0.6 Employ Space Settle Beckingham Soil Floodw Transp Water Specie Greenh Habitat scale: from 0 (worst Beckingham - Agricult 1 Landsca Financia 2 Recreati Employ 0.4 Space 0.2 Soil 0 Settlem Floodwa Transpo Water Species Greenh Habitat scale: from 0 (worst 2006 Agricult 1 Landsc Financi 0.8 Recreat 0.6 Employ Space Settlem Beckingham Soil Floodw Transp Water Specie Greenh Habitat scale: from 0 (worst 200 6

15 Beckingham Landscape [I] Agricultural production [P] 1 Financial return [P] 0.8 Recreation [I] 0.6 Employment [P] 0.4 Space for Water [C] 0.2 Soil quality [P] 0 Settlement [C] Floodwater storage [R] Transport [C] Water quality [R] Species [H] Habitat provision [H] Greenhouse gas balance [R] scale: from 0 (worst performance) to 1 (best performance) 2006

16 Beckingham - maximum production Landscape [I] Agricultural production [P] 1 Financial return [P] 0.8 Recreation [I] 0.6 Employment [P] 0.4 Space for Water [C] 0.2 Soil quality [P] 0 Settlement [C] Floodwater storage [R] Transport [C] Water quality [R] Species [H] Habitat provision [H] Greenhouse gas balance [R] scale: from 0 (worst performance) to 1 (best performance) 2006 Max production

17 Beckingham - maximum flood storage Landscape [I] Agricultural production [P] 1 Financial return [P] 0.8 Recreation [I] 0.6 Employment [P] 0.4 Space for Water [C] 0.2 Soil quality [P] 0 Settlement [C] Floodwater storage [R] Transport [C] Water quality [R] Species [H] Habitat provision [H] Greenhouse gas balance [R] 2006 scale: from 0 (worst performance) to 1 (best performance) Max production Max flood storage

18 Beckingham - maximum biodiversity Landscape [I] Agricultural production [P] 1 Financial return [P] 0.8 Recreation [I] 0.6 Employment [P] 0.4 Space for Water [C] 0.2 Soil quality [P] 0 Settlement [C] Floodwater storage [R] Transport [C] Water quality [R] Species [H] Habitat provision [H] Greenhouse gas balance [R] 2006 scale: from 0 (worst performance) to 1 (best performance) Max biodiversity

19 Beckingham - agri-environment Landscape [I] Agricultural production [P] 1 Financial return [P] 0.8 Recreation [I] 0.6 Employment [P] 0.4 Space for Water [C] 0.2 Soil quality [P] 0 Settlement [C] Floodwater storage [R] Transport [C] Water quality [R] Species [H] Habitat provision [H] Greenhouse gas balance [R] 2006 scale: from 0 (worst performance) to 1 (best performance) Max agri-env Max biodiversity

20 Beckingham - maximum income Landscape [I] Agricultural production [P] 1 Financial return [P] 0.8 Recreation [I] 0.6 Employment [P] 0.4 Space for Water [C] 0.2 Soil quality [P] 0 Settlement [C] Floodwater storage [R] Transport [C] Water quality [R] Species [H] Habitat provision [H] Greenhouse gas balance [R] 2006 Max agri-env scale: from 0 (worst performance) to 1 (best performance) Max biodiversity Max income

21 Beckingham - all scenarios Landscape [I] Agricultural production [P] 1 Financial return [P] 0.8 Recreation [I] 0.6 Employment [P] 0.4 Space for Water [C] 0.2 Soil quality [P] 0 Settlement [C] Floodwater storage [R] Transport [C] Water quality [R] Species [H] Habitat provision [H] scale: from 0 (worst performance) to 1 (best performance) Greenhouse gas balance [R] 2006 Max production Max agri-env Max biodiversity Max flood storage Max income

22 Ecosystems joining things up in the landscape: source : RELU Project CHream (Bateman et al, 2009)

23 Urban ecosystems services Templeborough, Rotherham - regeneration of former industrial areas to reduce flood risk and improve amenity and biodiversity. Regenerate derelict industrial sites to create a greenfield flood attenuation area alongside the river, increasing access for the public, previously excluded from the river by heavy industry. Rotherham town centre (image courtesy of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council). Source : CLG, 2008, PPS25

24 Angmering cooperation of multiple developers and sustainable drainage. The Bramley Green development, Angmering, West Sussex consists of a residential development of 600 units. Developers formed a consortium jointly to deliver the flood management and drainage infrastructure - provision of a new pond, a flood storage area, and an under-drained infiltration area within a public open space. Angmering development (image courtesy of the Environment Agency) Source : CLG, 2008, PPS25

25 WaterRenew Project Recycle.. Using fast-growing trees for tertiary treatment of wastewater and biomass production for heat & power newly established trial site at Cranfield sewage treatment works

26 Recycle.. Wastewater irrigation Vines in Australia Sugar cane in Mauritius Credit: Cecil Camilleri - Yalumba estates

27 Notes Slide25 During the growing season, fast-growing trees will benefit from being watered and from the nutrient input. Treatment processes in the soil will help to protect the groundwater Slide 26 In many dry parts of the world wastewater is treated then used directly on crops thus closing the loop on nutrients part of the ecosan concept.

28 Stakeholder analysis - who provides, who benefits, who pays?: Functions and services Goods Stakeholders Values Production Crops, fuel, water Farmers, Defra, water companies Economic gains from crop & livestock production Regulation Water storage, drainage, purification carbon cycling EA-FRM, IDBs, LGAs, farmers, local industry, carbon traders Avoided damage due to flooding, Reduced costs Tradeable services Habitat Maintenance and enhancement of bio-diversity RSPB, EA-CONS, WLT, local residents, Contribution to BAP targets, Willingness to Pay Carrier Transport and settlements Local residents, local industry, farmers, local authority Location for housing, roads, local industry: Property values, costs of alternatives Information Amenity, landscape, recreation, history RSPB, local residents, local authority, Enjoyment of the countryside and related benefits: willingness to pay

29 Payments for Environmental Services Voluntary transactions in which a well defined environmental service is bought by a service buyer from a service provider, with payment on provision of the service

30 The Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP), United Utilities own 58,000 hectares of land in the North West, which we hold to protect the quality of water entering the reservoirs. In association with the RSPB, we will help to: deliver government targets for SSSIs, enhance biodiversity, ensure a sustainable future for the company's agricultural tenants protect and improve water quality.

31 Environmental Stewardship The Environmental Stewardship programme in England is a government funded scheme that pays farmers for environmental services. Environmental Stewardship comprises two main schemes: Entry Level and High Level Examples of Entry Level Stewardship options Units Payment Hedgerow management (on both sides of hedge) 100 m 22 Stone wall protection and maintenance 100 m 15 Management of woodland edges ha 380 Examples of High Level Stewardship options Restoration of traditional water meadows ha 350 Arable reversion to unfertilised grassland to prevent ha 280 erosion or run off Creation of wet grassland for breeding waders ha 355 Creation of lowland heathland from arable or improved grassland ha 450

32 Ecosystems, economics and joining up Ecosystems a comprehensive framework for valuation Environmental thresholds and limits Linking values and stakeholders Joined up policy and funding Paying for services Makes Economics a jolly science

33 Thanks

34 Notes and additional information The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, the MA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings (five technical volumes and six synthesis reports) provide a stateof-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world s ecosystems and the services they provide, (such as clean water, food, forest products, flood control, and natural resources) as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve or enhance the sustainable use of ecosystems. Defra and EA have bought into MA. Foresight Project on Land Use Futures The project aimed to provide an evidence base which will support government and other policy makers in ensuring the UK s land use patterns and practices are fit for the future, including: An analysis of land use challenges the UK could face over the next 50 years; An examination of existing structures and mechanisms and their capacity to help us meet these challenges; and Identification of opportunities to use and manage land differently now so that UK society continues to enjoy a good quality of life in the future. The project was conceptualised around the idea that human use and management of land interacts with natural processes and ecosystems. These biophysical, social and economic processes come together to form a land system. Having a systemic perspective will help us to gain a better understanding of where interventions in the system may cause unforeseen problems and exacerbate vulnerabilities. Using systems thinking we were able to explore the future of land use in an integrated way. The total costs of soil degradation in England - SP pleted=0&projectid=16992 EPSRC Rural Economy And Land Use Programme 2007 RES Catchment Hydrology, Resources, Economics and Management (CHREAM): Integrated modelling of WFD Impacts upon Rural Land Use and Farm Incomes Marie Curie Fellowship. Funder Ref: PIIF-GA (call FP7-PEOPLE IIF). Grant amount: 85, (circa 79,000). Award flagged in last annual report but financial details now available. How can marketing theory be applied to policy design to deliver on sustainable agriculture in England? Barns et al. (2009) The 83rd Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, Dublin The Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP) has been cited as an exemplar of an integrated approach