Sustainable Uplands Results Presentation

relu Rural Economy and Land Use Programme Sustainable Uplands Learning to manage future change

Sustainable Uplands project
Working with people in uplands to better anticipate, monitor and respond to future change

Test sites in Peak District, Yorkshire Dales and Galloway
Funding from RELU & ESRC
Additional funding for 16 projects using findings e.g. Yorkshire Water, Natural England, DEFRA, Premier Waste, United Utilities, Scottish Government, Commission for Rural Communities, Government Office for Science, International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Sustainable Uplands project

University of Leeds: Prof Joseph Holden Dr Klaus Hubacek Dr Nesha Beharry-Borg Ms Jan Birch Ms Sarah Buckmaster Dr Dan Chapman Dr Pippa Chapman Dr Stephen Cornell Dr Andy Dougill Dr Evan Fraser Dr Jenny Hodgson Dr Nanlin Jin Dr Brian Irvine Prof Mike Kirkby Dr Bill Kunin Mr Oliver Moore Dr Claire Quinn Dr Brad Parrish Dr Lindsay Stringer Prof Mette Termansen University of Aberdeen: Dr Mark Reed University of Durham: Prof Tim Burt Dr Fred Worrall Dr Rob Dunford Dr Gareth Clay University of Sheffield: Dr Christina Prell Wirtschafts University, Austria: Dr Sigrid Stagl International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria : Jan Sendzimir Moors for the Future partnership The Heather Trust (Simon Thorp) The Sustainable Uplands team:

Workshop Aims
Feedback the research outcomes of the Sustainable Uplands project.
Allow stakeholders to examine the research and put questions directly to research team.
Bring upland stakeholders together to discuss options for upland policy and practice.
Bring people together to discuss how we can move forward and turn research into practice.

Programme 10:00 The Future of the uplands Jon Walker (Moors for the Future) 10:25 Sustainable Uplands: Introduction and methods 11:00 – 11:20 Break 11:20 Sustainable Uplands: Outcomes 11:50 Film screenings and discussions 12:45 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 Small group discussions 14:40 Sustainable Uplands: Next steps 15:00 Close

Discussion Topics
Lack of new farmers
Upland collaboration
Effective management of increased recreation
Profitability of hill farming
Role of land management in influencing water quality

1. Why are the uplands so important?

Why are uplands so important?

Current and future pressures

Kyoto Protocol

Common Agriculture Policy reform

Water Framework Directive implementation

Ongoing climate, cultural, social and demographic change

2. How can we prepare for the future?

Fortune-Telling
Human-environmental systems are highly dynamic and unpredictable
http://www.visualparadox.com/images/no-linking-allowed-main/newspaper.jpg

Dreaming
Most people’s vision for the future is status quo and radical visions may be unpopular
Who’s vision do we aim for – what is best for most people?

Reed MS, Arblaster K, Bullock C, Burton R, Hubacek K, May R, Mitchley J, Morris J, Potter C, Reid C, Swales V, Thorpe S (2009) Using scenarios to explore UK upland futures. Futures 41: 619-630 Thinking about scenarios

A new approach to scenarios
“ Thinking out of the box” to anticipate and prepare for a wider range of futures in greater depth
Combines knowledge from multiple stakeholders with evidence from science and computational modelling
Goes beyond scenarios to identify and test adaptation options
What did we do? - 7 steps…

1. Better understand stakeholders priorities and their relationships through stakeholder analysis and social network analysis, and select working groups

2. Understand current/future challenges/opportunities: interviews & site visits with stakeholders/researchers

3. Conceptual system model from interviews, site visits & literature; trace drivers to create scenarios

4. Refine and prioritise scenarios for investigation

Farmers as ecosystem providers
Hill farming collapse
Rural labour pool dries up
Burning ban (blanket bog)
Shooting ban
Bird disease
Managed retreat
Arable uplands
Scenarios that were developed from steps 1-4 9. Upland energy production 10. Tourism expansion 11. Forested Scottish uplands 12. Conservation forestry future All integrate climate change and restoration can be turned “on” and “off”

Peak District:
Blanket bog burning ban
Arable uplands
Nidderdale:
Bird disease/shooting ban
Arable uplands
Short-list
Galloway:
Tourism expansion
Upland energy production
Conservation forestry

Peak District:
Blanket bog burning ban
Arable uplands
Short-list Climate Change Farmers as carbon and wildlife managers Food secure future

5. Collate existing data, collect new data and model possible futures: details, feedbacks, scenarios interactions, ES trade-offs for future planning

6. Communicate model outputs through stories, films and visualisations that depict different likely futures
Year: 2010 2015 2020

7. Find innovative ways that people can respond and discuss ideas from literature (How would you respond if this happened?)
Model innovative ideas: how likely to work?
Use results to revise/refine ideas to ensure they work
www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands

Dr. Christina Prell and Dr. Klaus Hubacek Social network research

We used SNA to identify stakeholders and to involve a small portion of them in meaningful dialogue and learning
Problem: How to locate a small group of stakeholders that represented the widest array of views and positions in the network?
Social network analysis (SNA): Peak District National Park

We had, from a previous scoping study a complete roster of stakeholder names.
Roster included 60 names, which were gathered through an iterative (time consuming!) stakeholder analysis process.
Thus, we felt reasonably confident that the names on our roster represented our stakeholder network for the Peak District.
SNA for stakeholder selection: Peak District National Park

Each person on the roster was given a copy of roster and asked
How frequently do you communicate with each person on this list regarding land management issues in the Peak District? Likert scale, 5-pt.
Asked them to identify themselves as:
Conservation, Water, Agriculture, Tourism, Recreation, Grouse
Social Networks

n=51, stakeholder categories = 7

We selected a small portion of stakeholders based on three criteria:
Chose actors who occupied
Different positions in the network (structural equivalence)
Had relatively high centrality scores within those positions
Came from different stakeholder categories
This informed the final stakeholder selection, but did not determine it….
Stakeholder selection:

The management team for the Nidderdale AONB had already assembled a ‘network’ of for advising purposes, i.e. the Advisory Team
This is a group of roughly 30 individuals, representing a wide range of organizations, views and ‘stakes’….
businesses; local and national government; local and national non-government conservation groups; recreationists; water organizations
We were not conducting site visits here, and thus, we did not need to try and figure out the network in order to make a smaller selection
Instead, we used SNA to explore the idea ‘to what extent are stakeholders’ views influenced by their networks?’
The network in Nidderdale:

The network according to stakeholder category Re: your last LM decision in Nidderdale, whom did you speak with? Are there places you go to where LM issues are frequently discussed? Who tends to be there? Any other individual/org. you speak with about LM issues in Nidderdale?

Actors who share a tie share same/similar views regarding land management on these statements Land management view Land owners need more autonomy in making land management decisions Enforcement of tighter moorland burning regulations is important Exploring Nidderdale's potential for hydropower Encouraging more local people into the farming sector Changing land management to reduce water colour Allowing the uplands to return to a natural state, without management

Yes, sharing a communication tie coincides with sharing the same views towards certain land management issues or perspectives.
Our data showed little evidence to the idea that stakeholders sharing the same stakeholder category share the same perspective…
E.g. national conservationists did *not* all agree on land management issues. Rather, two actors tied together, regardless of their category/affiliation, were more likely to share the same view….
Thus, when we think about ‘’including a diverse group of stakeholders’, we automatically thinking that different stakeholder categories implies different views on land management….
However, these results indicate that one needs to also think how social networks are structuring ‘differences’ in opinion…
Discussion/Conclusions

Questions

relu Rural Economy and Land Use Programme Project Outcomes Team Presentations

Carbon and burning Gareth Clay and Fred Warrall

Problem
Peatlands are single largest terrestrial carbon store in the UK
Multiple ecosystem services from these areas e.g. water, farming, biodiversity
But changes in water colour, habitats, loss of sediments
What role does land management play in all of this?

Managed burning
Why do we burn?
Vegetation development
Grouse
Sheep
Rejuvenation
Fuel reduction

Methodology KEY No Burn Grazed (unfenced) Piezometers 10 year burn 20 year burn Ungrazed (fenced) Block A Block B 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Monitoring
What are we monitoring?
Water table and runoff occurrence
Soil water and runoff water
Carbon
DOC, CO 2
Cation and anion chemistry
Nutrients
Metals
Flow tracers
Hydraulic Conductivity
Soil coring

Results Significant effect p<0.05 Component Significant Effect Comment Reference Water Table Yes Shallowest on burnt sites Clay et al., 2009a Runoff occurrence Yes Increased following burning Clay et al., 2009a DOC No But, small spike following burn Clay et al., 2009b POC Yes Increase (from Clement, 2005) Clay et al., in review Dissolved CO2 No Clay et al., in review Respiration No Clay et al., in review Primary productivity Yes Higher on burnt sites (vegetation effect?) Clay et al., in review Methane Yes Increase due to water table rise (modelled) Clay et al., in review

Overall carbon budget
All site were sources
157 gCm -2 yr -1 118 gCm -2 yr -1

Conclusions
Doesn’t factor in char
Wildfires
Other land management
Grazing intensity

Impact of upland land management on water quality Dr. Pippa Chapman

Catchment management and water quality
In the UK, the uplands cover approximately 33% of the total land area but are the source of most of the major rivers and supply over 70% of potable water.
To comply with the water framework directive (WFD), Defra are looking at the role catchment management can play in reducing diffuse pollution and thus improving water quality.
UK water companies are also looking at the role catchment management can play in improving water quality in an attempt to reduce water treatment costs.
In order to implement catchment management strategies that will improve water quality, we need a better understanding of how spatial variations in land management and catchment characteristics control water chemistry.

Upland landscape

Controlled, rotational (10-15 years) patch burning of the heather to produce stands at different ages, which increase habitat structural diversity for grouse

Networks of drainage ditches were introduced with the purpose of lowering the water table to improve the quality of vegetation for grazing and hence increase agricultural production.

Agricultural improvement has involved a combination of drainage, enclosure, liming, reseeding and fertilising with farm yard manure and inorganic fertiliser to create upland marginal pasture.

Impact of Burning Yallop & Clutterbuck, 2009. Sci. Tot. Environ .
Small catchments (0.13 to 3 km 2 ) in Yorkshire
Peat dominated (>25% of area)
Significant effect of ‘new burn’ area on stream DOC (mean of 4 samplings) Chapman et al. Biogeochemistry (in press)
Small catchments (0.05 to 3.7 km 2 ) in Yorkshire
Peat dominated (>34% of area)
No impact of burning (proportion of catchment showing signs of being burnt in the past) on mean annual water colour

Impact of Burning
No significant effect of burning on DOC in soil water (left) and surface run-off (right)
But peak in DOC and colour 1 month after burn
Clay et al., Journal of Hydrology , 2009 Plot-scale experiment at Trout Beck, North Pennines

Impact of drainage 1986 r = 0.39; 2006 r = 0.05 Chapman et al. Biogeochemsitry (in press) Wallage et al, 2007, Science Tot. Environment In general, drainage has been observed to lead to an increase in dissolved and particulate organic carbon (DOC & POC).

Impact of drain blocking Wallage et al, 2007, Science Tot. Environment
Drain-blocking in blanket peat has been shown to result in a significant decrease in water colour and DOC concentrations in peat and drain waters and streams at some sites.
But at other sites no significant difference in DOC exists between drained and blocked systems.
The results of drain blocking may depend on peat type, position within the landscape and other environmental factors.

Impact of fertiliser use Edwards et al., 2000. Journal of Applied Ecology

Impact of fertiliser use

Summary
Relationship between burning and DOC maybe transient.
Drainage of blanket peat generally leads to enhanced DOC & POC production.
Studies investigating the impact of drain blocking on DOC and water colour have observed contrasting results; no change, increases or decreases in DOC.
Success of drain-blocking, from a water quality perspective, may be dependent on peat type, position and size of drains and other environmental factors.
Relationship between land management and water quality may change over time.
Nitrate concentrations are strongly related to the proportion of improved grass in a catchment and time of year.

Flooding Prof. Joseph Holden

bedrock soil infiltration percolation throughflow saturated Infiltration-excess overland flow (Hortonian OLF) Saturation-excess overland flow precipitation

Evans, Burt, Holden and Adamson, 1999, Journal of Hydrology

Can management in upland peatlands influence flood risk?
A major question – people have been trying to answer this for decades, especially for UK upland peatlands: gripping, gullying, grip-blocking etc
Data problems
Conflicting processes
Change over time is lagged
So we wanted to scope a different approach to answering this question

Used real data on flow speeds across the land under different vegetation types, topography etc
Found data from a site where we could map historic area of bare peat and compare with the response of the river to rainfall over the last 60 years – a unique dataset
Develop some scenarios of possible vegetation change that might impact flow
Used the data to predict possible impacts on the floods downstream for the different scenarios

Field results
Flow much faster across bare peat and much slower across Sphagnum when compared to cotton grass etc – but having the real numbers means we can make better predictions at the large catchment scale
Catchment-scale findings – Hydrographs were significantly peakier with higher peaks per unit of rainfall and narrower hydrograph shapes during the more eroded periods; less so as the site has revegetated.
For the first time we have found evidence in a large blanket peat headwater catchment that vegetation cover influences river flow response to rainfall.

Scenarios Scenario Description 1 100% ‘ Sphagnum ’ coverage 2 100% ‘Bare’ coverage 3 ‘ Bare’ revegetated to ‘ Sphagnum ’ -> Cumulative -> 4 50% ‘ Eriophorum - Sphagnum mix’ to ‘ Sphagnum ’ 5 50% ‘ Eriophorum ’ to ‘ Eriophorum-Sphagnum mix’ 6 50% ‘Heather’ to ‘ Eriophorum ’ 7 30% ‘Heather’ to ‘ Eriophorum ’ Alternative to Scenario 6

The simulated hydrographs generated using for each vegetation re-establishment and management scenario in the Hollinsclough catchment

Summary
A modest simulated reduction in peak discharge is associated with those vegetation re-establishment and management scenarios that involve a significant return toward pristine blanket bog vegetation.
However, modest changes in the upland hydrographs can mean large changes in flood peaks further downstream depending on flood wave synchronicity and connectivity of the river channel network.
If a reservoir is at 104 % capacity we might be able to make a difference to get it down to 100%
The once in 10 year flood might become the once in 11 year flood
Unlikely to make much difference for really large storms and the biggest events
More likely to make an impact for the small to intermediate-scale events
Clear practical conclusion is that eliminating bare areas (i.e. by encouraging vegetation restoration) any return to a more pristine Sphagnum cover elsewhere would be beneficial in terms of delaying flow.

Property rights in upland systems Dr. Claire Quinn

Changing and competing demands
Uplands have multiple uses and users
Amenity, water catchment, farming
Who does/should have a say over how the different resources are managed?

What are property rights?
Recognised authority
Property rights regimes
Private property
State property
Common property

Water companies Forestry (private) Agriculture (owned) Grouse moor owners Forestry (state) Agriculture (tenants) Water companies (Elsewhere) Recreation/ Tourism Access X X X X Withdrawal X X X Management X X Exclusion X X Alienation X

Water companies Forestry (private) Agriculture (owned) Grouse moor owners Forestry (state) Agriculture (tenants) Water companies (Elsewhere) Recreation/ Tourism Access CROW Act 2000 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Withdrawal Environmental designations (SSSI and SPA) Management SSSI and SPA designation Moorland Management plans Water Framework Directive and water resources legislation Exclusion Access decisions curtailed by the CROW Act and Land Reform Act Alienation

Mixed property rights in uplands
Private property – grouse
Private-state property – biodiversity
Common property – water catchments
What about other services e.g. Carbon?

Implications for policy and management
Unclear how successful mixed regimes are
Recommendations
Appropriate regime for private, common pool and public goods
Appropriate links between regimes
Management needs to be flexible to adapt to new demands

Questions

3. What might the future hold? Dr. Mark Reed

Intensification Scenario

Extensification Scenario

4. What would this mean for the ecosystem services we depend upon?

Future benefits?
Carbon management via peatland restoration (as opposed to renewable energy developments) under the extensification scenario may bring a number of co-benefits:
Less brown water
Reduced fire risk
Protection of moorland/bog species important for conservation
Limit scrub/forest encroachment
Supplement incomes in remote areas via carbon markets?

But prepare for major trade-offs
Extensive management will benefit biodiversity in over-grazed moorlands and carbon, but compromise provisioning services such as game and sheep production, and in drier locations where scrub/forest encroaches, lead to a loss of moorland species and current recreational benefits
Intensification prioritises provisioning services at the expense of most other ecosystem services
Both scenarios are likely to compromise upland biodiversity in many locations
Already a source of conflict...
Golden Plover

Upland communities tend to be well connected – this is the Moors for the Future partnership, in the Peak District

This is a sub-sample of 22 individuals we interviewed, showing those who communicated most with other (no matter how infrequently) in the network as larger dots Hill Farming Conservation Sporting Interests Water Companies Recreation

Those who communicate on a monthly or more frequent basis Hill Farming Conservation Sporting Interests Water Companies Recreation

Hill Farming Conservation Sporting Interests Water Companies Recreation “ I think perhaps the moors are over-burnt and not respected from the point that they are driven too hard and pushed too hard for the purpose of the grouse…they are looking for more and more and more… But it becomes like any mono-culture then – if you’re driven so single-mindedly by one thing, that tends to knacker nature – that’s the problem.” “ At the moment there is a conflict between us and the people who manage fires, that we need to sort out. It’s a big thing - its probably the most important thing.”

Hill Farming Sporting Interests Water Companies Recreation Conservation “ The heather moorlands… are there because of grouse shooting. Full-stop… Whether we like it or not, grouse shooting is the raison d’ ê tre.” “ [They] want to paint by numbers. The problem is [they] can’t tell you what the numbers are. [They] can’t tell you what is going to happen.” “ I’ve spent thirty years managing land and I’ve seen all these things come and go. So when you tell me as a very sincere young man with a great deal of credentials, that your prescription is right, you just listen to me: the guy who gave me 100% grant aid…to plough heather moorland also believed he was right because moorland was “waste”.”

The majority of individuals perceive considerable overlap between their views on upland management and the views of those they know from other groups Hill Farming Conservation Sporting Interests Water Companies Recreation “ I hear people say “Of course ours is the best way to manage...”. It’s the best way of managing moorland for grouse production. Absolutely A1. The best for anything else? That’s open to question and that’s probably why a mix with people doing different things is our best hope of creating some semblance of balance.” Agent

5. What can we do?

To tackle existing conflicts between different stakeholder groups
Reduce likelihood of exacerbating conflicts under future scenarios
Prioritise communication/trust between land owners and managers and those interested in conservation and water
1. Foster communication & trust

Build partnerships between researchers, the policy community and practitioners
Share good practice and innovation within and between regions, based on local and scientific knowledge
Plan for the long-term
Manage increased recreation to reduce wildfire risk whilst maximising income via diversification
Restore damaged peats
2. Build adaptive capacity

Anticipate and prepare for the widest possible range of futures...
...In a funding framework that can facilitate adaptive management e.g. shifting priorities as climate changes
Rewarding land owners and managers for the provision of public goods
Better value for money if we target funding towards land managers and locations that can most efficiently deliver the services we need?
Not easy...
3. Future-proof land use policy

1. Determine potential of land to provide different ecosystem services under different forms of management 2. Determine relative value to society of ecosystem services provided under different forms of management 3. Differentiate payments so higher rates are available to support management for priority ecosystem services in the locations (and at the scales) that can provide them 4. Negotiate management plans with land owners and managers

Restoring degraded peatlands brings many benefits
Can pay for itself through carbon markets
Major revisions to Government estimates of the role that peatlands play in the UK carbon balance
Community Rural Planning

Demand and supply: UK based carbon credits with multiple benefits (market research by NE with BRE)
Working towards VCS accreditation but need to overcome methane and legislative barriers (proving additionality and avoiding double-counting)
New 5 year project to investigate methane emissions but we should have data for VCS within 18 months
Legislative barriers softening but still there
Focus on CSR: DEFRA/DECC GHG Accounting Guidelines include UK projects soon – interested in developing Code of Good Practice for Accounting for Peat Carbon Projects
Terracarbon: first steps towards Code, attract further investment or intermediary as project developer (July)
Future upland restoration scheme

Conclusion
Ideas for discussion – we don’t have all the answers yet
Part of longer-term conversation that can inform future work
IUCN policy review by our team with Philip Lowe, Andrew Moxey, Clunie Keenleyside and others
Next phase RELU project...
Please take one:
RELU Policy & Practice Notes
Films available on our website soon (DVDs available on request)
Books – give us your name please

Discussion Groups

relu Rural Economy and Land Use Programme The next step: Sustainable Uplands Transforming knowledge for upland change

Sustainable Uplands Next Phase
Starting October 2010 for 18 months
Aims to bring together new and existing knowledge to:
Develop an agenda for future knowledge exchange by forming a knowledge network involving upland stakeholders
Build capacity for knowledge exchange

What will we actually do?
Identify gaps in current knowledge exchange by drawing on relevant sources of expertise, from previous Sustainable Uplands projects & other RELU projects
Identify & address some of the most pressing knowledge exchange questions for the uplands using questionnaires & interviews
Co-develop a research agenda to help inform knowledge exchange, policy & practice

What will we actually do?
4. Build capacity for interdisciplinary research relevant for adaptive upland policy & practice
5. Develop a knowledge management system for upland ecosystem service management
 Improved understanding of how knowledge can be exchanged & transformed into more effective policy & practice

Planned outputs
Initiation of an upland research, policy & practice network
Future knowledge exchange research agenda for the uplands
Academic papers
Online knowledge management toolkit
Policy briefs
RELU Policy and Practice Notes

Contact
www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands
Follow us on:
www.twitter.com/reluuplands
Email: sustainableuplands@see.leeds.ac.uk
Call or text on: 0797 428 6778

Sustainable Uplands Results Presentation

by Mark Reed on Jun 04, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 5

Statistics

Sustainable Uplands Results Presentation — Presentation Transcript