Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Rivers Trust Autumn Conference: Day 2 - Session 3

496 views

Published on

The Partnership approach & assessing the benefits of catchment management. 12th & 13th September 2016 at the Rougemont Hotel, Exeter. Following the decision to leave the EU the need to come together to tackle the complex environmental problems we face such as diffuse pollution and habitat fragmentation has never been greater. This conference sets out the benefits and drawbacks of partnership working and the effectiveness of dealing with problems at a catchment scale.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Rivers Trust Autumn Conference: Day 2 - Session 3

  1. 1. Chaired by Dr Nick Paling
  2. 2. CWLPS, University of Dundee
  3. 3. Defining Evidence of Catchment Management Effectiveness and the Water Company PR14 Business Plans Prof Chris J Spray – UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy & Science University of Dundee
  4. 4. The Holy Grail? For some of us, the holy grail of adopting a Catchment Management approach has seen to be all about PROVING its effectiveness….. ………. to the all-important range of key stakeholders:  Government departments • Land owners • Land managers (especially farmers and foresters) • Regulatory Environmental Agencies (EA, NE, NRW, SEPA, SNH, etc) • Drinking Water Quality regulators (DWQI) • Economic regulators (Ofwat, WICS) • Customer committees • Water companies (private or public) • Academics • Environmental NGOs • Anglers, Fishery boards, and other water users, and….. most importantly • The public …………. But why and to whom do we/they each want to ‘prove’ Effectiveness? – and what is proof? - is it just an Operational or Financial question?
  5. 5. Testing for CM effectiveness Over the years many accounts and projects have been set up to do this – examples are legion…..in research, in NGOs, in partnerships, many at this event, etc….. Targeted different aspects, including operationally:  Effectiveness of CM to improve ‘ecological status’ of water bodies under the WFD RBMP process, incl diffuse pollution controls  Effectiveness of CM to protect drinking water supplies • Pesticides • Nutrients • Faecal Indicator Organisms (FIOs) • Water Colour / Dissolved Organic Carbon  Effectiveness of CM to promote Natural Flood Risk Management (NFM) Scotland  Effectiveness of CM to enhance Biodiversity  Effectiveness of CM to help combat Climate Change  Role in wider Strategic approach to Land use - Scottish Borders Land Use Pilot, Welsh Environment Act (Sustainable Management of Natural Resources)  Etc.
  6. 6. • Defra’s Demonstration Test Catchment programme – 40 organisations • NERC’s Macronutrient Cycles research programme – report June 2016 • Defra’s Mitigation Methods User Guide (2011) - 6 work packages, 83 different measures (£1.4million, 4 years) • UKWIR Report on Quantifying the Benefits of Water Quality Catchment Management Initiatives (2012) • UKWIR - Catchment Management: how do we know it has worked? - project RG08D204 (pers com) • UKWIR - Catchment Management repository and database’ (2013/14, reference WR26a) • Catchment Management Evidence Review produced by the Westcountry Rivers Trust (2013) • Catchment Sensitive Farming Initiative (Phase 3) Evaluation Report (Feb 2015), Natural England. • Scottish Water Sustainable Land Management Initiative – 27 measures • ADAS Report Effectiveness of Measures database • Environment Agency - National Water Environment Benefit Surveys (NWEBS 2007 and 2012). • Environment Agency (2014) Water Appraisal Guidance Assessing Costs & Benefits for River Basin Management • DPMAG Strategy and Website (Scotland) • Indepen (July 2014) ‘Discussion paper on the potential for catchment services in England’ commissioned by 3 of the English water companies: Wessex, Severn Trent and South West Water A number of major Reviews and Projects have addressed effectiveness
  7. 7. Potential rewards for an Integrated CM - Holy Grail? • The extent of activity being undertaken in catchments across the UK is vast • Recent estimate (Indepens 2014) puts this as c£100 billion to be spent in English catchments in the next 15 years, of which £30 billion would be on meeting the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), water & waste water treatment • Of this £30 billion for WFD, they estimate that £300 million to £1 billion costs could be avoided by the water sector alone through adopting a wider catchment approach, as well as unvalued wider benefits to biodiversity, flood risk reduction, & carbon management. • E.G. claim that catchment-based approaches can in certain cases reduce water treatment costs by 10% and 20% (figures given ‘as seen’ from 2 projects as part of review) due to reduced suspended solids content, improved colour, and lower pesticide levels (reduced use of GAC) • Total estimate: applying a cross-sector approach across all catchment activity, avoided costs might range from £1 - 4 billion over this 15 year period with, in addition the creation of wider benefits of between £2 - £5 billion to other areas such as biodiversity and flood risk reduction Report based on literature review & interviews with key stakeholders, and the assessment of potential cost savings from the greater adoption of catchment based approaches is very high level (estimated from national statistics derived from published sources, extrapolation of other studies and expert judgement). This is not to challenge the figures per se, as in many cases they pick a low value for their calculations, but to stress that this is not meant to be a detailed assessment of all costs and potential savings, and its conclusions focus on the requirement for incentives to encourage investor-owned companies to adopt catchment-based solutions.
  8. 8. The promised land? – New York City & the Catskills watershed system New York City Water Supply • Primarily a surface water supply • 19 reservoirs & 3 controlled lakes • System Capacity: 550 billion gallons • Serves 9 million people (1/2 of population of New York State) • Delivers approx. 1.2 billion gallons per day to the City • Source of water is a 2,000 square mile watershed in parts of 8 upstate counties
  9. 9. Multiple Water Quality Issues • Primary water quality concerns: – Droughts – Floods – Turbidity – Pathogens – Nutrients (and algae) • Varies by district and by reservoir – Croton – eutrophic reservoirs – Catskill - turbidity
  10. 10. New York City was Faced with a Decision To filter or not to filter ( = CM), that was the question • Concern over whether City could meet subjective criteria – City owned less than 8% of watershed – City regulations outdated • Increased concern by public over safety of drinking water - Milwaukee incident Federal regulations require all surface waters to be filtered – Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 and Surface Water Treatment Rule of 1989 Municipalities can request a “WAIVER” from filtration requirement if it can demonstrate compliance with regulations through and by effective management of the watershed Firm belief by New York City that reliance on end-of-pipe solutions alone not prudent; best approach to protect water quality at source
  11. 11. Decision was made to go for CM and not filter! • City alarmed by potential capital cost of a filtration plant (originally estimated at $6-8 billion) as the ‘end of pipe’ solution • $350 million annual operation and maintenance expenses • City would invest in watershed protection programs at its source, rather then treat at end of pipe. Memorandum of Agreement between multiple catchment stakeholders, consisting of: • Land Acquisition Program • Watershed Regulations • Watershed Protection and Partnership Programs Includes New York State, New York City, US EPA, 7 Counties, 60 towns & 10 villages, Numerous NGOs Key role of Farmers Watershed council as ‘trusted intermediary’
  12. 12. Cost effectiveness? - Catchment Approach vs ‘End of pipe’ Filtration Plant: Projected cost - $8.0 billion capital investment $350 million annual operations and maintenance ($3.5 billion for 10 years) Catchment Spend: Total Spent: $1.06 billion
  13. 13. Challenges for business in defining effectiveness of CM measures to protect raw drinking water quality  The list of potential catchment measures and associated models is extremely long - Defra User guide has 83 measures alone to protect water quality  Often aimed at different problems  They are rarely used in isolation, and  Modelling is used extensively to assess benefits that might theoretically be realised, with parameters often taken from national data or other studies UKWIR (2012): Quantifying the Benefits of Water Quality Catchment Initiatives provides a methodology for measuring costs and benefits associated with catchment management. However, while taking a holistic approach across economic, environmental and social benefits, the report concludes that: ‘the evidence base for calculated benefits from catchment management schemes based on evaluation studies where real impacts have been measured is scant’.
  14. 14. Water Company Duties - drinking water quality • Water companies are expected to address all statutory drinking water quality requirements as set out in Defra’s Statement of Obligations. In particular, the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) ensures companies pay due regard to need for public water supplies to be safe, clean and compliant with all regulatory standards. • For PR14, all water companies are expected to ensure that their business plans make provision to meet all their statutory obligations and that provision is made for a sustainable level of asset maintenance to maintain public confidence in drinking water quality. • Defra, Ofwat, DWI have issued guidance to water companies on requirements in relation to a range of issues, including: • Water safety plans. • Principles for catchment management. • The revised standard for lead in drinking water. • An expected new standard for disinfection by-products. • The management of metaldehyde (along with certain other agricultural pollutants).
  15. 15. • All companies expect to see catchment management become more widespread in the future, as a way of delivering against their outcomes. • Meanwhile, as PR14 is Outcome based, companies have freedom to define how to achieve (all but 5 of) their outcomes themselves already • PR14 Water company plans include possibly some 300 catchment schemes, promoted for a variety of reasons - as investigations, in response to customer surveys, to maintain company reputation, etc. • Overall companies identified £206 million for catchment management but impossible to say how much will be spent. • Many companies not fully engaged - lack of apparent enthusiasm for CM due to: • barriers of policy • lack of regulatory flexibility • lack of integration across sectors • lack of data • lack of incentives and lack of rewards. Analysis of Water Company Business plans
  16. 16. Defining Costs and Benefits: Importantly in terms of any attempts to measure economic effectiveness, most of the justification has been done through customer survey exercises, and not through direct costs, or a recognised formal cost-benefit process. Customer surveys did not ask about Catchment Management itself, but about ‘Environmental Improvements’ in general and where they sit in relation to other potential deliverables form water customer bills In terms of company business plans, the single and ultimate driver is defined as failure in Drinking Water quality standards
  17. 17. Southwest Water Business Plan Southwest Water Business Plan – Protecting the Environment We strive to minimise our impact on the environment and take opportunities to protect and improve it where possible. Our customers attach a high importance to the environment and they expect us to protect it at all times. When compared to research findings in 2009 there is now even greater concern about the environment. Our customers attach importance to ‘minimising any impact on the environment for future generations’ and are generally supportive of our environmental work although some believe this is less important than delivering our core services THE PROGRESS WE’VE MADE:  Improving areas of moorland and farmland to help enhance habitats and the quality of the water in our rivers and reservoirs CHALLENGES:  Agricultural and industrial practices can affect the quality of the water we source (e.g. pesticides from farms).
  18. 18. Southwest Water Business Plan Southwest Water Business Plan – Protecting the Environment Key findings from their customer research sample: • In their ranking of priority areas across the whole business Household customers attached the following rankings to these environmental areas: - protecting habitats (10th) - catchment management (12th) - reducing harmful abstraction (14th) - reducing energy consumption and our carbon footprint (17th) • Non-household customers were similar in their ranking of these priorities. OUR PLANS 2015 - 20  Additional catchment management initiatives
  19. 19. 20 Potential local/regional priorities – domestic Consistency across domestic customers Priorities Key Priorities Safe, clean water (40) Reduce leakage (23) Prevent pollution (15) Bathing and shellfish and river quality (12) Smart compulsory metering (10) River water quality (9) Reduce sewer flooding (8) Resilience in extreme conditions (8) Habitats (6) Water conservation (5) Customer contact excellence (5) Reducing leakage a priority because seems a pointless waste to pay to clean the water and then let is waste away Preventing pollution was also important for the future. Keeping rivers and beaches clean was a priority because it’s ‘where we live’ Safe clean water undisputed that should be first, with reducing leakage 2nd and preventing pollution 3rd I went for leakage control because you have gone to all the effort of cleaning it and then you lose it. It seems daft. Exeter domestic Priority I think is it so important to have clean beaches. It’s why people come here. Bideford domestic I like that catchment management. It makes perfect sense to me. Bideford domestic
  20. 20. Southwest Water Business Plan – stakeholder differences Stakeholder thinking is heavily driven by their own areas of involvement/pressure: Community groups are predominantly focussed upon cost and affordability issues. Suppliers are heavily focussed upon investment decisions and issues concerning how planned investment is losing out to reactive problem solving. Environmental groups are largely concerned with environmental issues but with a desire for more collaborative working with SWW – in particular for more upstream thinking - prevention being a better and more sustainable approach than cure. Note: - Customers tended to see bathing and river quality as an environmental outcome while not everyone saw that if all the other work was done; the river and bathing water quality would be provided for. There were a minority who recognised that much of the work was interlinked and had to be done. This is the opposite way of thinking to Environmental stakeholders who viewed Upstream thinking as the necessary focus to deliver these outcomes for bathing and river water quality.
  21. 21. Communicating the Challenge: Customer response to What’s in the Pipeline? Mixed response but starts to explain what SWW does which helps make bill slightly more palatable • Informative look at what is going to happen over next 20 years. • Starts to provide an explanation for the sewerage part of the bill. • Explains the unique challenges facing SWW on a daily basis with challenging terrain, low populations, long coastline , £50 rebate. • Widespread interest in renewable energy and ‘clever solutions’ such as catchment management. • Future customers appreciated apprenticeships. • Future customers were unaware that SWW dealt with sewage as well as provided clean drinking water -‘isn’t that South West Sewage?’ • Glossy and expensive • Non specific • Repetitive • More cynical found it was ‘all about cost’ and they already knew they paid a lot for their water • Some feel that the customers has to ‘stomach’ the increased bills as a result of investment, not the shareholders • Future customers found paragraphs impenetrable and preferred bullet points More positive Less positive It's just marketing blurb. Bideford domestic
  22. 22. Customer concerns on why a Water Company should be doing CM The Yorkshire Water Environment Forum has seen its role to ensure that the company has challenged regulators to an appropriate degree whilst recognising the need to address the National Environment Plan in particular. In some instances anticipated need to challenge investment that is planned: • In response to something that is not strictly a legal obligation • To deliver quality enhancements where costs significantly outweigh benefits and/or it is not beneficial to water company customers. • To address pollution by others, contrary to the polluter pays principle, that is not customers’ responsibility
  23. 23. Defining Effectiveness - Indicators of Success • Costs and benefits to water companies of taking a catchment approach, if and where analysed at all, are not transparent • Where identified, individual catchment measures (or more commonly a package of measures) have been assessed through their own indicators, developed and promoted by the organization(s) involved for the specific needs of their own project requirements, rather than by any industry recognised standards or methodologies. • The key ones identified are mainly direct Outputs (numbers of farms visited, fences erected, etc.), rather than measures of actual final Outcomes (reduction in nitrate levels, lower costs of GAC filters, etc.); the former being easier to measure and less prone to data uncertainties and assumptions of predictive models
  24. 24. Defining effectiveness - Indicators of Success Different Typologies of indicators: • Source – Mobilisation - Pathway - Receptor – In Defra’s Demonstration Test Catchments, the methods to monitor change are split according to those associated with these 4 aspects (McGonigle et al 2014) • Measurement; Budgets; Risk assessment; and Modelling - UKWIR report on Quantifying the Benefits of Water Quality Catchment Management Initiatives (2012) follows that of Cherry et al (2008) by identifying these 4 main methods for assessing effectiveness, along with their perceived strengths and weaknesses. • Farmer engagement; Farmer awareness & attitude; mitigation measures; Reduced pollutant losses; Water quality improvements; Ecological response; and Wider ‘ecosystem service’ benefits. - Catchment Sensitive Farming evaluation
  25. 25. Defining Effectiveness - Indicators of Success Seven Key Measures 1. Land manager behaviour 2. Implementation of measures on the ground 3. Nutrient /Pesticide inputs 4. Nutrient /Pesticide losses 5. Water Quality parameters of the receiving water 6. Risk 7. Financial costs and benefits to water companies
  26. 26. Defining financial effectiveness of CM measures themselves There has been extensive work on assessing the costs of alternative means of treatment and, to a much lesser extent the benefits derived from it. • Each company that responded to our questionnaire was able to cost the catchment activities they supported - salaries and associated costs of Catchment Advisers, project funds, sampling, capex for infrastructure, etc • Equally, it is possible to obtain costs for the ‘traditional methods of treatment’, with energy, materials, chemicals, staff, etc. all being recorded internally, though less simple to ascribe precise amounts to individual plants and processes in isolation. • Less certain (and about which companies are generally unwilling to share detailed information) are calculations of any benefits associated with alternative catchment measures. Those that have costed alternatives and benefits warn these are theoretical costs based on a ‘swathe of assumptions’ and predicted rates of change which may not be realised.
  27. 27. Some clear examples of ‘cost effectiveness’ exist In comparison to a counterfactual (business as usual) position, some of the CM measures proposed can be shown to be cost beneficial. • Direct benefits to water company alone in terms of reduced capital and revenue costs are apparent in some cases: – Severn Trent report capex savings of c1million from additional treatment being no longer required following the delivery of a suite of catchment-based solutions to counter pesticide exceedance at Tittesworth; – United Utilities and Southwest Water report similar claims for success of catchment interventions, at least on paper; – Measures costed by Wessex Water to control nitrates in their Eagle Lodge catchment set against the hypothetical costs of developing and running a nitrate removal plant. Since initiation in 2006, these catchment measures have led to nitrate levels remaining well below those seen before action began, and well below the drinking water standard.
  28. 28. Many more examples of uncertainty and caution However…...…elsewhere the case is less clear with the impact of measures either not proven or not measured. One water company reported: ‘on the face of it though, all our catchment intervention initiatives appear to fail and be in vain whenever there is a wet year….’ and another company reported that our: ‘catchment management projects for metaldehyde have yet to demonstrate they can deliver the water quality improvement required at abstraction points and which would mean new treatment processes are not required’. In 2012 New York City built a UV Treatment plant ‘ as an additional barrier for public health protection
  29. 29. Got a spare £600 million for metaldehyde treatment…… August 2016 Anglian Water releases colossal cost estimates for metaldehyde treatment as industry talks about tackling the pesticides in drinking water to avoid a hefty toll on farmers and customers • Almost £600 million pounds would be needed to set-up metaldehyde (slug pellet) treatment for drinking water in the East of England, according to Anglian Water. The company estimates it would cost an additional £17million every year to run, too – amounting to a 21 per cent increase in customer bills. At the event, Anglian Water presented findings from its catchment management initiatives including its Slug It Out trial – the UK’s largest ever metaldehyde-free farming trial aimed at meeting the drinking water directive. Slug It Out achieved a 60 per cent drop in levels of metaldehyde detected in reservoir tributaries last year, but it was not enough to meet the legislative limits in all areas. Severn Trent and Thames Water have also run similar trials. The results from the three companies show that even removing 100 per cent of metaldehyde from farmland is still not sufficient to meet the drinking water legislation.
  30. 30. Got a spare £600 million for metaldehyde treatment…… • “If resolving this issue is then left to water companies alone any solution would likely need to be ‘end of pipe’. Not all pesticides can be removed by conventional treatment technology meaning end of pipe solutions can’t be relied upon as a panacea. • Even if a treatment solution is technically possible on such a large scale, our cost estimates show that funding it would be hugely costly and unsustainable for customers’ bills. • We strongly believe that domestic customers should not be the financial backstops for this. • “A collaborative catchment approach across multiple business sectors provides the best option to safeguard raw water quality effectively while still enabling the agricultural sector to thrive. • However, catchment management by its very nature involves many different stakeholders and therefore shouldn’t be the sole responsibility of water companies to deliver. • More organisations need to take responsibility for catchment management as an essential approach, and for regulators to mirror this in the regulation too.”
  31. 31. Clear that if improvement in the ecological status of receiving water bodies under WFD are factored in (using the NWEBS and EA’s Stage 1 valuation tool), then the case for catchment intervention is greatly strengthened. • Environment Agency’s Water Appraisal Guidance (NWEBS) was developed to assist the assessment of benefits for economic appraisal of measures which affect the water environment • Relies on a ‘benefits transfer’ approach, using information about societal values from existing academic studies and surveys, but does not cover all ecosystem services including less easy to establish values, such as flood regulation, human health and carbon sequestration • Severn Trent have explored potential costs and benefits of surface water catchment management to prevent non-compliance with pesticide levels at the point of abstraction using a wider ecosystem services approach Defining effectiveness needs to include behaviour, costs & benefits beyond water companies
  32. 32. Acknowledgements With thanks to: • All those Water Companies, Government Departments, Agencies, Regulators, Customer committees and Environmental NGOs that participated and helped with follow up discussions, and particularly to David Smith & Lewis Jones (Southwest Water), Claire Lorenc (Essex & Suffolk / Northumbrian Water), Luke DeVial & Fiona Bowles (Wessex), Miles Foulger (Yorkshire Water), Steven Lambert (Sutton & East Surrey Water), Severn Trent Water, Thames Water, Irish Government, Irish EPA and National Federation of Group Water Schemes, and Brian Ellor (UKWIR project lead) • Roger Sokol (Director - Bureau of Water Supply Protection, New York State Department of Health) • Robert Holdway (Ofwat) • Jannette MacDonald (JHI) and members of the Steering Group • Colleagues on the team from Westcountry Rivers Trust, CEH and Ecologic. • Colleagues at University of Dundee. And with fond memories of Dylan Bright
  33. 33. Independent Consultant
  34. 34. Understanding water company drivers and performance commitments relating to catchment management Rivers Trust Autumn Conference, 12-13 September 2016 Noel Wheatley Director, Noel Wheatley Consulting Ltd
  35. 35. Setting the scene • PR14 saw a transformation in Ofwat’s approach to price setting: • More emphasis on customer and stakeholder engagement in shaping company business plans • Companies incentivised to deliver outcomes (performance commitments) rather than specific schemes • Rewards for exceeding targets and penalties for falling short • New cost recovery rules (totex) to address bias in favour of capital solutions • Analysis of the performance commitments agreed for 2015-20 can help in: • Understanding a water company’s appetite for engagement on catchment partnership work • Identifying the scope for ensuring enhanced water company commitment to catchment activities in future price reviews
  36. 36. Overview of Performance Commitments (PCs) • The 18 water companies (now 17) agreed over 500 performance commitments • 60% of PCs have associated outcome delivery incentives (ODIs), i.e. financial consequences for under-performance or exceeding targets • 54% of ODIs involve both penalty and reward, 46% are penalty only. • Potential penalties amount to £2.64bn across all companies in E &W. Potential rewards amount to just under £1bn • An average water and sewerage company has a suite of 37 PCs across its water, sewerage and retail businesses, of which 22 have financial ODIs • PCs vary considerably across companies, depending on local circumstances, historic performance, customer engagement, company culture, risk appetite etc • Potential penalties range from 11–31% of company turnover and potential rewards from 1–20%
  37. 37. Potential rewards/penalties by service area (all companies) 2015-20 30 1916 8 6 6 5 3 2 2 1 Rewards - % of total (£998.7m) Sewer flooding Supply interruptions Leakage Pollution incidents Asset health Bathing waters Environmental compliance Resilience Drinking water quality Customer service Environment 30 17 10 9 8 7 4 4 4 4 2 1 Penalties - % of total (£2640.9m) Asset health Sewer flooding Supply interruptions Leakage Drinking water quality Pollution incidents Environmental compliance Resilience Customer service Site specific investment Bathing waters Environment
  38. 38. Environmental ODIs - Water and Sewerage Companies Company % Potential rewards + penalties % Potential rewards Amount (£m) % Potential penalties Amount (£m) Financial ODIs Reputationa l ODIs Wessex 35 59 29 24 25 7 2 Anglian 27 32 39 24 64 4 8 South West 24 31 32 17 20 6 10 Yorkshire 20 37 19 15 24 7 8 Severn Trent 15 17 26 15 54 10 5 United Utilities 15 9 13 17 75 7 0 Dwr Cymru 14 11 6 15 30 1 3 Thames 12 15 32 10 43 4 6 Southern 9 28 9 7 17 4 2 Northumbrian <1 0 0 <1 <1 1 6 Total 16 21 205 14 352 51 50
  39. 39. Catchment management-related ODIs - Water and Sewerage Cos Company % Potential rewards + penalties % Potential rewards Amount (£m) % Potential penalties Amount (£m) Financial ODIs Reputationa l ODIs Wessex 28 53 26 16 17 3 0 Severn Trent 8 12 19 6 22 6 3 Anglian 7 - - 10 25 2 2 Thames 6 5 11 6 25 3 1 United Utilities 4 1 2 4 19 2 0 Yorkshire 2 4 2 2 3 6 1 South West <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 3 Northumbrian - - - - - 0 2 Dwr Cymru - - - - - 0 1 Southern - - - - - - - Total 5 6 60 4 111 23 13
  40. 40. Performance commitments on catchment management / partnership work 2015-2020 Company Business Description Fin/Rep Pot rew Pot pen Severn Trent Water 12 successful CM/partnership schemes delivered Fin £5m £6m Severn Trent Sewerage 14 new partnership projects with public sector/NGOs Fin <£1m <£1m Yorkshire Water & Sewerage 16 schemes delivered by working with others Fin <£1m South West Water 63% increase in farm acreage under improved management (to 8,154), 115% increase in farms with plans (to 1,400) Rep Thames Sewerage 13 water bodies improved as a result of CM activities Rep Bristol Raw water quality at sources stable as a result of CM activities Rep Sutton & East Surrey 14 NEP investigations/CM schemes delivered Rep
  41. 41. Some issues for PR19 • How to address resilience and encourage longer-term performance commitments • How to ensure more comparability, e.g. common definitions of PCs. • Balance between rewards and penalties and between business areas (water, sewerage, retail) • What is a proportionate number of PCs for incentivising good company behaviour • Should some companies be able to earn rewards for improving performance in certain areas (e.g. pollution incidents) whilst others are subject only to penalties? • Should there be more consistency on potential reward/penalty per unit of improved performance? • How will issues such as retail competition and proposed upstream and downstream impact on the price review process - not to mention the B- word…… • How is evidence on CM best brought into the business planning process
  42. 42. Thank you Email: noelw@noelwheatleyconsulting.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 7580 931245 L LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/wheatleynoel
  43. 43. University of Exeter
  44. 44. Prof Richard Brazier r.e.brazier@exeter.ac.uk Evaluating the benefits of Upstream Thinking across multiple scales
  45. 45. Context • Over the last decade extreme weather in the UK has caused major and costly socio- economic and environmental damage: • flooding, diffuse pollution, soil erosion and sediment pollution • It seems clear that conventional approaches to land management do not work to mitigate these environmental problems • Furthermore, solutions to flooding focus on downstream palliative approaches i.e. building flood defences, dredging channels etc… • …and ‘solutions’ to water quality problems focus on costly treatment by water companies • Upstream Thinking techniques are a complementary approach which may enhance resilience of downstream flood defences, maintain elevated baseflows during droughts or improve water quality prior to treatment • But what is the evidence base to support Upstream Thinking and what else do we need to know to quantify the multiple benefits (or negatives) associated with a radically different approach to the norm?
  46. 46. This talk demonstrates how we can quantify the role that Upstream Thinking might play as a solution to the environmental problems that (for the most part) we have created… The talk focuses on two different approaches: • Moorland restoration • Reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver Highlighting data collected across multiple scales to quantify water quantity and water quality benefits
  47. 47. Mires: Dartmoor and Exmoor Peatland Restoration Luscombe et al (2014) DOI: 10.1002/eco.1527. Luscombe et al (2014) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10285 Grand-Clement et al (2013) DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12039 Grand-Clement et al (2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.091 Grand-Clement et al (2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.023 Gatis et al (2015) DOI: 10.1002/eco.1643 • SW Peatlands are an important habitat, carbon store and source of drinking water • At risk from: • Climate change (as most southerly blanket bogs, provide us with an analogue for future change further north), • Anthropogenic drainage, • Peat cutting, • Over-grazing • Erosion • Combined, these factors have resulted in damaged peatlands with negative impacts on ecosystem service provision • 2010-2015 restoration projects undertaken across Exmoor and Dartmoor • Focus on ditch/gully blocking • UoE research to understanding function pre- and post- restoration
  48. 48. Dartmoor: Peatland extent Green areas = Deep Peat (>0.4m) Yellow areas = Thin Peat (<0.4m)
  49. 49. Dartmoor: Peat cuttings Red areas = overcut peat
  50. 50. Dartmoor: Drainage features Green areas = Linear ditches
  51. 51. Processes Driving Bare Peat Expansion pre Restoration Averaged cross section of Water table
  52. 52. Hydrological Restoration - Immediate Effects Instantaneous water table Jump No significant rainfall Discharge falls as pool forms?
  53. 53. Restoration Effects on Water Storage during June – July (Data Subset) Water table depth in the vegetated areas Standing water depth in the bare peat areas Water table depth in the bare peat areas
  54. 54. Simple upscaling of restoration effects on Summer water storage across Flat Tor Pan Using mapping data from the monitoring project and mapping project we can estimate that: As Ground Water Storage increases by 9cm (in data subset) As Permanent Surface Water Storage increases by 14cm (in data subset) Ground Water Storage in previously dry areas of peat = 1.26 million litres. Across restored area. Assuming a standard bulk density of 50%. A total of 2.87 million litres. FTP is only 1.26% of the bare peat on Dartmoor. Extra Water Stored in bare peat areas = 1.61 million litres.
  55. 55. Devon Beaver Project: Overview • Fenced 3 ha site in North Devon • 1st order tributary draining from IMG • A pair of beavers introduced in 2011 • Dramatically changed site from small first order tributary running through wet woodland, to a diverse mosaicked wetland environment.
  56. 56. Devon Beaver Project: Preliminary Results- Flow Attenuation December 2014 February 2015
  57. 57. Devon Beaver Project: Results - Flow Attenuation • Each x is a storm • Flow in (above beaver) is greater with higher peak discharge • Lag times (peak rainfall to peak flow) much shorter above beaver site than below • Demonstrates flow attenuation due to beaver activity...
  58. 58. Devon Beaver Project: Results - Water Storage Puttock, A., Cunliffe, A. M., Anderson, K., & Brazier, R. E. (2015). Aerial photography collected with a multirotor drone reveals impact of Eurasian beaver reintroduction on ecosystem structure. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 150429143447007. http://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2015-0005
  59. 59. Devon Beaver Project: Water Quality 1
  60. 60. Devon Beaver Project Results - Water Quality 2 For all variables apart from DOC, water quality is better leaving the site, than entering the site DOC concns are low entering (carbon depletion of agricultural soils?), higher leaving – carbon cycling in the wetland that has been created…
  61. 61. Summary and Conclusions • Restoring structure of landscapes through Upstream Thinking approaches has a significant impact upon hydrological function • Moorland restoration and beaver reintroduction shown here have led to attenuated hydrological responses and increased water storage • There is thus a value of this work in times of drought, enhancing baseflows in rivers and flood, when more water can be stored in these landscapes • In addition water quality has improved alongside multiple other environmental ecosystem services not covered within this talk • However, proving these benefits has required significant monitoring efforts, without which it is difficult to quantify the value of land management or restoration approaches or compare the value of different approaches • Our next challenge (by 2020) is to adopt these approaches across all catchments where significant UT works will be undertaken to translate this natural, environmental science understanding into ‘value’ for the water company
  62. 62. Thanks to all project and associated partners Devon Beaver Project Devon Beaver Project is led by Devon Wildlife Trust and the University of Exeter, and funded by Westland Countryside Stewards. Particular thanks go to John Morgan, the site owner, for hosting the reintroduction project and allowing site access for researchers. The 3D Robotics Y6 was supplied by the University of Exeter’s Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI) environmental monitoring drone lab. River Otter Beaver Trial The River Otter Beaver Trial is led by Devon Wildlife Trust, working in partnership with the University of Exeter, Clinton Devon Estates and the Derek Gow Consultancy. Data has been provided by the Environment Agency. Expert independent advice is also provided by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (Roisin Campbell-Palmer and Simon Girling), Professor John Gurnell and Gerhard Schwalbe. Mires Project This research was funded by South West Water through the Upstream Thinking Program and supported by the Exmoor Mires Patnership and Dartmoor Mires Partnership (in turn supported by, Environment Agency, Natural England, Historic England, Exmoor National Park and Dartmoor National Park).
  63. 63. Queen Mary University of London
  64. 64. Scaling up to landscape scale – the DTC perspective Iwan Jones The Demonstration Test Catchments Consortium
  65. 65. Scaling up to WFD level Laboratory experiments Field experiments Catchment experiments Control Realism Spatial and Temporal Scale
  66. 66. Sediment 0 5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Agricultural Area (Cumulative Percentage)PercentageReduction Plant Protection Products 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 Agricultural Area (Cumulative Percentage) PercentageReduction Phosphorus 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 Agricultural Area (Cumulative Percentage) PercentageReduction Nitrate 0 5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Agricultural Area (Cumulative Percentage) PercentageReduction Sheep Dip Disposal 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 Agricultural Area (Cumulative Percentage) PercentageReduction Veterinary Medicines 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 Agricultural Area (Cumulative Percentage) PercentageReduction Sediment Reduction Agri-Environment Monitoring Technical Services Contract Lot 3. Soil, Water and Climate ChangeA < 1 1 - 1.9 2 - 3.9 4 - 7.9 > 8 Percentage Change (%) Nitrate Reduction Agri-Environment Monitoring Technical Services Contract Lot 3. Soil, Water and Climate ChangeA < 1 1 - 1.9 2 - 3.9 4 - 7.9 > 8 Percentage Change (%) Spent Sheep Dip Reduction Agri-Environment Monitoring Technical Services Contract Lot 3. Soil, Water and Climate ChangeA < 1 1 - 1.9 2 - 3.9 4 - 7.9 > 8 Percentage Change (%) Improvements are not evenly distributed Jones et al. in press J Appl Ecol
  67. 67. Issues when scaling up Farm practice/business as usual Uptake & combinations of measures Positioning & density Installation & maintenance Landscape scale retention & transformation Non-agricultural sources Topography Climate Soil
  68. 68. Need to understand the constraints on delivering improvements at the catchment scale cost-effectively
  69. 69. Parallel work streams Fundamental evidence: target sub- catchment monitoring Evidence synthesis for national policy support
  70. 70. ‘Weight-of-evidence’ approach • How do you best characterise ‘the problem’ • what are the technical remedies? • how do you best change the attitudes of farmers? • how do you best assess the outcomes of targeted intervention?
  71. 71. Baseline characterisation Pollutant sources Pollutant pathways Pollutant impacts Damage costs Conceptual modelling and monitoring
  72. 72. On-farm interventions 1 – yard roofing 2 – track re-surfacing 3 – settling ponds 4 – stream fencing 5 – stream fencing 6 – arable reversion to grass 7 extension of riparian buffer zone
  73. 73. The challenge of detecting change
  74. 74. Farmer baseline survey One aim of the DTCs is to develop ‘communities of practice’, ultimately with the objective of improving farm management. To do this it is important to be aware of current farmer attitudes and activities. Face-to face interviews with farmers within the DTCs to obtain details on: - Current adoption of mitigation measures - Attitudes towards future adoption - Business characteristics
  75. 75. Attitudes to future uptake of measures 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Grow biomass crops Establish and maintain artificial wetlands Establish cover crops in Autumn Re-site gateways away from high-risk areas Establish permanent woodlands Establish riparian buffer strips Farm track management Percentage of farmers
  76. 76. Collins et al. (2016) Science of the Total Environment 547: 269-281 Tackling agricultural diffuse pollution: what might uptake of farmer-preferred measures deliver? Cost of mitigation Phosphorus reduction Sediment reduction
  77. 77. Impacts of interventions
  78. 78. Concentration Duration Exceedance Curves A Prior to mitigation B Mitigation farm 1 C Mitigation farm 2 D Post-mitigation Positive effects on water quality at the sub- catchment scale
  79. 79. Ecosystem process rates medium- term Cool’s Cottage Priors Farm
  80. 80. longer-term 15 20 25 30 35 15 20 25 30 35 15 20 25 30 35 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NTAXAPSI Caudworthy Bridge (Upper catchment) Caudworthy Ford (Lower catchment) Burracott Bridge (Control catchment) WFD Biological Quality Elements
  81. 81. Integrating data streams 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Cost (£) Nitrate(%Reduction)
  82. 82. Scaling up learning for policy support Source + mobilisation + delivery Source + mobilisation Delivery measures Mobilisation measures Source measures Existing prior implementation NTAXA ASPT CoFSI The pollutant delivery cascade – variable uptake
  83. 83. Communities of practice
  84. 84. DTC Academics NGOs/ delivery bodies Government/ policy Education/ extension Farmers Communities of practice
  85. 85. Acknowledgements Defra Demonstration Test Catchments Consortium Farmers, Landowners, Water Companies, Environment Agency, Natural England, Catchment Sensitive Farming, Catchment Partnerships, River Trusts, and Other Stakeholders
  86. 86. University of Exeter
  87. 87. Ian Bateman Land, Environment Economics and Policy Institute (LEEP) University of Exeter, UK. Presented at: Rivers Trust Autumn Conference The Partnership approach & the assessing the benefits of catchment management 13th September 2016 - Rougemont Hotel, Exeter. EX4 3SP Valuing the environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits of catchment management
  88. 88. Catchment management starts with land use
  89. 89. • Physical environment and its changes • Changes in market forces, prices, costs, etc. • Policy Brexit Catchment management starts with land use and its drivers
  90. 90. Cereals Beef2014 Low High Land use is changing - for many reasons e.g. arising from climate change 2014-63 Cereals Beef20142039Cereals Beef201420392063
  91. 91. Cereals Beef2014 Low High Cereals Beef20142039Cereals Beef201420392063 Land use change & water quality Nitrates Phosphates Linking land use to water quality, ecological quality and economic values Water treatment costs Recreation values Flood damage costs Non-use values
  92. 92. 1 visit 1 visit 1 visit 8 visits How much do people value waterside recreation? • National survey data (MENE 200,000 household diary records over 5 years): o Home location o Location of visited sites o Visit frequency o Calculate visit travel time & costs • Obtain data on site quality £ 4 visits • Observed choices reveal how people trade- off between site quality and visit costs: o As costs increase so visits fall o As quality increases so visits rise o Reveals recreational value of new or improved sites • Analysis of visit patterns
  93. 93. Water treatment costs Recreation values Linking land use to water quality, ecological quality and economic values Non-use values Land use change & water quality Flood damage costs
  94. 94. Estimating non-use values: Case study area
  95. 95. Estimating non-use values: Case study area
  96. 96. Estimating non-use values: Sample home addresses
  97. 97. Choice experiment design Highest Recreational Quality Lowest Recreational Quality Highest Ecological Quality Lowest Ecological Quality Highest Price Lowest Price Ecological water quality Recreational water quality Price
  98. 98. £ 10B A CHOICE RECREATIONAL QUALITY ECOLOGICAL QUALITY CHANGE IN YOUR ANNUAL WATER BILL NO CHANGE Choice examples
  99. 99. Choice examples B A CHOICE RECREATIONAL QUALITY ECOLOGICAL QUALITY CHANGE IN YOUR ANNUAL WATER BILL NO CHANGE £ 50
  100. 100. Results: willingness to pay River improvement Household willingness to pay (£) per year General public Recreational users High ecological quality £8.36 £7.68 High recreational quality £3.51 £6.84
  101. 101. Impacts of change on Biodiversity Data: Breeding Birds Survey: Bird diversity indices • Annual survey of UK 1km grid squares between 1999-2011 • Total of 35,349 grid square surveys • Well over 200 species recorded • All data spatially & temporally referenced • Linked to land use, climate & other variables
  102. 102. Data: Breeding Birds Survey: Bird diversity indices • Annual survey of UK 1km grid squares between 1999-2011 • Total of 35,349 grid square surveys • Well over 200 species recorded • All data spatially & temporally referenced • Linked to land use, climate & other variables Modelled linkages: Driver change (e.g. climate) Land use Biodiversity Impacts of change on Biodiversity
  103. 103. Modelled linkages: Driver change (e.g. climate) Land use Biodiversity Results: Impact of climate change induced changes in land use 2014-63: • Some increases in upland biodiversity • Offset by losses in lowland areas due to greater extent and intensity of arable production. Changes in bird biodiversity (Simpson’s index) under the BAU (2014-2063) Measure of biodiversity change Mean* S.E. Mean Lower 95% CI Upper 95% CI St. Dev. All Birds -0.248 0.006 -0.260 -0.236 1.420 Woodland Birds -0.034 0.004 -0.041 -0.027 0.839 Farm Birds -0.032 0.004 -0.039 -0.025 0.873 Red/Amber Birds -0.092 0.002 -0.097 -0.088 0.573 Table. 13.3 Measures BAU changes in bird biodiversity for 2014-63, using Simpson’s index of bird diversity. Positive (negative) values indicate increases (decreases) in diversity. N = 57,230 for all GB level analyses (the number of 2km x 2km squares in Great Britain) 95%CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean St. Dev. = Standard deviation *All means are significantly different from zero at p<0.01 (nonparametric test applied due to significant skew in data) Climate change impacts 2014-63 • Targets used as decision constraints Incorporation in decision making: Impacts of change on Biodiversity
  104. 104. Water quality below WFD requirements in much of the River Aire Status Quo Comparing benefits & costs of a catchment management scheme
  105. 105. Baseline 20% Fertiliser reduction 20% Livestock reduction 20% switching arable Load (kg/ha) 24.9 -1.1 (-4%) -1.5 (-6%) -5.5 (-22%) Concentration (mg/L) 5.4 -0.2 (-4%) -0.3 (-6%) -1.2 (-21%) Farm income lost (£m) -2.39 [-2.50;-2.27] -1.89 [-2.00 ; -1.79] -5.53 [-5.23;-5.84] Effectiveness (£m L /mg) -11.3 -6.3 -4.7 The potential for and costs of water quality improvements Similar analysis conducted for diffuse faecal pollution Costs to farmersBenefits to societyInterventionsCost-effectiveness of interventions
  106. 106. Costs on the rural farming community (£5.5 million) Baseline 20% Fertiliser reduction 20% Livestock reduction 20% switching arable Load (kg/ha) 24.9 -1.1 (-4%) -1.5 (-6%) -5.5 (-22%) Concentration (mg/L) 5.4 -0.2 (-4%) -0.3 (-6%) -1.2 (-21%) DFGM (£m) -2.39 [-2.50;-2.27] -1.89 [-2.00 ; -1.79] -5.53 [-5.23;-5.84] Effectiveness (£m L /mg) -11.3 -6.3 -4.7 Winners and losers: Potential for a Payments for Ecosystem Services market Benefits mainly for the urban community (£12.5 million) CC impact Status quo Improvement
  107. 107. Flooding Water Timber N2O CO2CH4 Greenhouse gases Recreation Biodiversity Food Incomes Drivers of change: Policy, Market & Environment Values Market values Non-market values Social Value Land use
  108. 108. Bateman, I.J., Agarwala, M., Binner, A., Coombes, E., Day, B.H., Ferrini, S., Fezzi, C., Hutchins, M., Lovett, A.A. and Posen, P. (2016) Spatially explicit integrated modeling and economic valuation of climate change induced land use change and its indirect effects, Journal of Environmental Management, 181: 172-184, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.020 Hampson, D., Ferrini, S., Rigby, D. and Bateman, I.J. (2016) River water quality: who cares, how much and why?, presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland, 22nd – 25th June 2016 References
  109. 109. 12th & 13th September 2016 Rougemont Hotel, Exeter
  110. 110. CEO, The Rivers Trust

×