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.
Sustainable Uplands<br />Learning to manage future change<br />relu<br />Rural Economy and<br />Land Use Programme<br />
Sustainable Uplands Project<br />Working with people in uplands to better anticipate, monitor and respond to future change...
5 years (ending 2010)<br />Sites in Peak District, Yorkshire Dales and Galloway (Cairnsmore of Fleet and the Luce, Bladnoc...
The Sustainable Uplands team:<br />University of Aberdeen:<br />Dr Mark Reed<br />University of Leeds:<br />Prof Joe Holde...
Plan<br />Why are uplands so important?<br />How can we prepare for the future?<br />What might the future hold?<br />What...
1. Why are the uplands so important?<br />
Why are uplands so important?<br />
2. How can we prepare for the future?<br />
Hannah Benchetrit: http://api.ning.com/files/hb2M0V1FUUQZ-wN8BpHgc*TP10HBgRkggLJkBN4PJwcGm0aNNb8CGSerP2KwNQmKUdSj7j91-kYcb...
A new approach to scenarios<br />
3. What might the future hold?<br />
Why manage the uplands?<br />
Intensification Scenario<br />
What might this mean for Galloway?<br />	Further afforestation of available land with predominantly Sitka Spruce on commer...
Effects on soil carbon alone<br /><ul><li>Light blue areas are non-peat soils
Green = absorbing carbon
Red = losing carbon
1 km2 grid
400 km2 area mapped
Just looking at soil, afforestation on peat soils is bad for carbon
Map showing current carbon dynamics of Water of Cree peats
Peat soils under conifers are losing carbon (red)
Peat soils not under conifers are absorbing carbon (green)
Galloway soils = net carbon source 17 ktonnes CO2 equivalents</li></li></ul><li>	Effects on soils and forest combined<br /...
When you include trees and soil, the Water of Cree becomes a net carbon sink of -327 ktonnes CO2 equivalents
Carbon absorbed by trees more than makes up for soil C loss (assuming 80 year rotation), even on peat soils
We can’t generalise, but in Water of Cree, commercial forestry on peats results in net carbon storage, though even better ...
Link between afforestation and acidification is contested:
Does it only apply where there is already atmospheric pollution?
Can re-planting help reduce acidification?
Could climate change be to blame for acidification?
To what extent is there evidence for the 		            “forest effect” on fish data in Galloway?
Are the effects seen in the 1980s 				     still there?
If so, what’s causing it now 				  there is less pollution?</li></li></ul><li>Effects on fish<br /><ul><li>Building on pre...
Focussed on Salmon (commercially important)</li></li></ul><li>Shading shows data points: darker = more points (total 600 p...
Shading shows data points: darker = more points (total 600 points, many overlap)<br /><ul><li>Fish populations are also si...
But also affected (statistically) significantly by: altitude, substrate, site dimensions, flow type, bedrock and climatic ...
What might this mean for Galloway?<br /><ul><li>Further reductions in hill sheep farming, driven in part by declining agri...
Possible diversification to exploit expanding tourism, consolidation of holdings and redevelopment of farm dwellings for t...
Natural regeneration of forest in drier moorlands over long-term
Not all forests managed on commercial rotations – trees left to mature > 80 years</li></li></ul><li>Moorland management<br...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sustainable Uplands End of Project presentation given at Moffat House Hotel, May 2010

961 views

Published on

Summary of key project findings from the RELU Sustainable Uplands project, presented to stakeholders in Dumfries and Galloway. Two short films accompany this presentation - for details, see www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sustainable Uplands End of Project presentation given at Moffat House Hotel, May 2010

  1. 1. Sustainable Uplands<br />Learning to manage future change<br />relu<br />Rural Economy and<br />Land Use Programme<br />
  2. 2. Sustainable Uplands Project<br />Working with people in uplands to better anticipate, monitor and respond to future change<br />Protecting livelihoods and ecosystem services (the benefits society gets from nature)<br />Facilitating knowledge exchange between local stakeholders, policy-makers and social and natural scientists<br />
  3. 3. 5 years (ending 2010)<br />Sites in Peak District, Yorkshire Dales and Galloway (Cairnsmore of Fleet and the Luce, Bladnoch, Cree, Dee and Ken catchments)<br />27 researchers: Universities of Leeds, Aberdeen, Durham, Sheffield & others with Moors for the Future & Heather Trust <br />£800K from RELU plus £100K from ESRC<br />Plus 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<br />Sustainable Uplands Project<br />
  4. 4. The Sustainable Uplands team:<br />University of Aberdeen:<br />Dr Mark Reed<br />University of Leeds:<br />Prof Joe Holden<br />Dr Klaus Hubacek<br />Dr Nesha Beharry-Borg<br />Ms Jan Birch<br />Ms Sarah Buckmaster<br />Dr Dan Chapman<br />Dr Pippa Chapman<br />Dr Stephen Cornell<br />Dr Andy Dougill<br />Dr Evan Fraser<br />Dr Jenny Hodgson<br />Dr Nanlin Jin<br />Dr Brian Irvine<br />Prof Mike Kirkby<br />Dr Bill Kunin<br />Mr Oliver Moore<br />Dr Claire Quinn<br />University of Leeds (continued):<br />Dr Brad Parrish<br />Dr Lindsay Stringer<br />Dr Mette Termansen<br />University of Durham:<br />Prof Tim Burt<br />Dr Fred Worrall<br />Dr Rob Dunford<br />University of Sheffield: <br />Dr Christina Prell<br />Wirtschafts University, Austria:<br />Dr Sigrid Stagl<br />International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria:<br />Jan Sendzimir<br />Moors for the Future partnership<br />The Heather Trust (Simon Thorp)<br />
  5. 5. Plan<br />Why are uplands so important?<br />How can we prepare for the future?<br />What might the future hold?<br />What would this mean for the ecosystem services we depend upon?<br />What can we do?<br />
  6. 6. 1. Why are the uplands so important?<br />
  7. 7. Why are uplands so important?<br />
  8. 8. 2. How can we prepare for the future?<br />
  9. 9. Hannah Benchetrit: http://api.ning.com/files/hb2M0V1FUUQZ-wN8BpHgc*TP10HBgRkggLJkBN4PJwcGm0aNNb8CGSerP2KwNQmKUdSj7j91-kYcbwbqCd849BCd2lFWZAXH/thinking.jpg<br />Scenarios<br />“The best way to predict the future is to invent it” Alan Kay<br />“The future belongs to those who prepare for it today” Malcolm X<br />
  10. 10. A new approach to scenarios<br />
  11. 11. 3. What might the future hold?<br />
  12. 12. Why manage the uplands?<br />
  13. 13. Intensification Scenario<br />
  14. 14. What might this mean for Galloway?<br /> Further afforestation of available land with predominantly Sitka Spruce on commercial forestry rotations<br />
  15. 15. Effects on soil carbon alone<br /><ul><li>Light blue areas are non-peat soils
  16. 16. Green = absorbing carbon
  17. 17. Red = losing carbon
  18. 18. 1 km2 grid
  19. 19. 400 km2 area mapped
  20. 20. Just looking at soil, afforestation on peat soils is bad for carbon
  21. 21. Map showing current carbon dynamics of Water of Cree peats
  22. 22. Peat soils under conifers are losing carbon (red)
  23. 23. Peat soils not under conifers are absorbing carbon (green)
  24. 24. Galloway soils = net carbon source 17 ktonnes CO2 equivalents</li></li></ul><li> Effects on soils and forest combined<br /><ul><li>Map showing combined current carbon dynamics of peat soils and trees
  25. 25. When you include trees and soil, the Water of Cree becomes a net carbon sink of -327 ktonnes CO2 equivalents
  26. 26. Carbon absorbed by trees more than makes up for soil C loss (assuming 80 year rotation), even on peat soils
  27. 27. We can’t generalise, but in Water of Cree, commercial forestry on peats results in net carbon storage, though even better for carbon if you plant on non-peat soils</li></li></ul><li>Effects on fish<br /><ul><li>Potential negative consequences for fish populations via streamwater acidification
  28. 28. Link between afforestation and acidification is contested:
  29. 29. Does it only apply where there is already atmospheric pollution?
  30. 30. Can re-planting help reduce acidification?
  31. 31. Could climate change be to blame for acidification?
  32. 32. To what extent is there evidence for the “forest effect” on fish data in Galloway?
  33. 33. Are the effects seen in the 1980s still there?
  34. 34. If so, what’s causing it now there is less pollution?</li></li></ul><li>Effects on fish<br /><ul><li>Building on previous work (Dunford) we investigated the relationship between fish and forestry in 300 sites across Galloway, controlling for factors such as altitude, rainfall, nutrient deposition and geology…
  35. 35. Focussed on Salmon (commercially important)</li></li></ul><li>Shading shows data points: darker = more points (total 600 points, many overlap)<br /> Fish densities become lower with increasing levels of proportional cover of large trees (>8m) within watershed area (note log scale: salmon start at around 15 fry per sample site)<br />
  36. 36. Shading shows data points: darker = more points (total 600 points, many overlap)<br /><ul><li>Fish populations are also significantly affected by clear felling
  37. 37. But also affected (statistically) significantly by: altitude, substrate, site dimensions, flow type, bedrock and climatic conditions </li></li></ul><li>Extensification Scenario<br />
  38. 38. What might this mean for Galloway?<br /><ul><li>Further reductions in hill sheep farming, driven in part by declining agricultural payments
  39. 39. Possible diversification to exploit expanding tourism, consolidation of holdings and redevelopment of farm dwellings for tourism and to accommodate increasing numbers of retirees
  40. 40. Natural regeneration of forest in drier moorlands over long-term
  41. 41. Not all forests managed on commercial rotations – trees left to mature > 80 years</li></li></ul><li>Moorland management<br /><ul><li>Removing sheep and managed burning from remaining Galloway moorlands would lead to a net increase in carbon storage (see film)
  42. 42. It would also lead to scrub/natural regeneration on drier moors, which in time would lead to a net carbon benefit
  43. 43. Other forms of extensification: peatland restoration - in purely carbon terms, it is better to maintain commercial forestry rotations than to clear and restore to blanket bog
  44. 44. But there might be ecological benefits e.g. for fish...</li></li></ul><li>Conservation Forestry<br /><ul><li>If we allow trees to grow > 80 yr, soil carbon losses start to exceed the amount of carbon absorbed by trees, and the system becomes a net source of carbon
  45. 45. In Water of Cree, if we stopped all felling today, it would become a net source of carbon by 2050
  46. 46. More forest gaps (especially next to rivers) = more habitat potential for fish</li></li></ul><li>
  47. 47. 4. What would this mean for the ecosystem services we depend upon?<br />
  48. 48. Future benefits?<br /><ul><li>Carbon management via peatland restoration (as opposed to renewable energy developments) under the extensification scenario may bring a number of co-benefits:
  49. 49. Less brown water
  50. 50. Reduced fire risk
  51. 51. Protection of moorland/bog species important for conservation
  52. 52. Limit scrub/forest encroachment
  53. 53. Supplement incomes in remote areas via carbon markets?</li></li></ul><li>But prepare for major trade-offs<br /><ul><li>Carbon management via afforestation may come at a price for fish and moorland biodiversity in some areas
  54. 54. Other forms of intensification prioritise provisioning services at the expense of most other ecosystem services
  55. 55. 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
  56. 56. Both scenarios are likely to compromise upland biodiversity in many locations</li></ul>Golden Plover<br />
  57. 57. 5. What can we do?<br />
  58. 58. 1. Foster communication & trust<br /><ul><li>To tackle existing conflicts between different stakeholder groups
  59. 59. Reduce likelihood of exacerbating conflicts under future scenarios
  60. 60. Prioritise communication/trust between land owners and managers and those interested in conservation and water</li></li></ul><li>2. Build adaptive capacity<br /><ul><li>Build partnerships between researchers, the policy community and practitioners
  61. 61. Share good practice and innovation within and between regions, based on local and scientific knowledge
  62. 62. Plan for the long-term
  63. 63. Manage increased recreation to reduce wildfire risk whilst maximising income via diversification
  64. 64. Restore damaged peats</li></li></ul><li>3. Future-proof land use policy<br /><ul><li>Anticipate and prepare for the widest possible range of futures...
  65. 65. ...In a funding framework that can facilitate adaptive management e.g. shifting priorities as climate changes
  66. 66. Rewarding land owners and managers for the provision of public goods
  67. 67. Better value for money if we target funding towards land managers and locations that can most efficiently deliver the services we need?
  68. 68. Not easy...</li></li></ul><li>1. Determine potential of land to provide different ecosystem services under different forms of management<br />2. Determine relative value to society of ecosystem services provided under different forms of management<br />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<br />4. Negotiate management plans with land owners and managers<br />
  69. 69. 1. Determine potential of land to provide different ecosystem services under different forms of management<br />Based on a combination of:<br />Outputs from process-based models showing how different forms of management influence the provision of ecosystem services in different locations <br />ii) Expert-based assessments of relationships not yet covered by models (Fazey)<br /><ul><li>Spot checks of ecosystem service provision to calibrate/validate “self-learning” models</li></li></ul><li>2. Determine relative value to society of ecosystem services provided under different forms of management<br /><ul><li>Multi-functional landscapes lead to ES trade-offs
  70. 70. Difficult choices, in which land owners, managers – and the public? – should be involved
  71. 71. Methods to facilitate deliberation between these groups over the relative value they place on different ES</li></li></ul><li>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<br /><ul><li>ES values differ between regions, habitats & stakeholders
  72. 72. Spatially explicit information about the value people put on different ES from different locations could inform decisions re: which ES to prioritise where
  73. 73. This could inform differentiation of payments to incentivise management options most likely to deliver priority services</li></li></ul><li>4. Negotiate management plans with land owners and managers<br /><ul><li>Inputs to negotiation with incentives to manage for priority services in relevant locations and at relevant scales
  74. 74. Keep pace with climate change through dynamic priorities e.g. restoration now while net carbon and biodiversity gain but revising boundaries/locations of designated areas in future?
  75. 75. Provide incentives for farmers to group together where interventions need to be carried out at larger scales
  76. 76. Build on success of initiatives like EA’s Common Ground initiative & Land Care – something we need to do anyway?</li></li></ul><li>Future upland restoration scheme<br /><ul><li>Demand and supply: UK based credits with multiple benefits that can be used for CSR and team building
  77. 77. CSR pilot scheme
  78. 78. Working towards VCS accreditation but need to overcome methane and legislative barriers
  79. 79. New 5 year project to investigate methane emissions but we should have data for VCS within 18 months
  80. 80. Targeting companies who want to benefit climate, biodiversity and water quality without the need for carbon credits e.g. Water companies</li></li></ul><li>Conclusion<br /><ul><li>Ideas for discussion – we don’t have all the answers yet
  81. 81. Start of longer-term conversation that can inform future work
  82. 82. IUCN policy review by our team with Philip Lowe, Andrew Moxey, Clunie Keenleyside and others
  83. 83. Publication for land owners and managers in collaboration with Moorland Forum, Heather Trust and RICS</li></ul>Please take one:<br /><ul><li>RELU Policy & Practice Notes</li></li></ul><li>Workshop<br />1. Write your reactions to the ideas we’ve collected so far, and add your own new ideas: <br /><ul><li>What are the strengths or weaknesses of this idea?
  84. 84. How could this idea be further developed to make it work more effectively in practice?</li></ul>2. Put sticky dots next to the ideas you like best<br />
  85. 85. Contact<br />www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands<br />Follow us on: <br />www.twitter.com/reluuplands<br />Email: sustainableuplands@see.leeds.ac.uk<br />Call or text on: 0797 428 6778<br />

×