Sustainable Uplands Results Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Sustainable Uplands Results Presentation

on

  • 970 views

End of project results presentation given to stakeholders in Nidderdale AONB, from the RELU-funded Sustainable Uplands project. Includes new data on the relationship between burning, heather cover and ...

End of project results presentation given to stakeholders in Nidderdale AONB, from the RELU-funded Sustainable Uplands project. Includes new data on the relationship between burning, heather cover and water quality.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
970
Views on SlideShare
969
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Protecting livelihoods and ecosystem services (the benefits society gets from nature) Facilitating knowledge exchange between local stakeholders, policy-makers and social and natural scientists
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • Other “ecosystem services” provided by the hills, although important, may be more difficult to value. These include: Habitats for wildlife Cultural heritage The appearance of the landscape
  • The ability of uplands to continue providing the ecosystem services that we all need may be under threat:   New pressures, including climate change, may affect the capacity of the hills to respond and adapt A growing population will need to feed itself under very different climatic conditions and on a shrinking land base, which might require more intensive use of all available land, including the hills, to produce food However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • I’d like to start by considering the different ways we can think about the future: With current advances in modelling and computing power, can we now play fortune-teller and predict the future? People have been trying through the ages and still are, but now they’ve swapped the crystal ball for a computer model, should we believe them ? Given the enormous complexity and dynamism of socio-ecological systems I’m personally a bit of a skeptic. Getting the biophysical stuff right is hard enough, but when you add in the unpredictability of future human behaviour , you’ve got a whole different challenge on your hands
  • So if we can’t really tell what the future will hold by predicting, there’s surely nothing wrong with dreaming? We all dream about what we want the future to hold for us, so why not dream about our ideal future for the uplands? Well, I think there a few difficulties with this approach: First, most people don’t really dream that big – there is a lot of evidence out there to suggest that when you ask people what they want uplands to be like in future, they say: “ like this ” Some people do dream big though, and would make big changes if they had the power to determine the future. However, these people are in the minority, so would their visions be unpopular with the majority, if they came to pass? And not all these big ideas are complementary, so how do we decide who’s vision we should be aiming for? And finally, all of this assumes that the people who do the dreaming actually have the power to make their dreams come true (and I think you’ll agree with me that sadly, this isn’t always the case)
  • Given the potential power of scenarios, I’ve been working with a group of researchers to pull together everything that’s been published so far about UK upland futures (we’ve found 8 main studies) – here’s a quick summary of the key conclusions: It was possible to classify most of the published scenarios along two continua : scenarios based on a strong or weak environmental policy agenda, combined with continued or reduced government support The scenario deemed most likely & desirable was the continuation of hill farming (at reduced levels) based on cross-compliance with environmental measures The scenario deemed least likely & desirable was withdrawal of government financial support for hill farming But we think this warrants attention due to the significant implications if this were to happen – and stakeholders in our research are concerned that this may in fact be quite likely to happen
  • Full details available in handout available from me after or by email
  • So there are a lot of people who live, work and play in these areas who are very concerned about what the future may hold for them. This research is designed to help these people better anticipate future change, monitor what is happening around them and to respond appropriately to sustain their livelihoods whilst protecting the environment they depend upon. To do this, we want to find out what different people’s visions are for a sustainable future in UK uplands We want to better understand what is driving current and likely future changes And we want to develop a range of options that can help people not only cope with future change, but potentially exploit it.
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • So there are a lot of people who live, work and play in these areas who are very concerned about what the future may hold for them. This research is designed to help these people better anticipate future change, monitor what is happening around them and to respond appropriately to sustain their livelihoods whilst protecting the environment they depend upon. To do this, we want to find out what different people’s visions are for a sustainable future in UK uplands We want to better understand what is driving current and likely future changes And we want to develop a range of options that can help people not only cope with future change, but potentially exploit it.
  • In this context, because of various meetings and interactions, we felt confident that these respondents understood what ‘land management’ meant. UK uplands provide a range of goods and services. Much of Britain's drinking water comes from uplands They contain many plants and animals found nowhere else in the country They are Britain’s biggest store of carbon – larger than the forests of France and Germany combined And are important for tourism, farming and hunting.
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • This work is concerned with managed burning i.e. the intentional burning for grouse or sheep habitat management. Does not consider wildfires (though that is being dealt with in separate projects) - I would be interested in talking to people about burning for wildfire risk reduction
  • Factorial testing factors and their interactions Runoff and gas collars at each piezometer location The site has been monitored since Apr 2005 through to January 2008. 59 sampling days and over 2000 data points (WT) [1500 for pH, Cond Abs] Diagram from Worrall et al (2007)
  • Instead of having lots of graphs and data tables here are the headline results from the work Hydrological  Fluvial  Gaseous Although there is significant seasonal variation, there are some key results on various carbon fluxes from the hard hill plots. Bespoke to the Peak District work
  • Burning may have some part to play in land management of the future Increased primary production important. Source due to the fluvial export of carbon (DOC and POC)
  • Sheep grazing? Other management – gripping, restoration
  • In the UK, upland streams flow through a landscape dominated by a mosaic of peat and organo-mineral soils which support a wide range of vegetation including blanket bog, dwarf shrubs, dominated by Calluna vulgaris , acid and neutral grassland, improved grassland and forestry. The variation in land cover and its associated management results in stream water chemistry that varies depending on catchment characteristics, season and flow. Disentangling the processes controlling stream water chemistry at a landscape scale is difficult because most of our present process understanding comes from small scale plots, hillslopes and very small catchment studies. Yet most questions about sustainability of water recourses and protection of aquatic ecosystems concern the landscape scale.
  • To determine current water chemistry conditions in the Nidderdale AONB To determine the influence of catchment characteristics and land management practices on current water chemistry Use the water quality data to calibrate the PESERA model that is used to predict the impact of land use change on DOC and NO 3 -N concentrations This slide shows an overview of the location of the sampling points in the Upper Nidderdale and Washburn valley. Catchments ranged in; Area (0.12-16 km2) or 14-188 km2 Altitude 100-700m Peat coverage 0-100% Heather 0-97% Improved grass 0-74% Burning 0-83% Gripping 0-13%
  • Class 1 is defined as a visible exposed peat surface and represents areas of very new burn where no Calluna regeneration is yet visible. Sampling took place during November, December, January & March – i.e. during the burning season, which extends from 1 October to 15 April in upland areas (‘severely disadvantaged’) or between 1 November and 31 March in all other areas. No relationship between DOC and burning in N.York Moors, where soils are mostly mineral with peaty horizon and not blanket peat.
  • Relationship between burning and DOC maybe transient, i.e. it is apparent for a few months following burning but disappears as soon as new heather starts to grow.
  • Studies that have investigated the impact of drainage on DOC concentration have observed contradictory results. Most widely held view is that drainage of blanket peat leads to enhanced DOC production and the studies on drainage (rather than experimental water table lowering) from the UK are in agreement here.
  • Nitrate (filled circles) increases downstream as proportion of agricultural land increases In comparison inorganic P (filled circles) varies very little along length of River Dee.
  • Rural areas are subject to changing and often competing demands Not just production anymore, now includes biodiversity, amenity, water quality, carbon Traditionally the focus was on producing private goods - sheep or grouse But these other services are not private goods, the benefits are shared with others Public goods (non subtractable and non exclusive) - amenity Common pool resources (subtractable and non exclusive) - water catchments To manage rural areas sustainably to meet these demands we need diverse and complex management regimes In such systems, who should have rights to make decisions about management?
  • Property rights are central to these kinds of debates Property rights are the recognition of authority to undertake particular actions in specific domains Rights are organised into regimes Private property regimes result when all rights are held by individuals or organisations Internalise costs and benefits so can provide incentives for the production of certain goods E.g. research on soil conservation around the world has shown that private tenure leads to investment Benefits can be realised by the investor But don’t always lead to sustainable management or conservation practices in the case of CPR or public goods since the benefits are shared This is where we see State property - rights vested in the state (quite often these are held in trust for the public) Common property regimes - shared rights where rules determine access, use and management
  • Not all these property rights holders are evident in the uplands Owners dominate Some stakeholders occupy more than one category depending on the local conditions - water companies No claimant rights for any stakeholders But the River Basin Management Plans under the WFD will give water companies claimant rights over water catchments
  • The state has had a significant impact on property rights Access, withdrawal and management Important for sustainable management lack of claimant rights for stakeholders
  • Government has created mixed private-state regimes where government tries to represent the interests of other groups rather than giving them rights directly Problem - resistance of land owners Private property rights for resources such as grouse and grazing Private-state regimes for biodiversity - restrict and influence withdrawal and management rights Incentives for land owners to produce these services (Environmental Stewardship) No incentives for others – amenity/recreation value Should rights be private in this way? Some argue not - should be distributed among a broader range of stakeholders with interests in improving their production - most stakeholders can’t negotiate management rights Potential for common property regimes to develop - RBMP No management regimes as yet for other services such as carbon storage
  • Not clear as yet how successful this mixed regime will be in the longer term (v. little research carried out to date on mixed tenure) But they may have potential to deal with the issue of multiple uses and users Will need appropriate regimes for different goods and services But to overcome the inevitable conflicts there will need to be appropriate links between them (cannot necessarily maximise for all across the same landscape, may need to prioritise in certain areas or optimise across the range) Management needs to adapt to new demands as new services such as carbon storage become important
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • The ability of uplands to continue providing the ecosystem services that we all need may be under threat:   New pressures, including climate change, may affect the capacity of the hills to respond and adapt A growing population will need to feed itself under very different climatic conditions and on a shrinking land base, which might require more intensive use of all available land, including the hills, to produce food This may mean in future we consider putting more grazing animals on our hills, and may even consider cultivating some upland valleys for arable or biofuel crops
  • Although you may think an intensification of land use and management in uplands is unlikely, it is nonetheless plausible, and something we need to consider. But it is perhaps more likely future land use policy will continue along the current trajectory towards increasing extensification of land use and management in uplands. Many of us like to think of the uplands as Britain’s last wilderness. But many few of us appreciate the amount of management that’s necessary to maintain our uplands the way they are. The uplands need to be actively managed to sustain the services they currently provide. If they were left without human management, this could bring further problems:   Scrub and forest would encroach on many moorlands, changing their character completely Peat soils and their store of carbon could become vulnerable to erosion and wildfire So we need to beware of a policy trajectory that could potentially take us too far the other way.
  • In order to explore these views and relationships in more depth, we conducted a Social Network Analysis. This first network diagram shows communication ties between people from five of the main stakeholder groups in the Peak District, and shows they are highly connected: Each dot (or “node”) represents an individual stakeholder Arrows connecting stakeholders show those who communicated with others in the network And two-way arrows indicate when this relationship was reciprocated Stakeholders depicted by large dots interact with a large number of other people in the network These people are likely to be able to act as bridges between different parts of the network By involving these individuals in our process, they may spread ideas, knowledge and attitudes to others in their wider social network The next figure shows communication ties between people who communicated on a monthly or more frequent basis, and you can see immediately that the network begins to break down: Three cliques emerge Recreation forms its own clique, water and conservation another, grouse moor managers and agriculture form a third And there is infrequent communication between the cliques This suggests there is a danger that recreation groups may get marginalised in our dialogue, so their engagement needs to be actively sought This final diagram shows people who shared views about upland management. You can see that despite infrequent contact between cliques, and apparently polarised views on burning (that we heard in interviews), there was considerable overlap between people’s views on upland management (in general) and the views of those they knew from other groups: This suggests to us that there is enough common ground for different stakeholder groups to participate in meaningful dialogue over areas of mutual concern in our future research
  • However, Britain’s uplands are changing fast. They are under pressure from a range of historic and future pressures: Historic pollution (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur and heavy metal deposition, with effects on ecological communities and water) Current land use (only 14% UK moorland in “favourable condition” according to EN, primarily due to overgrazing and inappropriate burning) Burning regulation (EN lobbied DEFRA to review its Heather & Grass burning code. This is now underway – three of the most contentious proposals are to 1. shorten the burning season; 2. leave 10% moorland unburned; and 3. ban burning on blanket bog) CAP (little is known about the effect that decoupling subsidies from production will have on upland farming) WFD implementation (uplands will a major focus for Programmes of Measures) Kyoto (most uplands are grazed extensively and therefore management that enhances carbon storage can be used to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets under Article 3.4) Cultural, demographic and climate change (hunting has recently been banned in the UK and many think grouse shooting will be next, ageing rural population and shrinking rural labour pool, all under the influence of ongoing climate change)
  • Together with members of the policy and practitioner communities, we will identify the most important theoretical, empirical, and practical questions concerning the ways in which knowledge is managed in relation to ecosystems (focusing mainly on uplands and the waters that drain from these areas). The most urgent of these questions will then be addressed by interviewing key researchers, staff, and stakeholders from RELU-funded upland and catchment management projects, a sample of similar single council RCUK-funded projects, and where necessary, other projects engaged in knowledge exchange (WP2)
  • Capacity building will be achieved by using the findings from interviews and questionnaires to identify best practice and novel approaches to knowledge management that can be communicated across the research community, and put into practice through the initiation of a new uplands knowledge management network (WP3). We will also develop requirements for an online knowledge management system for the UK uplands (WP4).

Sustainable Uplands Results Presentation Sustainable Uplands Results Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • 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 Sustainable Uplands: Introduction and methods 10:30 Outcome presentations 11:00 – 11:20 Break 11:20 Outcome presentations 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
    • Renewable energy
    • 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
  • Water Framework Directive implementation
  • Common Agriculture Policy reform
  • 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
    • Interviews, questionnaires, field visits etc -Better understand priorities and networks – who talks with who? Who shares the same views? Where are the differences?
    • Held workshops to refine and prioritise issues and scenarios for investigation
    What did we do?
    • 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 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
    • Farmers as ecosystem providers
    • Hill farming collapse
    • Arable uplands
    • Nidderdale:
    • Hill farming collapse
    • Farmers as ecosystem providers
    • Bird disease/shooting ban
    • Arable uplands
    Short-list
    • Galloway:
    • Tourism expansion
    • Upland energy production
    • Conservation forestry
    • Hill farming collapse
  • 3. Collate existing data, collect new data on carbon, water quality, flows, grouse, veg. etc and on how people might respond to different payment schemes or approaches.
  • 4. Model the linkages and outcomes of all this new science and social science for different future scenarios – combine the information together.
    • 5. Find innovative ways that people can respond and discuss ideas (How would you respond if this happened?)
    • Use results to revise/refine ideas to ensure they work
    www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands
  • Dr. Christina Prell and Dr. Klaus Hubacek Integration of research approaches
  • Sustainable Uplands Project Conventional Approach Assessment Actions to remove symptoms Report on the shelf Crisis Policy Recommend-ations
  • Adaptive Management Observation Computer modeling Evaluation Policy as hypothesis Action as test
  • Context Visions Scenarios, Indicators Management Options Adaptive Management Stakeholder selection based on social network analysis Integrated computer models
    • SNA used for understanding Nidderdale context:
      • ‘ to what extent are stakeholders’ views influenced by their networks?’
    • 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
    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
  • Integrated Modelling Approach Hydrological Model Questionnaire Hypothetical upland Scenarios Land Management Choices Regulatory & Economic drivers Choice Model Vegetation & Grouse Dynamics Model Land use decisions Climate, soil and topography drivers Patterns & Time series Veg’n patterns & Grouse numbers External pressures Carbon Model Land use Integrated Modelling Approach
  • 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 current 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.
  • Sampling in Nidderdale AONB
  • Water quality in Nidderdale AONB
    • Overall the stream waters have
      • a neutral pH (mean=7.2)
      • are highly coloured due to high concentrations of Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
      • nutrient poor (oligotrophic), containing low concentrations of nitrate and phosphate .
  • 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 burning No relationship found between burning and DOC in stream water.
  • 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