Download Ecosystem Services for Climate change Adaptation in Agricultural

Ecosystem Services for Climate change
Adaptation in Agricultural Land
Management
Incorporating an ecosystem approach (EsA) for agricultural land management
Defra Project AC0308
Final Report Appendices
31 August 2008
Authors:
Jason Pole, Rosemary Collier, Robert Lillywhite, and Peter Mills
(Warwick HRI, the University of Warwick)
If you use this document please cite as:
Pole, J., Collier, R., Lillywhite, R. and Mills, P. (2008), Ecosystem Services for
Climate Change Adaptation in Agricultural Land Management. Defra project
AC0308.
List of appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
Project Steering Group Members (Objective 1)
The UKCIP02 Headline Messages
Definitions and Abbreviations
MA Typology of Ecosystem Services
Defra’s Natural Resources Research Programme
Brief and Broad Overview of Six Regulating Ecosystem Services
Relevant to Agricultural Land Management and Societal Adaptation to
Climate Change*
Appendix F Summary Table*
Identification and Review of Water Regulating Ecosystem Services
Associated with Agricultural Land Use in England and Wales that
Could Help Society Adapt to Climate Change According to UKCIP02
Scenarios*
An ecosystem service cascade – The logic underlying the ecosystem
services paradigm.
An Ecosystem Approach (EsA) for Agricultural Land Management: A
User Guide*
The EsA Matrix Template (separate file)*
Association between ecosystem services and the BAP Broad Habitats
in England.
A Qualitative Description of Selected Ecosystem Services (Themes
and Products) that Influence the Production of Clean Water for Human
Consumption*
Case study: evidence base*
Case study: partially populated EsA Matrix (separate file)*
*Outputs from this project.
▲ Think of the environment - please only print the sections that you require.
2
3
4
7
9
11
12
37
39
61
62
84
85
86
100
100
Appendix A
Project Steering Group Members
We would like to thank the project Steering Group for its invaluable support throughout this
project - via numerous emails and the two Steering Group meetings held at Defra HQ
(22/02/08 and 03/06/08).
Member
Organisation
Daniel McGonigle
Defra Project Officer (FFG)
Robert Bradburne
Marion Calvini
David Fernall
Kathryn Humphrey
Nicholas MacGregor
Barbara Norton
Helen Pontier
William Pryer
David Viner
Alex Harvey
Roger Street
Jamie Letts
Mike Harley
Defra (NESU)
Defra
Defra (FFG)
Defra
Defra (Farming for the Future Programme)
Defra (FFG)
Defra (NESD)
Defra (ELM)
Defra
UKCIP
UKCIP
Environment Agency
Natural England
3
Appendix B
The UKCIP02 Headline Messages
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/images/stories/Tools_pdfs/02headlinemessages.pdf (accessed 25/07/08)
Not all of the changes described by UKCIP02 are given with the same confidence. Based
on both expert judgement and consistency with other global climate models, some
changes in future UK climate have been assigned a higher confidence than others,
ranging from high to low. When using the UKCIP02 climate change scenarios, regardless
of the level of detail, it is important to understand the confidence associated with the
specific changes described (as indicated in brackets) and to ensure that use of the
information is consistent with and fully reflects the associated uncertainties. All future
changes are relative to the baseline period of 1961 to 1990.
The UK will continue to get warmer…



Average annual temperature for
all regions of the UK has risen
by between 0.4 and 0.9 °C since
1914.
The UK has experienced 8 of
the 10 warmest years on record
since 1990 (based on the
Central England Temperature
record).
The thermal growing season for
plants has increased by up to 30
days since 1900.




By 2040, average annual temperature for
the UK is expected to rise by between 0.5
and 1 °C, depending on region. By 2100,
average annual temperature for the UK is
expected to rise by between 1 and 5 °C,
depending on region and emissions
scenario (high confidence)
There is expected to be greater warming
in the south and east than in the north
and west (high confidence).
There is expected to be greater warming
in the summer and autumn than in the
winter and spring (medium confidence).
The thermal growing season is expected
to continue to lengthen (high confidence),
but soil moisture levels in the summer and
autumn are expected to decrease (high
confidence).
Summers will continue to get hotter and drier…


Average summer temperature
for all regions of the UK has
risen by between 0.5 and 0.9 °C
since 1914.
Total summer precipitation has
decreased in most parts of the
UK, typically by between 10 and
40% since 1961.



4
By 2040, average summer temperature
for the UK is expected to rise by between
0.5 and 2 °C, depending on region. By
2100, average summer temperature for
the UK is expected to rise by between 1
and 6 °C, depending on region and
emissions scenario (high confidence).
By 2100, there is expected to be up to
50% less precipitation in the summer
months, depending on region and
emissions scenario (medium confidence).
The number of days when buildings
require cooling is expected to increase
(high confidence).
Appendix B
Winters will continue to get milder and wetter…




Average winter temperature for all
regions of the UK has risen by up
to 0.7 °C since 1914.
Total winter precipitation has
increased in almost all parts of the
UK, typically by up to 50% since
1961.
The number of days with snow
cover at 9am has decreased in all
regions of the UK by between 4
and 20% since 1961.



By 2040, average winter temperature
for the UK is expected to rise by
between 0.5 and 1 °C, depending on
region. By 2100, average winter
temperature for the UK is expected to
rise by between 1 and 4 °C depending
on region and emissions scenario (high
confidence).
By 2100, there is expected to be up to
30% more precipitation in the winter
months, depending on region and
emissions scenario (high confidence).
Snowfall amounts are expected to
decrease across the UK (high
confidence), and large parts of the
country are expected to experience
long runs of winters without snow
(medium confidence).
The number of days when buildings
require heating is expected to decrease
(high confidence).
Some weather extremes will become more common, others less common…




The average duration of summer
heatwaves has increased in all
regions of the UK by between 4
and 16 days since 1961.
The average duration of winter
cold snaps has decreased in all
regions of the UK by between 6
and 12 days since 1961.
There has been a trend towards
heavier winter precipitation for
most parts of the UK since 1961.



5
The number of very hot summer days is
expected to increase, and high
temperatures similar to those
experienced in August 2003 or July
2006 (>3 °C above average) are
expected to become common by the
end of this century, even under the Low
Emissions scenario (medium
confidence).
The number of very cold winter days is
expected to decrease, and low
temperatures similar to those
experienced in February 1947 or
January/February 1963 (>3 °C below
average) are expected to become
highly uncommon by the end of this
century, even under the Low Emissions
scenario (medium confidence).
Heavier winter precipitation is expected
to become more frequent (high
confidence).
Winter storms and mild, wet and windy
winter weather are expected to become
more frequent (low confidence).
Appendix B
Sea level will continue to rise…




Global average sea level rose by
between 10 and 20 cm during the
twentieth century.
Absolute sea level has increased by
approximately
10 cm around the UK coast during
the same period, although natural
land movements mean there are
large regional differences in the
actual sea-level rise detected at
different coastal locations.
The temperature of UK coastal
waters has increased by between 0.2
and 0.6 °C per decade since 1985.



6
Global sea level is expected to
continue to rise (high confidence),
and by 2100 it could have risen by as
much as 80 cm around the UK coast,
depending on region and emissions
scenario (low confidence).
There is expected to be greater sealevel rise in the south of England
than in western Scotland due to
variations in natural land movements
(medium confidence).
Extreme sea levels are expected to
be experienced more frequently, and
by 2100 storm surge events could
occur up to 20 times more frequently
for some coastal locations and
emissions scenarios (medium
confidence).
The temperature of UK coastal
waters is expected to increase,
though not as rapidly as air
temperatures over land (high
confidence).
Appendix C
Definitions and Abbreviations
Definitions
Ecosystem
The MA defines an ecosystem as:
“…a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving
environment interacting as a functional unit. Humans are an integral part of ecosystems.
Ecosystems vary enormously in size; a temporary pond in a tree hollow and an ocean
basin can both be ecosystems.” - MA conceptual framework.
Arguably, there is only one ecosystem – the Earth - as such ‘functional units’ are not able
to exist without external inputs (e.g. rain, in terms of the temporary pond), they are all
interdependent. In some respects it is useful to consider the Earth with its single
ecosystem containing a number of interacting environments (Idea developed in response
to comments by Phillip Bubb, Senior Programme Officer with the Ecosystem Assessment
Programme of UNEP-WCM 08/07/08).
Well-being
The MA defines well-being as:
“Human well-being has multiple constituents, including basic material for a good life,
freedom of choice and action, health, good social relations, and security. Well-being is at
the opposite end of continuum from poverty, which has been defined as a “pronounced
deprivation in well-being”. The constituent of well-being, as experienced by people, are
situation-dependent, reflecting local geography, culture, and ecological circumstances.” MA conceptual framework.
7
Appendix C
Abbreviations
AR4
BAP
CAMs
CBD
CFMPs
DWI
EA
ECSFDI
ES
EsA
FRM
GHG
GIS
GOR
HOF
IPCC
JCA
MA
MSfW
NRP
NUTS
PSA
UKCIP
WFD
Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC)
Biodiversity Action Plan
Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies
Convention on Biological Diversity
Catchment Flood Management Plans
Drinking Water Inspectorate
Environment Agency
England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery
Initiative
Environmental Stewardship
Ecosystem Approach
Flood Risk Management
Greenhouse Gases
Geographic Information Systems
Government Office Region
Hands-Off Flow
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Join Character Area
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Making Space for Water
Natural Resources Programme
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
Public Service Agreement
UK Climate Impacts Programme
Water Framework Directive
8
Appendix D
MA Typology of Ecosystem Services: Defra. (2007), Securing a Healthy Natural
Environment: An Action Plan for Embedding an Ecosystems Approach)
Provisioning services
These are the products obtained from ecosystems, including:







Food. This encompasses the vast range of food products derived from plants, animals
and microbes.
Fibre. This is derived from materials such as wood, jute, cotton, hemp, silk and wool.
Fuel. Wood, dung and other biological materials serve as sources of energy.
Genetic resources. This covers the genes and genetic information used for animal and
plant breeding and biotechnology.
Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals. Many medicines, biocides, food
additives such as alginates and biological materials are derived from ecosystems.
Ornamental resources. Animal and plant products, such as skins, shells and flowers
are used as ornaments, and whole plants are used for landscaping and as ornaments.
Fresh water. People obtain freshwater from ecosystems and therefore the supply of
freshwater can be considered a provisioning service. Fresh water in rivers is also a
source of energy. Because water is required for other life to exist, however, it could
also be considered a supporting service.
Regulating services
These are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including:









Air quality regulation. Ecosystems both contribute chemicals to and extract chemicals
from the atmosphere, influencing many aspects of air quality.
Climate regulation. Ecosystems influence climate both locally and globally. For
example, at the local level, changes in land cover can affect both temperature and
precipitation. At the global level, ecosystems play an important role in climate by either
sequestering or emitting greenhouse gases.
Water regulation. The timing and magnitude of run-off, flooding and aquifer recharge
can be strongly influenced by changes in land cover, including, in particular, alterations
that change the water-storage potential of the system such as the conversion of
wetlands or the replacement of forests with croplands or croplands with urban areas.
Erosion regulation. Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention and the
prevention of landslides.
Water purification and waste treatment. Ecosystems can be a source of impurities (e.g.
in fresh water). However, they can help in the filtering out and decomposition of organic
wastes introduced into inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems and can also
assimilate and detoxify compounds through soil and sub-soil processes.
Disease regulation. Changes in ecosystems can directly change the abundance of
human pathogens, such as cholera, and can alter the abundance of disease vectors,
such as mosquitoes.
Pest regulation. Ecosystem changes affect the prevalence of crop and livestock pests
and diseases.
Pollination. Ecosystem changes affect the distribution, abundance and effectiveness of
pollinators.
Natural hazard regulation. The presence of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves
and coral reefs can reduce the damage caused by hurricanes or large waves.
9
Appendix D
Cultural services
These are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual
enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences,
including:










Cultural diversity. The diversity of ecosystems is one factor influencing the diversity of
cultures.
Spiritual and religious values. Many religions attach spiritual and religious values to
ecosystems or their components.
Knowledge systems (traditional and formal). Ecosystems influence the types of
knowledge systems developed by different cultures.
Educational values. Ecosystems and their components and processes provide the
basis for both formal and informal education in many societies.
Inspiration. Ecosystems provide a rich source of inspiration for art, folklore, national
symbols, architecture and advertising.
Aesthetic values. Many people find beauty or aesthetic value in various aspects of
ecosystems, as reflected in the support for parks and scenic drives and in the selection
of housing locations.
Social relations. Ecosystems influence the types of social relations that are established
in particular cultures. Fishing societies, for example, differ in many respects in their
social relations from nomadic herding or agricultural societies.
Sense of place. Many people value the ‘sense of place’ that is associated with
recognised features of their environment, including aspects of the ecosystem.
Cultural heritage values. Many societies place high value on the maintenance of either
historically important landscapes (‘cultural landscapes’) or culturally significant species.
Recreation and ecotourism. People often choose where to spend their leisure time
based, in part, on the characteristics of the natural or cultivated landscapes in a
particular area.
Supporting services
Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem
services. They differ from provisioning, regulating and cultural services in that their impacts
on people are often indirect or occur over a very long time, whereas changes in the other
categories have relatively direct and short-term impacts on people. (Some services, like
erosion regulation, can be categorised as both a supporting and a regulating service,
depending on the timescale and immediacy of their impact on people.)





Soil formation. Because many provisioning services depend on soil fertility, the rate of
soil formation influences human wellbeing in many ways.
Photosynthesis. This process produces oxygen, which is necessary for most living
organisms.
Primary production. The assimilation or accumulation of energy and nutrients by
organisms.
Nutrient cycling. Approximately 20 nutrients essential for life, including nitrogen and
phosphorus, cycle through ecosystems and are maintained at different concentrations
in different parts of ecosystems.
Water cycling. Water cycles through ecosystems and is essential for living organisms.
10
Appendix E
Defra’s Natural Resources Research Programme
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/natres/research.htm (accessed 23/07/08)
Project
No
NR0101
NR0102
NR0103
NR0104
NR0105
NR0106
NR0107
NR0108
NR0110
NR0115
SD0314
Project
No
NR0109
NR0111
NR0112
NR0118
Completed Projects
Title
Inventory and assessment of existing resources
Defining and identifying environmental limits
Collating and evaluating research on the value of the environment
Identification and characterisation of pressures on natural resources, including
the effects of cumulative pressures
Characterising the Policy Framework
Inventory study on natural environment data 2
England’s terrestrial ecosystem services and the rationale for an ecosystembased approach
An assessment of the economic value of England's terrestrial ecosystem
services
The selection of the M6-Heysham link road route, Lancashire
Public understanding of the concepts and language around ecosystem
services and the natural environment
Future trends - work on horizon-scanning to identify future trends and
pressures that will affect the natural environment and the policy framework
Ongoing Projects
Title
Guiding development in the Kent Thameside development area
Management of the Parrett Catchment Somerset
Management of the Otmoor protected area (Oxfordshire)
Scoping the potential benefits of undertaking an 'MA style' ecosystem
assessment for England
NR0119 Reviewing targets and indicators for an ecosystems approach
11
Appendix F
Brief and Broad Overview of Six Regulating
Ecosystem Services Relevant to Agricultural
Land Management and Societal Adaptation
to Climate Change
Prepared as part of:
Ecosystem Services for Climate change Adaptation in Agricultural Land
Management
(Incorporating an ecosystem approach for agricultural land management)
Defra Project AC0308
28th November 2007
Authors:
Jason Pole, Rosemary Collier, Robert Lillywhite, and Peter Mills
(Warwick HRI, the University of Warwick)
If you use this document please cite as:
Pole, J., Collier, R., Lillywhite, R. and Mills, P. (2008), Ecosystem Services for
Climate Change Adaptation in Agricultural Land Management. Defra project
AC0308.
12
Appendix F
Introduction
Six regulating service categories were identified at an early stage of the project that could
potentially be influenced by agricultural land managers to assist societal adaptation to, and
mitigation of, climate change (Table 1). The number of ecological functions and processes
that combine to produce this broad range of services is large, and consequently, in
consultation with the Defra project officer, it was decided to produce a brief and broad
overview of each service to enable ‘priority service/s’ to be identified by the project’s
Steering Group for a more in-depth analysis. The list of services provided is not
exhaustive, but potentially represents the ‘main’ regulating ecosystem services.
This document provides a brief and broad overview of each of these regulating services
and their influencers (Table 1) under the following sections:



General information
Climate change (national/regional)
Some potential land management responses
Regulating Service
1. Air quality regulation
2. Climate regulation
3. Water regulation
4a. Human pest and
disease regulation
Influencers
a) Ammonia (NH3) regulation
b) Tropospheric ozone (O3) regulation
c) Particulate matter (PM) regulation
a) Carbon dioxide (CO2) regulation
b) Methane (CH4) regulation
c) Nitrous oxide (N2O) regulation
d) Atmospheric energy and water balance
a) Flood regulation
b) Water quality regulation
c) Aquifer/groundwater recharge
Numerous pest and diseases
Page
39
40
41
42
44
44
45
46
48
50
51
4b. Animal pest and
disease regulation
5. Pollination regulation
Numerous pest and diseases
52
Numerous pollinators
54
6. Natural hazard
regulation
a) Coastal erosion regulation
b) Storm regulation
c) Fire regulation
d) Landslide regulation
55
56
56
57
Table 1. Regulating ecosystem services that could be potentially influenced by land managers to assist
societal adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change. Please note that this categorisation of the
ecosystem services is not the final categorisation as recommended in the Final Report (Section 3).
13
Appendix F
Regulating Service 1: Air quality regulation
Ecosystems both contribute to and extract chemicals from the atmosphere, influencing
many aspects of air quality. Air pollution is estimated to reduce life expectancy of every
person in the UK by an average of 7 - 8 months, with an estimated annual health costs of
£20 billion 13.
Air quality is heavily regulated. Key documents include the European Air Quality
Directive15 and the Air Quality Strategy4 for the UK. The Air Quality Strategy sets out air
quality objectives and policy options to further improve air quality in the UK from today into
the long term.
Note: only atmospheric pollutants significant to agriculture have been incorporated within this section.
Air quality influencer 1a: Ammonia (NH 3) regulation
General Information
Under the Gothenburg Protocol of 1999, the UNECE Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution has set limits to national emissions of ammonia that need to
be met by 201028.
The agriculture sector is a significant source (80%) of ammonia in the UK 5.
Ammonia sources are primarily agricultural livestock manures/slurry and fertilisers.
Ammonia can lead to damage of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems through deposition of
eutrophying pollutants and through acidifying pollutants. Ammonia is also a precursor to
secondary particulate matter 4.
Climate Change (National)
It is difficult to predict how climate change will influence the ammonia emissions from
agriculture. Warmer temperatures and increased moisture could lead to better conditions
for ammonia-producing bacteria. However, drier conditions could reduce their activity.
Potential Land Management Responses
Most activities to reduce ammonia by land managers revolve around reducing the
production of ammonia (for example, via manure management), rather than increasing the
capacity of the atmosphere to remove it. These management practices frequently also
have negative effects on other ecosystem services. For example, slurry management
measures to decrease ammonia emissions by land spreading, increases the amounts of
nitrogen entering the soil, which has the ability to negatively affect climate regulation by
increasing nitrous oxide emissions5.
14
Appendix F
Air quality influencer 1b: Tropospheric ozone (O3) regulation
General Information
Tropospheric ozone (also known as ground level, or low level ozone) arises from complex
chemical reactions between various air pollutants (precursors), primarily nitrogen oxides
(Nox) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), initiated by strong sunlight. Exposure to
high levels may cause irritation to eyes and nose, whilst exposure to very high levels can
damage airways leading to inflammatory reactions. Tropospheric ozone can also cause
damage to many plant species leading to loss of yield and quality of crops, damage to
forests and impacts on biodiversity4. In the year 2000, it was estimated that there were
some 21,400 cases of hastened death due to ozone in the EU-2515. Tackling the sources
of ozone production is extremely difficult as ozone and its precursors can often be
produced thousands of kilometres away and carried long distances in the atmosphere 4.
Climate Change (National)
Sustained high temperatures and drought conditions, which are predicted to increase
under the climate change scenarios8, favour ozone production and minimise its destruction
through the uptake by vegetation at the earth’s surface 5. Consequently, ozone is likely to
be more of an issue in the future.
Climate Change (Regional)
Southern England and Wales would be expected to suffer the most from ozone episodes,
due to the increased frequency of high temperatures and drought conditions that these
regions are predicted to experience8. These regions are already breaching EU ozone alert
thresholds. For example, in June/July 2006 an ozone pollution episode occurred across
Europe. The area affected was limited to England and Wales and ozone alert thresholds
were exceeded on the 18th July in Lodsworth (West Sussex) 19th July at Wicken Fen
(Cambridgeshire)16.
Potential Land Management Responses
Apart from reducing the emission of ozone precursors from agriculture, land managers
could assist in cleansing the atmosphere of ozone once it had been produced. It is known
that vegetative tissues are effective in reducing a number of air pollutants, including ozone.
It is also known that the future drier summer climate (because of stomatal closure) and
higher carbon dioxide concentration will reduce the capacity of vegetation to mop up
ozone. Therefore it would be prudent to at least maintain significant vegetative ozone
sinks, such as forests, or even increase them. However, the Air Quality Expert Group
recommended that further research is needed to understand the influence of large-scale
tree planting on air quality in high temperature summer pollution episodes 5.
15
Appendix F
Air quality influencer 1c: Particulate matter (PM) regulation
General Information
The majority of primary sources of particulate matter (PM) are from road transport4.
However, agriculture does make a significant contribution to the total primary PM10 of
around 9% made up from broilers (housed livestock, 4%) and arable farming (2%) 5. Wind
erosion from agricultural land is also problematic and is most common when wind speed is
greater than 20mph52. Vulnerable agricultural systems include: potatoes, prior to canopy
development; bare arable lands; horticultural seedbeds (e.g. sugar beet, carrots and
onions); and outdoor pig production (which tend to be situated on light soils)52.
Secondary PM is also formed from emissions of ammonia, sulphur dioxide and
oxides of nitrogen, as well as emissions of organic compounds from both combustion
sources and vegetation.
Both short-term and long-term exposure to ambient levels of PM is consistently
associated with respiratory and cardiovascular illness and mortality, as well as other illhealth effects4. In the year 2000, exposure to particulate matter was estimated to reduce
average life expectancy by nine months in the EU-2515.
Climate Change (National)
Drier summers are predicted to increase by 2050 and this could increase the sources of
primary PM blown from dry agricultural soils, and livestock waste. However, average
summer wind speeds are predicted to decrease by 3%8 which would reduce the risk of
contamination. It is thus difficult to predict whether primary PM from agriculture will
increase or decrease as a consequences of climate change. Secondary PM may also
form more frequently if conditions result in increased emissions of ammonia, sulphur
dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and emissions organic compounds from vegetatation 4.
Climate Change (Regional)
Wind erosion is currently a particular concern on the bare sandy and peaty soils in the
East Midlands, Vale of York and East Anglia53.
Average soil moisture content is predicted to decrease most significantly towards
the south-east with the most significant reductions of about 40% in summer by the 2080
occurring in the High Emissions scenarios8. This could make this region, in addition to the
more south easterly regions mentioned above, particularly vulnerable to increased primary
PM production. However, the wind speed is also predicted to decrease in the summer in
the south-east by between 2 and 6% (depending on scenario). As mentioned previously,
this could actually reduce pollution from PM10. Wind speed is expected to increase in the
winter, especially in the south of England8. Once again the threat to increased PM
production is counteracted, this time by the predicted increases in winter precipitation
which would tend to anchor down soil. It is thus difficult to predict the precise effects of
climate change on PM regulation.
Potential Land Management Responses
To reduce the impact of wind land managers could be encouraged to plant shelter belts
(hedgerows and belts of trees) as these have been shown to provide protection downwind
for up to 20 times their height.
Other responses could include: performing cultivations that leave a rough or cloddy
surface; using nurse crops, such as barley, to protect a high value row crop; application of
synthetic soil stabilisers; the use of mulches; and increasing the clay content of soils53.
16
Appendix F
Regulating service 2: Climate regulation
Climate regulation is a key ecosystem service, but one which has often been overlooked
or undervalued in decision making. Ecosystems influence climate both locally and
globally. For example, at a local scale, changes in land cover can affect both temperature
and precipitation. At the global scale, ecosystems play an important role in climate by
either sequestering or emitting greenhouse gases13. It has been estimated that the
external costs from UK agriculture of gaseous emissions are £1113 million per annum, and
an additional £82.3 million per annum from carbon dioxide release from soils 14.
Climate regulation influencer 2a: Carbon dioxide (CO2) regulation
Climate Change (National)
Carbon dioxide is a climate change gas2. Agricultural systems contribute to carbon
emissions through the direct use of fossil fuels in farm operations, the indirect use of
embodied energy inputs (e.g. fertilisers), and the cultivation of soils which leads to the
release of soil organic matter17. However, emissions of carbon dioxide from the agricultural
sector are actually relatively minor (<2%)5.
The ability of the soil to sequester carbon, from vegetative organic matter, is a vital
component of the climate regulation ecosystem service. It has been estimated that the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted from British soils over the past 25 years has been so
great that it is more than enough to cancel out the country’s planned reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions59. This ecosystem service is also being put under increasing pressure;
assuming constant inputs of soil carbon, losses of carbon in mineral and organic soils is
expected to increase right across the UK10. Peat land is the most vulnerable land type as
it sequesters a quarter of all soil carbon11. This carbon tends to be released to the
atmosphere following land drainage by altering soil processes towards aerobic
decomposition. A warmer climate may accelerate the rate of this decomposition by
increasing the metabolism of soil bacteria59.
Climate Change (Regional)
The loss of soil carbon from peat mires is potentially most serious where summers are
drier and winters are wetter, such as in the East of England (Fenland Basin, East Anglia)
and the East Midlands region (Lincolnshire)11.
Potential Land Management Responses
Three mechanisms have been identified which could lead to a positive contribution on
carbon balance17: Mechanism A, relates to carbon sequestration; Mechanism B, relates to
reducing energy use; and, Mechanism C, relates to increasing reliance on renewables.
For each mechanism, the authors listed a set of potential actions that could be conducted
by land managers.
Mechanism A (carbon sequestration)
 Replace inversion ploughing with conservation- and zero-tillage systems.
 Adopt mixed rotations with cover crops and green manures to increase biomass
additions to soil.
 Adopt agroforestry in cropping systems to increase above-ground standing
biomass.
17
Appendix F



Minimise summer fallows and periods with no ground cover to maintain soil
organic matter stocks.
Use soil conservation measures to avoid soil erosion and loss of soil organic
matter.
Apply composts and manures to increase soil organic matter stocks.
Mechanism B (reducing energy use)
 Conserve fuel and reduce energy use in buildings and stores.
 Use conservation or zero-tillage to reduce CO2 emissions from soils.
 Substitute biofuel for fossil fuel consumption.
 Reduce machinery use to avoid fossil fuel consumption.
 Reduce the use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers and adopt targeted- and slow
release fertilizers, as fertilizer manufacture is highly energy intensive.
 Reduce use of pesticides to avoid indirect energy consumption.
Mechanism C (increasing reliance on renewables)
 Cultivate annual crops for biofuel production.
 Cultivate annual and perennial biomass crops, such as grasses and coppiced
trees, for combustion and electricity generation.
 Use biogas digesters to produce methane, so substituting for fossil fuel sources.
Mechanism A is the only one to enhance the climate regulation ecosystem service.
Mechanisms B and C simply reduces the amount of ‘work’ that the service has to do. In
terms of carbon sequestration, Defra have commissioned research to estimate the extent
that agri-environment schemes contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation58.
Early indications are that although there are some options that could deliver significant
increases in carbon sequestration (compared with conventional agriculture) they tend to be
those options with the highest cost11.
The highest cost option is probably to take land out of production altogether and
attempt to restore the ecosystem back to its natural state. The Great Fen project56, for
example, aims to restore over 3000 hectares of farmland situated between Huntingdon
and Peterborough to fenland wildlife habitat. The Cambridgeshire Fens were originally
drained to create valuable grazing and arable land. However as a consequence they now
require constant draining and much of the area is now below sea level because the peat
has shrunk through water loss and oxidation. The cost of such projects are enormous,
with the Great Fen project alone being projected to cost £15 million (most of which is being
met via a Heritage Lottery Fund grant of £8.9 million).
18
Appendix F
Climate regulation influencer 2b: Methane (CH4) regulation
Climate Change (National)
Methane is a climate change gas with 23 times the global warming potential of carbon
dioxide9. In 2005, the main sources of methane were landfill sites (40%) and agriculture
(37%)54. Enteric fermentation contributes about 90% of the agricultural methane
emissions, virtually all through cattle and sheep (6% and 20% respectively, pigs 1%).
Decomposition of manure and waste contributes the other 10% of methane emissions
(cattle 7%, pigs 2%, poultry 1%)5.
Climate Change (Regional)
Methane production would be expected to be most significant in the regions with a high
number of cattle (south-west) and sheep (Wales)7.
Potential Land Management Responses
There are two significant ways to reduce methane production in agriculture: you can either
reduce the number of animals, or reduce the amount the animals produce 5. Both of these
actions reduce the amount of work that these services have to do, by lowering the pollution
pressure, rather than enhancing the capability of the ecosystem service to regulate
methane levels.
Climate regulation influencer 2c: Nitrous oxide (N20) regulation
Climate change (National)
Nitrous oxide is a climate change gas with a long atmospheric lifetime and a high climate
change potential with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide 9. In 2005
agriculture contributed to 66% of the total nitrous oxide emissions in the UK 54. Of this, soil
and crop emissions (including fertiliser effects) are the most significant sources,
contributing 95%. Decomposition of manure and waste contributes to the other 5% 5. It is
possible that climate change might increase the amount of nitrous oxide released by
agriculture by creating a positive feedback loop. For example, organic matter
decomposition would be expected to accelerate in the predicted warmer conditions leading
to an increase in nitrogen release11.
Climate change (Regional)
The East of England region would be particularly vulnerable for high nitrous oxide
emissions. This is due to a combination of the warmer conditions expected for this
region8, but also due to the high intensity of arable farming7.
Potential Land Management Responses
As with methane regulation, most of the commonly suggested management responses
involve reducing the pressure on the service, rather than manipulating the service per se.
Such management practices also frequently have negative effects on air quality regulation.
For example, switching to urea fertiliser could reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 21%;
however, this practice can lead to substantial increases in ammonia emissions. Using
19
Appendix F
chemical inhibitors to reduce the rate of nitrification in the soil is another potential
management option.
The strategies identified for reducing nitrate leaching to assist the implementation of
The Nitrates Directive60 will inevitably help to reduce the ‘indirect’ emissions of nitrous
oxide, as approximately 30% of emissions from agriculture are from denitrification of
leached nitrate in estuaries and other slow-moving waters 5.
Climate regulation influencer 2d: Atmospheric energy and water balance
Climate Change (National)
Sunlight is the source of energy for the Earth's oceans, atmosphere and biosphere. The
distribution of this energy within the Earth's climate system depends on many complicated
interactions. Land management can affect the energy balance in several ways. For
example, when vegetation is cleared from land surfaces (such as in deforestation or
agricultural burning), the bare surface reflects more sunlight back into space and there is
an immediate net cooling effect. However, the release of carbon dioxide and the reduction
of its uptake from the cleared soils may over longer timescales result in a net warming
effect. Changes in vegetative cover also leads to complicated changes in the hydrologic
cycle, including changes in evapotranspiration and transpiration (which will alter cloud
formation), but also the slow erosion of organic matter in soils may lead to them drying out
more quickly. Dry soils lose the ability to remove heat energy from the land's surface
through evaporation6. Climate change is expected to exacerbate this phenomenon as,
both annually and in the summer, the whole country is expected to experience decreases
in average soil moisture8.
Climate Change (Regional)
One of the most certain predictions, in relation to energy balance, is that in all seasons,
and for all scenarios, there is a north-west to south-east gradient in the magnitude of the
climate warming over the UK8. The warming in the south-east is especially pronounced in
the summer. This increased energy load will also have implications for water balance.
Potential Land Management Responses
It will be challenging to influence energy balance. However, as a generalisation, any
attempts to increase vegetation, especially though reforestation, would offer a cool climate
space for people to inhabit. However, this could lead to temperature increases in the
surrounding area as the trees’ canopy would absorb more heat energy than bare ground 6.
Forestry, in particular short rotation forestry (SRF), which has rotations of 8 - 20
years, may become more financially attractive and strategically desirable in the UK due to
increasing demand and declining productivity in existing production areas. Tree growth in
the north and west of England is likely to increase with warmer temperatures. This gain is
not predicted for the south east, as droughts would be expected to counteract any
increases in temperature. Trees also offer the additional benefits of sequestering carbon
within its biomass, providing timber for heating, and positively affecting biodiversity. Wet
woodlands can also be planted in areas that are prone to flooding11.
20
Appendix F
Regulating Service 3: Water regulation
Ecosystems regulate the water environment. They influence the timing and magnitude of
runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge. They also regulate the quality of water being both a
source of impurities (e.g. in fresh water) but also a sink as healthy ecosystems can help to
filter out and decompose organic wastes and assimilate and detoxify compounds through
soil and sub-soil processes. The ability of ecosystems to regulate water is strongly
influenced by changes in land cover, for example the replacement of forests with
croplands13.
Water is heavily regulated in the EU5 and numerous directives strive to maintain and
enhance the quality and quantity of water (e.g. Drinking Water Directive, Bathing Water
Directive, Groundwater Directive, and The Water Framework Directive), and to reduce
flood risk (e.g. Floods Directive). This has led to a number of initiatives within the UK to
ensure that the directives’ requirements are met. For example Defra are developing a
Water Strategy18 which aims to ‘set out a coherent policy framework to underpin our
commitments for water availability and quality’ and have developed the Making Space for
Water20 programme which laid out the ‘new Government strategy for flood and coastal
erosion risk management in England’.
Water regulation influencer 3a: Flood regulation
General Information
1.74 million properties in floodplains along rivers, estuaries and coasts in England and
Wales are potentially at risk from fluvial, pluvial or coastal flooding. The average annual
damage has been estimated at just over £1 billion with flood management costs in 200304 running to £439 million. However, the human cost of flooding cannot be measured by
statistics alone: there are substantial health implications, particularly when the floodwaters
carry pollutants or are mixed with foul waters from drains and agricultural land.
Floodwaters also can make sewage treatment works inoperable for extended periods and
spill their contents over the landscape. Floods can also affect people's mental-health,
through stress of damage and fear of repeat flooding.
There is substantial evidence that land-management practices have led to
increased surface runoff at the local scale, but understanding is poor on how these smallscale impacts combine at the larger scale12.
Climate Change (National)
Extreme weather events, such as intense bursts of heavy rainfall, are predicted to increase
in the future8. It has been estimated that if flood-management policies and expenditure
were to remain unchanged, annual losses would increase under every climate change
scenario by the 2080s (ranging from less than £1 billion to £27 billion). And these costs
are probably an underestimate as they exclude consequential losses, for example, due to
disruption to the transportation system28.
The global average sea level is also predicted to change which will lead to an
increased incidence of coastal inundation events. However, the rate of change is
uncertain with predictions placing the rise between 9cm to as much as 69cm by the 2080s
(depending on emission scenario). In addition to the predicted steady rise in sea level,
storm surges are also predicted to increase. Storm surges have the potential to have a far
21
Appendix F
more dramatic impact on the coastal environment in the shorter term but are more difficult
to model8. Current sea level rises are already having an impact on sea defences, with
predicted change exacerbating this, increasing the risk of flooding, and salt intrusion into
aquifers10.
Climate Change (Regional)
The distribution of damages from flooding across the country is predicted to vary widely for
the four climate change scenarios in the 2080s. Some parts of the country, however,
consistently have the worst increases, in particular Lancashire/Humber corridor12.
In relation to coastal flooding, storm surges are expected to increase most
significantly on the south-east coast, by up to 1.4 m for the High Emissions scenario in the
2080s8. In regards to agricultural land, about 57% of grade 1 land lies below five meters,
leaving it subject to flooding, inundation, erosion and salinisation of fresh water. The
regions predicted to be particularly effected are; the Fens, Lincolnshire coast, Thames
estuary and Somerset levels10.
Potential Land Management Responses
There are a plethora of potential actions that could potentially help regulate the threat from
fluvial and pluvial flooding and many of them offer benefits to other services, such as water
quality and aquifer recharge. The cost and the benefit of the actions vary tremendously.
Cost/benefit analyses would ideally need to be performed at the field level taking into
account the needs of the entire catchment. Potential flood regulating actions include21, 22:







Harvest rainwater– by extracting the water from the drainage system this reduces
the pressure on the service to moderate the flow.
Provide vegetative cover – this would help to help to slow and filter the flow.
Reduce drainage – blocking land drains will reduce flood peak levels.
Increase drainage – by keeping drains clear and increasing their numbers/capacity
speeds up the flood peak and prevents blockages.
Maintain rivers – by Increasing channel conveyance (flow) or where appropriate
restoring meanders.
Incorporate swales and filter strips – these vegetative features mimic natural
drainage patterns by allowing rainwater to run in sheets through vegetation, slowing
and filtering the flow. The vegetation traps organic and mineral particles that are
then incorporated into the soil, while the vegetation takes up any nutrients.
Install infiltration devices – these work by enhancing the natural capacity of the
ground to store and drain water, and include:
o Soakaways, (a subsurface structure into which surface water is conveyed to
allow infiltration into the ground);
o Infiltration trenches (a trench, usually filled with stone, designed to promote
infiltration of surface water to the ground.);
o Filter drains (linear drain consisting of a trench filled with a permeable
material, often with a perforated pipe in the base of the trench to assist
drainage, to store and conduct water, but may also be designed to permit
infiltration;
o Basins (a dry basin designed to promote infiltration of surface water to the
ground), which include:
 Floodplains (land adjacent to a watercourse that would be subject to
repeated flooding under natural conditions);
22
Appendix F
Detention basins (a vegetated depression, which normally is dry
except after storm events constructed to store water temporarily to
attenuate flows;
 Extended detention basins (a detention basin in which the runoff is
stored beyond the time normally required for attenuation. This
provides extra time for natural processes to remove some of the
pollutants in the water);
o Ponds (permanently wet basin designed to retain storm water and permit
settlement of suspended solids and biological removal of pollutants), which
include:
 Balancing/attenuation/wet detention pond (a pond designed to
attenuate flows by storing runoff during the peak flow and releasing it
at a controlled rate during and after the peak flow has passed;
 Flood storage reservoirs;
 Lagoons (a pond designed for the settlement of suspended solids.);
 Retention ponds (a pond where runoff is detained to allow settlement
and biological treatment of some pollutants); and,
 Wetlands (a pond that has a high proportion of emergent vegetation in
relation to open water).

The application of infiltration techniques is limited where the soil is not very permeable, the
water table is shallow or the groundwater under the site may be put at risk.
The potential land management responses to coastal flooding are much more limited, and
often take the form of drastic and potentially costly actions. However, such actions may
become a necessity in the future.
One of the most controversial adaptations to coastal inundation has been to
instigate managed retreat from vulnerable areas. Although a drastic response this action
is very much a reality due to the prohibitive costs of providing coastal protection across all
of the vast stretches of vulnerable coastline. Pilot plans have already been drawn up
which could potentially lead to thousands of acres of farm land to flood in East Anglia 57.
Another option is to restore the capacity of ecosystems to counteract the threats
from coastal inundation, and projects are underway to purchase farmland to restore
ecosystems. For example, The Great Fen project56 aims to restore over 3000 hectares of
farmland situated between Huntingdon and Peterborough to fenland wildlife habitat. The
Cambridgeshire Fens were originally drained to create valuable grazing and arable land.
However as a consequence they now require constant draining and much of the area is
now below sea level because the peat has shrunk through water loss and oxidation. The
cost of such projects are enormous, with the Great Fen project alone being projected to
cost £15 million (most of which is being met via a Heritage Lottery Fund grant of £8.9
million).
Water regulation influencer 3b: Water quality regulation
General Information
Cultivated systems can have negative impacts on freshwater quality through pollutants
contained in drainage water, runoff, and effluents. Agriculture can also concentrate
pollutants by extracting water from the environment. Pollutants can be inorganic (soil
particles) and organic sediments or particulate matter, as well as chemical loading of plant
nutrients (which lead to eutrophication), especially nitrogen, phosphorus (principal cause
of blue-green algae blooms, which leads to anoxia), and pesticides. Salinisation is also a
problem in some regions due to evaporation of irrigation water high in salts 2.
23
Appendix F
The financial costs of cleaning up water are incurred by water delivery companies (and
passed onto their customers) to comply with drinking water standards set out in EU
Legislation for pesticides and nitrates, to remove pathogens (particularly Cryptosporidium),
to pay for restoring water courses following pollution incidents and eutrophication, and to
remove soil from water. In 2002 the costs per annum of removing these residues from
water were estimated14:
 Pesticides, £119.6 million;
 Phosphate and soils, £52.3 million;
 Zoonoses (particularly, Cryptosporidium), £22.5 million;
 Pollution incidents, (using just the costs incurred by the EA for restocking
rivers with fish to restore them to their pre-incident condition), circa £2
million;
 Eutrophication (based on remedial costs in reservoirs alone), £4 million; and,
 Nitrate, 16.4 million.
More recently, in the 2007 consultation on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in
England29, the cost of nitrate removal was estimated to be much higher at £288 million
(capital expenditure) and £6 million per annum (operating expenditure) for the 2005 - 2010
period. The total annual financial cost of water pollution upon river and wetland systems
and natural habitats in England and Wales was also estimated at £716 million to £1.297
million.
Addressing diffuse pollution from agriculture is the single biggest future challenge
for improving water quality. Agriculture is responsible for 70% of nitrates and over 40% of
phosphates (from livestock and inorganic fertiliser application) in English waters.
Agriculture also contributes to a significant quantity of serious water pollution incidents
(32%, 2001)24. Sediment pollution is currently a risk for 21% of rivers, with a 75%
contribution from agricultural sources. The apportionment of sediment pollution to
agriculture is likely to be far greater than that of Phosphorus and Faecal Indicator
Organisms (FIOs) 30.
82% of rivers, 53% of lakes, 25% of estuaries, 24% of coastal waters, and 75% of
ground waters are at risk of not achieving the good status required by the Water
Framework Directive by 2010 because of diffuse water pollution24.
Climate Change (National)
Summers are predicted be hotter and drier across all of the UK. Some types of extreme
weather events may become more frequent, such as heat-waves, extreme coastal high
water levels and heavy spells of rain8.
The predicted higher temperatures (and associated higher evaporation) and
reduced summer rainfall will primarily impact on water quality through the reduction of river
flows leading to the concentration of pollutants24. Reduced river flows will also tend to
increase water temperature, reduce dissolved oxygen, and increase light penetration,
which could be detrimental biodiversity.
The predicted increase in inundation events will primarily affect water quality with
greater sediment loading, altered deposition and increased concentration of soluble
materials leading to toxicity or eutrophication11. These effects will be amplified when heavy
rainfall follows periods of drought (which will become increasing likely) when land is hard
and slow to absorb water. Organic matter contained in water might also increase following
inundation events. Organic matter consists of proteins (a nitrogenous sink) and in
combination with accelerated decomposition rates, as a consequence of warmer
temperatures, may increase the release of the nitrogenous material11.
Climate change is also predicted to lengthen the agricultural growing season and
when combined with wetter weather, this may increase the impact of nutrient leaching, soil
compaction and run-off24.
24
Appendix F
Climate Change (Regional)
Summers are predicted to become hotter and drier across all of the UK, but particularly in
the south-east8. In terms of low flows, it has been estimated that for the River Thames
there is an 80% chance there will be some reduction in flows by 2020 11. The water bodies
at risk from diffuse phosphorus and sediment pollution are predominantly situated in northwest, East Anglia, the south-west and Severn Regions. The areas impacted by FIO
pollution are largely situated in the north-west and south-west30. Lowland rivers, which are
less turbulent, are predicted to be more adversely effected in regards to their nitrate,
aluminium and dissolved oxygen levels, whereas the faster flowing upland rivers are
predicted to acidify11.
Potential Land Management Responses
Many of the activities listed in the flood regulation section would also lead to benefits in
water quality. In addition to these, one of the potential responses that could lead to the
greatest improvements in water quality, as well as benefits to the provisioning service of
water quantity, is to charge water users the true cost of the resource, as this would
promote water use efficiency.
Water abstractors are currently charged for their licenses. However, in 2006 water
abstraction charges were just <4% of a customer's water and sewerage bill. Many groups
would like to see the true cost of water more adequately reflected in pricing 26. The
Environment Agency is one such group, but is currently legally obliged to balance
abstraction charges with their expenditure on water resource management 25.
Water regulation influencer 3c: Aquifer/groundwater recharge
General Information
There is only a certain amount of recharge for groundwater each year, and of this
recharge, some is needed to support connected ecosystems. For good management, only
that portion of the overall recharge not needed by the ecology can be abstracted - this is
the sustainable resource, and the Water Framework Directive 19 limits abstraction to that
quantity.
Climate Change (national)
The period which groundwater resources are replenished may become shorter 8.
Climate Change (regional)
Groundwater recharge is predicted to reduce by 5% in southern areas, and increase by
5% in northern areas of England11. The effects will be most marked in the south-east
where rises in temperature and reduction in summer rainfall are forecast to be the
greatest8. Here, stress on water resources and the demand for water is highest and
increasing25.
Potential Land Management Responses
Many of the identified activities in the Flood Regulation section could also enhance
groundwater recharge.
25
Appendix F
Regulating Service 4a: Human Pest and Disease Regulation
Changes in ecosystems can directly change the abundance of human pathogens, such as
cholera, and can alter the abundance of disease vectors, such as mosquitos 13.
General Information
According to the World Health Organisation, infectious diseases still account for close to
one quarter of the global burden of disease. Intact ecosystems play an important role in
regulating the transmission of many infectious diseases40. Agriculture plays an important
role in regulating many of these diseases. For example: changes in water management
practices can alter the presence of disease vectors, such as mosquitoes; management of
arable production influences the number of rodents; and, manure management can reduce
the contamination of water from Cryptosporidium.
Climate Change (National)
In recent years, several vector-borne, parasitic or zoonotic diseases have (re)-emerged
and spread in Europe with major health, ecological, socio-economical and political
consequences. Most of these outbreaks are linked to global and local changes resulting
from climate change, human-induced landscape changes or the activities of human
populations. Although climate change has been implicated in the emergence of several
diseases these conclusions have frequently been based on anecdotal evidence and better
estimates of the potential impacts of climate change on human health are required 41
A current EC project, EDEN40 (Emerging Diseases in a changing European
eNvironment), is attempting to provide such a better estimate.
The project is focussing on the following diseases:






Tick-bourne diseases - these diseases are already present within Europe and may
be widespread (Lyme borreliosis) or focal (tick-borne encephalitis - TBE). Climate
change has been blamed for a doubling in the numbers of cases of Lyme disease in
the UK since records began in 198638. It is believed that warmer springs could
have increased transmission by enabling tick larvae and nymphs to be active earlier
in the year39. However, the emergence of TBE in the UK has been predicted to be
unlikely, and the impact of climate change on the incidence of Lyme disease is
difficult to predict;
Rodent-borne viruses - rodent numbers are on the increase in many areas of
Europe, possibly because of milder winters in recent years. Rodents carry a range
of bunya and arena viruses which are excellent examples of zoonoses that
periodically spill over into human populations, with devastating effects;
Sandfly-bourne diseases - especially leishmaniasis which is persistent on the
southern fringes of Europe with the potential to expand as environments change;
West Nile Virus (WNV) - in the past decade there have been a number of outbreaks
of WNV (which is spread by infected mosquitos) in Europe, especially on the
Eastern fringes; however, it is uncertain whether these episodes are evidence of a
change in long-term prevalence. Monitoring will need to look for the emergence of
this disease within the UK41.
Malaria - malaria remains a constant problem on Europe's eastern and southern
borders and may increase given the environmental and climatic changes
anticipated for the future.
African source diseases - these currently only threaten Europe’s southern borders.
26
Appendix F
In addition to these new threats there are diseases already present within the UK that may
increase as a direct result of climate change41. For example:


Salmonella - it has been estimated that the higher temperatures in summer could
cause an estimated 10,000 extra cases of Salmonella infection per year;
Cryptosporidium and campylobacter - inundation events may lead to an increase in
these water-borne diseases.
Climate Change (Regional)
New diseases to the UK are most likely to occur in regions where the future climate
reflects the traditional climate of the disease allowing it to migrate and establish. This is
more likely to be in the south-east of the country.
Water-borne diseases, like Cryptosporidium, are likely to be higher in regions with high
animal densities and wetter climates; for example, Wales and the southwest 7 which are
also are likely to experience wetter winters8.
Potential Land Management Responses
Land management responses would need to be tailored to each potential disease threat.
Examples include water management (to reduce the prevalence of insect vectors), and
rodent control.
Regulating Service 4b: Animal pest and disease regulation
Ecosystem changes affect the prevalence of crop and livestock pests and diseases 13.
General Information
Both the diversity of natural enemies and the landscape diversity may influence pest and
disease control in agricultural systems. Yield and quality of desired products (provisioning
services) from agro-ecosystems may be reduced by attacks of herbivores above and
below ground, fungal and microbial pathogens, and in competition with weeds. Modern
agriculture has tended to produce monocultures and intensive stocking that has reduced
the ability of pest and diseases to be naturally regulated (mainly due to a loss of
biodiversity) which has frequently led to the need for chemical control 31.
Climate Change (National)
Climate has a profound impact on populations of pests and disease, affecting their
development, reproduction and dispersal. However, quantification of the precise effects of
climate change on pest and disease pressure is extremely challenging because of the
complex web of biotic interactions (pests, diseases, vectors, hosts, predators, parasitoids)
that will alter as the climate changes. However, some generalisations can be made 42:



The warmer conditions predicted in the future will allow many pests to produce
more generations per year;
Fungi are favoured by the humid conditions which may become more frequent in
the future;
The synchrony in life cycles of pest and diseases will alter (in relation to their hosts
and vectors);
27




Appendix F
Extreme temperatures will affect some pest populations negatively, but may affect
others positively, and increase the susceptibility of plants and animals to attack;
Changes in wind patterns and strength are likely to have an influence on pest and
diseases immigrating to the UK;
Droughts and heavy rainfall will also undoubtedly alter pest populations; and,
Climate change will also alter the ability for pest and diseases to be controlled.
The potential impact of climate change on specific pests and diseases has being studied42.
For example:

Myzus persicae (peach-potato aphid) – this aphid affects yield and quality through
their direct presence, but also through the transmission of several viruses. It is of
particular concern because certain genotypes are resistant to one or more
insecticide groups and because it is a generalist pest that infests several major
crops (sugar beet, potato, brassica, lettuce and a number of protected crops). The
warm conditions of spring 2007 led to an ‘extreme event’ in terms of aphid
abundance.

Plutella xylostella (diamond-back moth) - this moth is potentially the most serious
climate change threat to brassica. At present it is unable to over-winter very
successfully in the UK. However, the changing climate is enabling earlier outbreaks
and increasing the threat of over-wintering populations.

Phythophthora infestans (late blight) – blight is currently the single greatest threat to
potatoes in the UK. However, several days of hot dry weather can stop an
outbreak. As such weather events are predicted to become more frequent this
disease may become less of a problem. 2007, however, was a particularly difficult
season for blight control43.

Fusarium graminearum (fusarium ear blight) – ear blight is not yet a major problem
in the UK to maize, but it is predicted to become an increasing risk as the UK
climate warms up. Climate change may also make conditions more favourable for
growing maize which may increase the risk from this disease further still.

Bluetongue – it is now also believed that the first ever bluetongue outbreak (a
disease of animals affecting all ruminants, including sheep, cattle, deer, goats and
camelids) in the UK came about as a consequence of the disease successfully
over-wintering in Europe and being blown across by easterly winds, from Belgium
or the Netherlands, via the insect vector Culicoides (a type of biting midge)44, 46.
Changes in wind directions and strengths, as well as warmer temperatures could
increase the incidence of bluetongue in the future.
Climate Change (Regional)
The regional effects of pest and diseases will need to be calculated on a case by case
basis. Although, as with human disease, new pest and diseases to the UK are most likely
to occur in regions where the future climate reflects the traditional climate of the disease
allowing it to migrate and establish. This is more likely to be in the south-east of the
country.
28
Appendix F
Potential Land Management Responses
Land management responses will need to be calculated on a case by case basis. But it is
generally accepted that any effort to increase biodiversity is likely to have beneficial effects
on pest and disease regulation11.
Regulating service 5: Pollination regulation
Ecosystem changes affect the distribution, abundance, and effectiveness of pollinators13.
General Information
Approximately 80% of Angiosperms, including many important agricultural species, are
pollinated by animals. These animals include bees, flies, butterflies, moths, wasps,
beetles and some other insect orders31.
The value of bees to the UK economy via commercial crop pollination alone was
estimated to be £120 million per year in 2001. The true value, which would include the
pollination of wild flowers and garden plants, is likely to be well in excess of this figure.
There are approximately 230,000 colonies of honeybees in England kept by 32,900
keepers of bees who are rarely motivated by commercial gain. The total revenue of those
who keep bees is about £11.3 million32. There are also more than 300 species of wild
bees, of which most are solitary bees, but include about 20 species of bumblebees.
There are many important threats to plant-pollinator systems. These include
agricultural intensification and consequent habitat loss and fragmentation of wild
ecosystems, use of environmental chemicals, diseases, and parasites of pollinator
populations, changing fire regimes, introduction of alien plants, and competition with
introduced pollinators, as well as climate change. Each of these forces may introduce
what appear to be only marginal impacts, but effects can cascade through the ecosystem
in ways that may have serious repercussions for pollinator populations.
Marked declines of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and native solitary bees have been
reported for the UK31, 33 and this decline in pollinator diversity has occurred concomitantly
with a reduction in the diversity of wildflowers. There have been declines in 70% of the
wildflowers that require insects for pollination, whereas the numbers of wind-pollinated or
self-pollinating plants have held constant or increased.
In general specialist pollinators, which pollinate a limited range of flower species or
which have specialised habitat needs, are often 'losing out' to a small number of common
generalist pollinators33.
Climate Change
The effects of climate change on pollinators (for example the potential threat of altered
flowering times in relation to pollinators' lifecycles) needs to be considered on a species by
species basis whilst taking into account all of the threats to them.
Potential Land Management Responses
Increasing biodiversity will inevitably lead to more resilient pollinator populations.
29
Appendix F
Regulating service 6: Natural hazard regulation (excluding flood)
Well managed ecosystems can reduce the frequency and severity of natural hazards 13.
Natural hazard regulation influencer 6a: Coastal erosion regulation
General Information
Shorelines are constantly changing due to the action of waves and tides. The actions of
people, especially through attempts to stop the effect of erosion, have also helped to
significantly influence the shape of Britain’s shorelines. In some cases, this has taken
place without an appreciation of the effect these actions could have on other places up
and down the coast.
Although coasts are dynamic and often relatively unstable environments there is still
considerable demand from people to inhabit and work near them. As international trade
increases, so does the demand for port space and associated coastal-based industry. This
sort of development places stress on natural coastal habitats that are often unique and of
national and international importance55.
Climate Change (National)
The global average sea level change could range from 9cm to as much as 69cm by the
2080s (depending on emission scenario). In addition to the predicted steady rise in sea
level, storm surges are also predicted to increase. Storm surges have the potential to
have a far more dramatic impact on the coastal environment in the shorter term but are
more difficult to model8. Current sea level rises are already having an impact on sea
defences, with predicted change exacerbating this10. The annual average damage is set
to increase in every scenario, and by as much as 3 – 9 times by the 2080s, although the
worst case (£126 million per year) is still much less than current flood losses (£1 billion per
year)12.
Climate Change (Regional)
Storm surges are expected to increase most significantly on the south-east coast, by up to
1.4 m for the High Emissions scenario in the 2080s8, and the areas under the greatest
threat from erosion will be along major estuaries and the east coast 12.
Potential Land Management Responses
The land management responses to coastal erosion are the same as those detailed for
coastal flooding (see the section on flood regulation).
30
Appendix F
Natural hazard regulation influencer 6b: Storm regulation (as a result of
depressions)
General Information
On October 16 1987 hurricane force winds swept across southern England killing 19
people, leading to £1.2 million in insurance claims and an estimated £1.5 billion total loss.
Three years later on January 25 1990 the Burn's Day storm affected a much larger swathe
of the country, with stronger winds and this time killing 47 people51. Storm force winds
undoubtedly have a large cost to society.
Climate Change (National)
The number of depressions (a track with its lowest pressure below 1000 hPa) crossing the
UK in an average winter is predicted to increase from about five, for the present climate, to
about eight, for the Medium-High Emissions scenario by the 2080s. This is mainly due to
a shifting southward of the depression tracks from their current position. Deep
depressions (lowest pressure below 970hPa) are predicted to increase in frequency by
about 40%.
Climate Change (Regional)
The consequence of the predicted alterations in storm track paths is that the south of
England is expected to experience a strengthening of the winter winds 8.
Potential Land Management Responses
There is little that land managers can do in the face of severe storms like those of 1987
and 1990. Some of the suggested activities for the Particulate Matter Regulation section
might reduce the risk of erosion of soil by wind.
Natural hazard regulation influencer 6c: Fire regulation
General Information
Hot dry periods increase the risk of fires and wind speed affects its spread. Land cover
and land use also affect the fire risk because they affect fuel load, flammability, number of
ignition events, and spread conditions47.
Climate Change (National)
A report on the hot summer of 199549 provided a clear and demonstrable link between hot
dry summers and the number of fires in England and Wales. Secondary fires, such as
grass and heathland fires, and straw or stubble burning, are the type of fires predicted to
be most affected by a hot dry summer48. It has been estimated that the rise in the number
of secondary outdoor fires in England and Wales due to a 1°C rise in summer temperature
would be between 17-28%, whilst a rise of 2°C would lead to a 34-56% increase50. The
number of secondary fires being upgraded to primary fires, due to a property or life being
deemed at risk, is also predicted to increase48.
31
Appendix F
Climate Change (Regional)
The nationwide predicted reduction in summer precipitation and soil moisture, in addition
to the north-west to south-east gradient in the magnitude of climate warming8 makes the
south-east the most vulnerable to increased fire risk.
Potential Land Management Responses
As forests (deep root systems) tend to take longer to become flammable during dry
periods, reforestation of land could reduce fire risk. However, as forests have a high fuel
load once they do ignite they are more difficult to control47.
Natural hazard regulation influencer 6d: Landslide regulation
General Information
Steep slopes and deforestation can weaken soil, making it unstable and more likely to
collapse34.
Climate Change (National)
Drier summers, punctuated with occasional heavy rainfalls, encourage landslides. These
pressures are predicted to become more common in the UK in the next few decades,
making landslides more frequent.
NERC's British Geological Survey (BGS), which produces landslide risk maps for Britain,
has already recorded more landslides across the UK in recent years. BGS's GeoSure
project35 is currently mapping the regions of the UK most at risk from landslides.
Climate Change (Regional)
Upland farming will have the greatest impact on landslides with Wales probably being the
most significantly affected region35.
Potential Land Management Responses
Ensure adequate vegetative cover on vulnerable land.
32
Appendix F
References
1. MEA (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being, Global Assessment Reports,
(Volume 2) Scenarios Assessment, (Chapter 9) Changes in Ecosystem Services
and Their Drivers across the Scenarios. Island Press. Millennium.
2. MEA (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being, Global Assessment Reports,
(Volume 1) Current States and Trends Assessment, (Chapter 26) Cultivated
Systems. Island Press. Millennium.
3. MEA (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being, Global Assessment Reports,
(Volume 1) Current States and Trends Assessment, (Chapter 13) Air Quality and
Climate. Island Press. Millennium.
4. Defra (2007), the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland, Volume 1.
5. European Commission, Water:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm/ (accessed 26/11/2007).
6. NASA Facts (1999), Earth's Energy Balance:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaResources/Energy_Balance.pdf/
(accessed 18/01/2008).
7. Defra (2006), The June Agricultural Survey for 2006:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/cs/farmstats_web/default.htm
(accessed 18/01/2008).
8. Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G.,
Lowe, J., Murphy, J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S. (2002),
Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 120pp.
9. IPCC (2001), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
10. NFU (2005), Agriculture and Climate Change. National Farmers' Union, Stoneleigh
Park, Warwicks. 48 pp.
11. R.J. Mitchell, M.D. Morecroft, M. Acreman, H.Q.P. Crick, M. Frost , M.Harley, I.M.D.
Maclean, O. Mountford, J. Piper, H. Pontier, M.M. Rehfisch, L.C. Ross, R. J.
Smithers, A. Stott, C. Walmsley, O. Watts, E. Wilson (2007), England Biodiversity
Strategy: Towards adaptation to climate change. Final Report to Defra for contract
CR0327.
12. Office of Science and Technology (2004), Foresight: Future Flooding. Executive
Summary.
13. Defra (2007), Securing a Healthy Natural Environment: An Action Plan for
Embedding an Ecosystems Approach (Draft Version).
14. Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R.E., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L., Raven, H.,
Rayment, M.D. and van der Bij, G. (2002), An Assessment of the Total External
Costs of UK Agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65 (2), 113-136.
15. European Commission (2005), Air Quality Directive, Impact Assessment.
Commission Staff Working Paper. Annex to: The Communication on Thematic
Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air
for Europe.
16. Targa, J. (2006), Air Pollution Forecasting: Ozone Pollution Episode Report (JuneJuly 2006). A report produced for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the
Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland.
33
Appendix F
17. Agricultural influences on carbon emissions and sequestration. From: Powell et al.
(eds), UK Organic Research 2002: Proceedings of the COR Conference, 26-28th
March 2002, Aberystwyth, pp. 247-249."
18. Defra, Water Strategy:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/strategy/index.htm (accessed 09/01/08).
19. European Commission, Water Framework Directive:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html (accessed
07/01/08).
20. Defra (2005), Making Space for Water: Taking forward a new Government strategy
for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. First Government
response to the autumn 2004 Making space for water consultation exercise.
21. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS):
http://www.ciria.org.uk/suds/suds_techniques.htm (accessed 09/11/2007).
22. Environment Agency, Catchment Flood Management Plans:
http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/1217883/1217968/907676/999493/?version=1&lang=
_e (accessed 11/01/2008).
23. Defra, Environmental Stewardship:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/es/default.htm (accessed 31/08/2007).
24. Defra (2002), Directing the flow: Priorities for future water policy.
25. Environment Agency, Water Resources Strategy: http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/waterres/981441/137651/?version=1&lang=_e (accessed
09/01/2008).
26. POSTNOTE (2006), Balancing Water Supply and the Environment. February 2006,
Number 259.
27. Defra (2004), Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management:
Groundwater Flooding Scoping Study (LDS 23). Final Report, Volume 1 of 2.
28. Defra (2005), A Collation and Analysis of Current Ammonia Research. Final Report
for Defra project AM0123.
29. Defra (2007). The Protection of Waters against Pollution from Agriculture:
Consultation on implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.
30. Defra, Consultation on diffuse sources of water pollution from agriculture.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waterpollution-diffuse/index.htm
(accessed 07/01/08).
31. MEA (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being, Global Assessment Reports,
(Volume 1) Current States and Trends Assessment, (Chapter 11) Biodiversity
Regulation of Ecosystem Services. Island Press. Millennium.
32. Defra, Economic Evaluation of DEFRA's Bee Health Programme:
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/evaluation/beehealth/default.asp (accessed
20/11/2007).
33. University of York (2006), Pollinators and Wild Flowers (press
release):http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/bees.htm (accessed
19/10/2007).
34. NERC. Landslides,
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/naturalhazards/landslides.asp (accessed
20/11/2007).
35. British Geological Survey, Landslides: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/products/geosure/
(accessed 20/11/2007).
36. IPCC (2007), Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II Report. Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability, (Chapter 8), Human Health.
37. MEA (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being, Global Assessment Reports,
(Volume 1) Current States and Trends Assessment, (Chapter 14) Human Health:
Ecosystem Regulation of Infectious Diseases. Island Press. Millennium.
34
Appendix F
38. BBC (1999), Lyme disease (news articles):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/376539.stm (accessed
20/11/2007).
39. University of Oxford (2006), Is climate change fuelling disease? Ticks suggest
otherwise (news article): http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/070606.shtml (accessed
20/11/2007).
40. European Commission, EDEN (Emerging Diseases in a changing European
eNvironment): http://www.eden-fp6project.net/ (accessed 20/11/2007).
41. POSTNOTE (2004), UK Health Impacts of Climate Change. November 2004,
Number 232."
42. Defra/WHRI (Pers Comms), Vulnerability of UK agriculture to extreme events.
Defra project AC0301.
43. British Potato Council, Blight 2007:
http://www.potato.org.uk/department/knowledge_transfer/fight_against_blight/index.
html?menu_pos=knowledge_transfer (accessed 21/11/2007).
44. Defra (2007), Initial Epidemiolgical Report on the Outbreak of Bluetongue in East
Anglia and South East England from Investigations Completed to 19 October 2007.
45. Defra, Animal health: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/ (accessed
21/11/2007).
46. IAH (2007), Statement on Bluetongue (press release):
http://www.iah.bbsrc.ac.uk/BT_UK_2007/BT_Statement4.html (accessed
21/11/2007).
47. MEA (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being, Global Assessment Reports,
(Volume 1) Current States and Trends Assessment, (Chapter 16) Regulation of
Natural Hazards: Floods and Fires. Island Press. Millennium.
48. Department for Communities and Local Government: London (2006), Effects of
Climate Change on Fire and Rescue Services in the UK. Fire Research Technical
Report 1/2006.
49. Palutikof, J.P., Subak, S. and Agnew, M.D. (1997). Impacts of the Exceptionally Hot
Weather of 1995 in the UK. Agnew Climatic Research Unit, University of East
Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
50. Palutikof, J.P., Subak, S. and Agnew, M.D. (1997), Economic Impacts of the Hot
Summer and Unusually Warm Year of 1995. Agnew Climatic Research Unit,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
51. The Times (2007), Great Storm of 1987 (news article):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article2633673.ece (accessed
21/11/2007).
52. ARF, Wind erosion:
http://www.appliedresearchforum.org.uk/content.output/199/199/Joint%20Projects/E
rosion/Wind%20erosion.mspx (accessed 22/11/2007).
53. Defra (2005),Controlling soil erosion: Incorporating former advisory leaflets on
grazing livestock, wind, outdoor pigs and the uplands.
54. Kroegera, T. and Caseya, F (2007), An assessment of market-based approaches to
providing ecosystem services on agricultural land. Ecological Economics, 64 (2007)
321 - 332.
55. Defra, Shoreline Management Plans:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/smp.htm (accessed 22/11/2007).
56. The Great Fen Project:http://www.greatfen.org.uk/ (accessed 22/11/2007).
57. The Telegraph (2007), Losses of agricultural land (news article):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/nflood111.xml/
(accessed 22/11/2007).
35
Appendix F
58. Defra, Environmental Stewardship Review of Progress:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/es/es-progress.pdf/ (accessed 26/11/2007).
59. NatureNews (2005), Soil Carbon in the UK:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050905/full/news050905-8.html/. (accessed
26/11/2007).
60. Defra (2007), Diffuse nitrate pollution from agriculture – strategies for reducing
nitrate leaching. ADAS report to Defra – supporting paper D3 for the consultation on
implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.
36
Appendix G. Appendix F Summary
Regulating
Service
Service Influencers
1. Air quality
regulation
a) Ammonia (NH3)
Key agricultural influences
(i = input)
Examples of potential climate
change impacts
Livestock manures and slurries (i)
▲ Warm wet conditions (increases bacterial activity)
▼ Dry conditions (decreases bacterial activity)
Vegetative tissues (destroy ozone)
▲ High temperatures and drought conditions
(sustained conditions favour ozone production)
Soil and animal wastes
▲ Reduced summer soil moisture/precipitation
(Drier soils and wastes are more vulnerable)
▼Decreased summer wind speeds (Reduced wind erosion)
Cultivated soils
▲ Drier summers and wetter winters
(accelerates CO2 loss from soils)
Enteric fermentation (i)
NA
Soil and crop emissions
(including fertilisers) (i)
▲ Warmer conditions
(increases nitrogen released from organic matter)
▲Wetter conditions
(anaerobic soils favour N20 production)
Changes in land cover
NA
Various land management practices
(although there is uncertainty how
these impact at the catchment scale)
▲ Extreme precipitation events
(water exceeds natural carrying capacity of the land)
For example:
Pesticides and other chemicals (i)
Soil/sediment
Phosphate (i)
Zoonoses (particularly
Cryptosporidium) (i)
Nitrate (i)
General impacts
▲ Hotter and drier summers (concentrate water pollutants)
▲ Warmer temperatures
(thermal contamination of water can also potentially increase
algal bloom risk)
▲ Extreme precipitation events
(washes pollutants into surface waters)
Land use and irrigation
▼ Extreme precipitation events (water is lost as surface water)
▼Hotter drier summer (less water available for recharge)
▼Hotter drier summer (increased crop irrigation requirements)
▲Wetter winters (more water available for recharge)
b) Tropospheric ozone (O3)
c) Particulate matter (PM)
2. Climate
regulation
a) Carbon dioxide (CO2)
b) Methane (CH4)
c) Nitrous oxide (N2O)
3. Water
regulation
d) Atmospheric energy and water
balance
a) Flood
b) Water quality
c) Aquifer/groundwater recharge
Appendix G
Regulating
Service
Service Influencers
4a. Human pest
and disease
regulation
Numerous pest and diseases
4b. Animal pest
and disease
regulation
Numerous pest and diseases
Key agricultural influences
(i = input)
For example:
i) Rodent-borne viruses
ii) Salmonella
iii) Cryptosporidium and
campylobacter (i)
Examples of potential climate
change impacts
▲i) warmer winters (expected to increase rodent numbers)
▲ii) higher temperatures (favours salmonella)
▲iii) wetter winters, and extreme precipitation events
(favour water-borne diseases)
For example:i) Peach potato aphidii)
Diamond-back mothiii) Late blightiv)
Bluetongue
Impacts will be species dependent.▲i) warmer
temperatures(increase the number of generations per year)▲ii)
warmer winters (may permit over-wintering)▲iii) Extreme
precipitation (wet conditions favour late blight)▼iii) Hot dry
summers (wet conditions favour late blight)▲iv) warmer
temperatures (may allow the midge that carries bluetongue to
over winter)
For example:
honeybees
wild bees
bumble bees
The impacts of climate change on pollinators are complex and
will vary by species (for example, the potential threat of altered
flowering times in relation to pollinators' lifecycles.
5. Pollination
regulation
Numerous pollinators
6. Natural hazard
regulation
a) Coastal erosion
Land use
(e.g. deeper rooted plants anchor soil)
▲ Sea level rise
▲Storm surge frequency and severity increase
b) Storms (as a result of depressions)
Land use
(e.g. trees can help impede winds, but
only at the local scale)
▲ Increase in frequency of deep depressions
Land use
(e.g. deep rooted plants take longer to
become a fire risk)
▲ Increase in frequency of drought conditions
(increase fire risk)
Land use
(e.g. deeper rooted plants anchor soil)
▲ Drier summers with extreme precipitation events
(encourages landslides)
c) Fires
d) Landslides
38
Appendix H
Identification and Review of Water
Regulating Ecosystem Services
Associated with Agricultural Land Use in
England and Wales that Could Help
Society Adapt to Climate Change
According to UKCIP02 Scenarios
Objective 3 of
Ecosystem Services for Climate change Adaptation in Agricultural Land
Management
(Incorporating 12 Potential Case Studies for Objective 4)
31st January 2008
Authors:
Jason Pole, Rosemary Collier, Robert Lillywhite, and Peter Mills
(WHRI, the University of Warwick)
If you use this document please cite as:
Pole, J., Collier, R., Lillywhite, R. and Mills, P. (2008), Ecosystem Services for
Climate Change Adaptation in Agricultural Land Management. Defra project
AC0308.
Appendix H
1. An overview of water regulation
The ecosystem service of water regulation is a complex subject, encompassing a wide
body of literature, including the regulation of water quality, as well as its quantity (both in
excess, which can lead to flooding, and deficit, which can lead to drought). As water
regulation provides a suite of important internationally recognised benefits (e.g. water for
drinking, irrigating, supporting habitats, providing recreational opportunities) it is heavily
regulated and there is a plethora of existing and developing EU directives, which have
recently been reviewed6 (Table 1).
Directive
Water Framework
Directive
Nitrates Directive
Habitats Directive
Freshwater Fish
Directive
Shellfish Waters
Directive
Dangerous
Substances
Directive
Groundwater
Directive
Drinking Water
Directive
Bathing Water
Directive
Surface Water
Abstraction Directive
Floods Directive
Purpose
The WFD requires that waters meet the environmental
objective of ‘good ecological and chemical status’ by
2015.
Aims to reduce nitrate pollution in water that comes
from farming.
Aims to protect or restore habitats, including a review
of water abstraction licences and discharge consents.
The FWFD will be repealed in 2013 under the WFD.
Sets pollution thresholds for substances toxic to
shellfish.
Prohibits the release of certain dangerous substances
into the environment without prior authorisation.
Prohibits certain substances from polluting
groundwater.
Sets standards for drinking water to protect public
health.
Sets standards for protecting the health of bathers.
Sets quality objectives for the surface water sources
from which drinking water is taken.
Aims to reduce the risks and adverse consequences of
floods.
Table 1. Existing and developing EU directives with a major impact on water (adapted from source 6).
A number of key organisations have responsibility for developing and enforcing
environmental regulation in relation to water resources management (Table 2) and they
have produced a number of key documents relevant to this study. These have been
consulted to identify suitable land management practices that help to regulate the water
environment. In particular a Water Strategy33 is being developed (due early 2008) to,
‘outline the Government’s evolving priorities, and focus on water policy through a climate
change lens’. The Environment Agency is also developing a water resources strategy34
and is preparing a series of working papers on some of the main issues facing water
resources, including;
40
Appendix H





Water resources in south-east England;
valuing water resources;
water resources in 2050;
governance and legislation for water resources;
water resources strategy forecasts.
Organisation
Defra, and Welsh Assembly
(Government)
Environment Agency (EA)
Ofwat
Consumer Council for Water
Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)
Responsibility
Policy responsibility for managing water
resources and for sustainable
development.
Responsible for managing water
resources in England and Wales.
The economic regulator of the water
industry.
Represent the views of consumers.
Monitors the safety of drinking water.
Table 2. Key organisations involved in water resources management.
The Environment Agency has already estimated the costs of, and contribution from,
agriculture for a variety of natural resources15, which are summarised in Table 3. The
impacts presented are useful in that they can be used to break down the ecosystem
service of water regulation into the component parts that represent the environmental
benefits (more aptly dis-benefits) which can be economically valued (see discussion for
the merits of the use of environmental benefits). The costs are also considered to be
conservative as they exclude many external costs that are not so easily valued, such as
the loss of life, health impacts and environmental damage from flooding (whereas damage
to property can be valued), and, the impacts of abstraction on the quantity of groundwater.
Although such valuations inevitably have a large degree of variability due to the
uncertainty of the multitude of variables used in their calculation, it does enable costs to be
put into perspective
One of the main objectives of this study is to assess how management practices
related to water could potentially help society adapt to climate change. In order to
understand the full effects that climate change will have upon this important regulating
ecosystem service it is imperative that we develop a thorough knowledge of this service
now. However, we are still a long way from understanding fully the complex interactions
involved in regulating water and this has led to us undervaluing this commodity in today’s
market (as indicated by the low abstraction charges for agricultural, industrial and public
water supplies)24. It is very difficult to project a future value on a commodity that isn’t
‘fairly-traded’ today. The projection of the actual value is further compounded by the
uncertainty of the scale of impact, extreme events, and the rate of climate change 27.
41
Appendix H
Medium
Impact
Agricultural
contribution
to total
problem
Water
Nutrients in lakes
45%
20 - 33
Water
Informal recreation from poor water quality
30-50%
10 - 23
Water
Fishing affected by poor water quality
20-50%
14 - 36
Water
Bathing water quality affected by water pollution
35-65%
23 - 42
Water
Amenity loss (reflected in impacts on local
property prices of poor water quality and low
flows)
10%
5
Water
Impacts on groundwater of poor water quality
40-70%
50 - 88
Water
Surface water treatment costs by water
companies
60-70%
127 - 148
Water
Ecosystems, natural habitats impacts - rivers
etc affected by poor water quality and low flows
25-35%
183 - 456
Water
Ecosystems, natural habitats impacts - wetlands
etc affected poor water quality and low flows
25-35%
13 - 41
Water
Marine eutrophication (nitrogen)
20%
n.a.
Water
Health and biodiversity effects from pesticides
89%
n.a.
Soil
Flooding (property and council damage)
<14%
29 - 128
Soil
Soil cultivation (CO2 loss)
95%
82
Soil
Soil erosion (accidents, stream channels)
95%
9
Soil
Health, life and biodiversity effects from flooding
14%
n.a.
Air
Emission: nitrous oxide
50%
250 - 999
Air
Emission: non methane volatile organic
compounds
8%
6
Air
Emission: (CO2 excluding soil cultivation)
2%
111
Air
Emission: methane
40%
187 - 745
Air
Emission: ammonia
90%
24 - 75
Air
Emission: sulphur dioxide
1%
1-3
Air
Emission: nitrogen oxide
2%
4 - 17
Agricultural
damage cost
£m per year
Table 3.Estimates of the environmental damage cost of agriculture £m per year (20004-05 prices) (adapted
from source 15).
Appendix H
42
Appendix H
However, it is possible to gauge the relative future value of water resources across the UK
using the UKCIP025 climate change scenarios. In particular it is useful to consider the
scenarios relating to soil moisture (Figure 1), as these scenarios incorporate future
changes in precipitation, temperature, evaporation, wind speed and radiation, all of which
influence water regulation. The 2080 data show that both annually, and in the
summer/autumn, the whole country will experience a decrease in average soil moisture,
with the greatest reductions being in south-east England, whereas, in the winter/spring,
soil moisture is generally predicted to increase across the whole country, with the greatest
increases being in the north-west. Although, soil moisture provides a useful starting point
to consider the impacts of climate change on water regulation, it does not incorporate the
rather unpredictable impacts of extreme events.
Figure 1. Percentage change in soil moisture for the 2080s (baseline 1961-1990) across four scenarios.
The resolution of the HadRM3 model output is 50 km by 50 km (taken from source 5).
43
Appendix H
3a. Water quality regulation
The cost of treating surface water to remove agricultural pollutants has been estimated at
£127 to £148 million (2004 prices) per year, which represents 60-70% of the total cost of
water treatment (Table 3). Agriculture thus contributes significantly towards drinking water
pollution, and the key pollutants have been identified 16 (Table 4).
Drinking water
pollutant
Pollutant sources
Pesticides
Nitrate
Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides etc.
Fertilisers, livestock wastes,
mineralization of organic N, atmospheric
depositions.
Phosphate
Primarily soil erosion.
Cryptosporidium Livestock wastes.
Other
Contribution
to total
drinking water
pollution from
agricultural
sources
52%
7%
24%
10%
7%
Table 4. Relative cost of drinking water pollutants from agricultural sources (adapted from source 16).
Pesticides are the major water pollutant, and in extreme cases pesticides contamination
can even result in drinking water intakes being closed (this occurred 3 times in 2006 18).
In direct response to the threat to water supplies from pesticide contamination, and as an
alternative to a pesticide tax, the pesticides’ Voluntary Initiative19 (VI) has been developed.
The VI aims to reduce the risks of contamination of water resources across the 40 priority
Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) catchments by targeting best practice advice to the
individual catchments’ needs. Best practice measures include: optimised chemical use;
resistant varieties and breeds; biological and cultural control; buffer zones; integrated crop
management; and reducing water run-off17.
[Case study 1: Pesticides Voluntary Initiative. Using an ecosystem approach, review
how recommended management practices for the VI influence the provision of ecosystem
services.]
The other three named pollutants in Table 4 (nitrate, phosphate and Cryptosporidium) are
likely to be addressed via a number of current key EU regulatory drivers, such as the
Nitrates Directive7 and the Water Framework Directive8. These pollutants are often
described as diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA), as they originate from a
number of different sources within a catchment and only collectively have a significant and
adverse effect on water quality. In response to these regulatory drivers the Government
has recently finished three public consultations9:
1. The first consultation10 was based on the revised voluntary Codes of Good Agricultural
Practice (CoGAP). The CoGAP outlines practical steps for preventing air, water and
soil pollution from farming activities and is intended to assist land managers in meeting
cross compliance obligations, via Statutory Management Requirements (SMRS) and
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), in order to receive payments
from the Single Payment Scheme (SPS). Of particular interest to water quality are
GAEC 14 (protection of hedgerows and watercourses) and SMR 2 (groundwater) and
44
Appendix H
SMR 4 (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones). It is also of interest to note that GAEC 12 (agricultural
land which is not in agricultural production) has been modified for 2008 to reflect the
interest in safeguarding the environmental benefits of land previously set-aside.
[Case study 2: Single Payment Scheme. Using an ecosystem approach, review how the
measures for GAEC and SMR influence the provision of ecosystem services.]
2. The second consultation11 was a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the
proposals developed in response to the Nitrates Directive. This included measures to
revise the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZs) Action Programme and extend the NVZ
coverage in England (from 55% to about 70%). The Nitrates Directive requires farmers
within NVZs to follow an Action Programme of measures aimed at controlling when,
where, how, and in what amount, nitrogen can be applied to the land. The key
proposals14 for the revised action programme include: limiting application of livestock
manures; limiting the period in which high N manures can be applied; limiting N
application to the crop requirement; identifying and prohibiting N application on
vulnerable land; prohibiting the use of inappropriate spreading techniques; and,
enforcing the establishment of cover crops before spring grown crops. These
measures were derived from a wider range of measures22 developed to support the
consultation.
[Case study 3: Nitrates Directive. Using an ecosystem approach, review how the
measures for the Nitrates Directive influence the provision of ecosystem services.]
3. The third consultation12 was a RIA on the proposals relating to tackling DWPA in
response to the WFD, using phosphorus as an indicator pollutant. Modelling indicated
that agriculture would need to reduce P by 48% to achieve the WFD targets. The
necessary reduction is likely to be achieved via the establishment of ‘water protection
zones’ and potentially by adding to the water protection measures already present in
the Environmental Stewardship (ES) schemes, and extending the England Catchment
Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI). As part of the consultation process 44
methods to control DWPA were established23 as were their practicability, effectiveness,
additional benefits, and risks of pollution swapping.
[Case study 4: Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture. Using an ecosystem
approach, review how the 44 measures for reducing DWPA influence the provision of
ecosystem services.]
In addition to these consultations there is a lot of activity to reduce water pollution via
regionally focused CSF (60) projects20 and associated (20) projects21. For example, the
Cornwall Rivers Project37 (2002- 2006) provided an individually tailored and free
‘Integrated River Basin Resource Management Plan’ that identified targeted farming
practice to improve water quality (e.g. improved nutrient and soil management; pesticide
use efficiency; grants for stock proof fencing; and sediment interceptors).
[Case study 5: Catchment Sensitive Farming. Using an ecosystem approach, review
regionally focussed CSF projects and the provision of ecosystem services.]
45
Appendix H
3b. Water quantity regulation (drought)
The provision of water of sufficient quantity is important to balance the needs of society
(industry, agriculture, and people) and the environment (rivers, lakes, wildlife and habitats),
and for diluting the pollutants described in Section 3a. Agricultural damage costs, as a
result of poor water quality and low flows, have been estimated at £183 to £456 million per
year for rivers and £13 million to £41 million per year for wetlands (Table 3). Despite these
high damage costs, agriculture is only a relatively minor contributor to the total problem
(25% to 35%), as most water is abstracted for public use; for example, in the Warwickshire
Avon Catchment28 81% of licensed abstraction is used for public water supply25.
The Environment Agency has identified areas of water stress in England26 (Figure
2) using a number of criteria: current per capita demand for water; forecast growth per
capita demand for water; forecast population growth; current water resource availability;
and - importantly from a climate change perspective - forecast resource availability.
Although this calculation only reflects the amount of water available per person, it can also
provide an indirect assessment of environmental water stress and the Environment
Agency is developing its approach to water resources management to reflect both the
needs of people and the environment. This approach is in the form of regional Catchment
Abstraction Management Strategies28 (CAMS). Originally there were 129 CAMS in
England, but this number is projected to fall to 101 by 2014 to align CAMS boundaries with
other initiatives such as the WFD. Each CAM region is being assessed30 comprehensively
to facilitate sub-regional management of abstraction licences. For example, the
Warwickshire Avon catchment is subdivided into 15 (surface) Water Resource
Management Units (WRMU), and 7 Groundwater Management Units (GWMU). Of these
22 management units, 4 are ‘over-licensed’ (existing authorised abstraction, if used at full
allocation at low flows, would cause unacceptable environmental damage) and 4 are ‘overabstracted (existing abstraction is causing unacceptable damage to the environment at low
flows). An understanding of the catchment at this scale enables licenses to be tailored to
the particular needs of the area, and low-flow thresholds to be set, below which abstraction
must be stopped - termed ‘hands-off flow’ (HOF) conditions. Additionally the CAMs
process allows the number of licences to be carefully controlled. Increasingly, in order to
gain or renew licences, abstractors are required to demonstrate a minimum level of wateruse efficiency (WUE). To assist farmers in becoming water efficient, the Environment
Agency has published guidance36 on a series of WUE measures, using an on-farm water
audit as a starting point. The recommended actions are subdivided into seven categories:
all farms; dairy farms; pig and poultry farms; irrigators; washing vegetables; in the home /
office. The actions range from simple leak detection, to installing rainwater harvesting
systems. A further study35 has also assessed adaptation options for the rural sector in
response to climate change.
[Case study 6: Water-Use Efficiency. Using an ecosystem approach, review WUE
measures on the provision of ecosystem services.]
46
Appendix H
Figure 2. Map of areas of relative water stress, by water company area (taken from source 26).
From an ecosystem services perspective, CAMS ‘value’ the need to regulate water to
protect the natural environment and operate at an appropriate spatial and temporal scale.
In some cases abstraction licenses have even been reduced or revoked in order to protect
the environment (e.g. to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive 24, 31). Abstractors
are currently compensated for their loss through the abstraction charging system; however
there is some uncertainty if funds will be available to compensate all abstractors for future
losses. This threat has lead to the agricultural industry organising themselves into Water
Abstractors Groups32 (WAGs) to lobby the Environment Agency and other stakeholders
about the importance of irrigation in the production of quality food.
[Case study 7: Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies. Using an ecosystem
approach, review the CAMs process for providing ecosystem services. In particular,
determine the flexibility of CAMs to balance the need to provide agricultural products in the
UK with the needs of the environment, and the potential of licence trading.]
It is important to remember, however, that management of the demand from agriculture is
only a small component of the total demand. The biggest potential water savings will
come through incentives that make the public use water more efficiently, e.g. via initiatives
such as compulsory metering (which immediately attributes an economic value to each
unit of water consumed). Agriculture is also increasingly supplying water, albeit to satisfy
its own needs in the first instance (e.g. through winter storage reservoirs).
47
Appendix H
[Case study 8: Water Supply. What is the potential for agriculture to supply water for its
own needs, and the needs of the public and industry? What mechanisms exist for water
storage, and how do these mechanisms influence the provision of ecosystem services?]
3c. Water quantity regulation (flood)
1.74 million properties in floodplains along rivers, estuaries and coasts in England and
Wales are potentially at risk from river (fluvial) or coastal flooding. The number of
properties at risk from flash (pluvial) flooding events is unknown. Annual flood damage is
estimated to cost around £1 billion a year, and the price of flood management cost £439
million in 2003-04. In addition to these known costs, there is also a series of costs that
cannot be measured so easily, such as the health implications of polluted water, the stress
of damage, and fear of repeat flooding38.
Agriculture can contribute to the pressure from flooding, and this contribution is
largely through its effects on soil. One of agriculture’s major impacts is in the conversion
of ‘natural’ ecosystems into land for agricultural use, but other impacts include the
influence on the structure and organic matter content of soil, drainage, and
sedimentation17. However, it has been estimated that in 2004-05 agriculture contributed
only 14% towards the flood damage bill (Table 3). Additionally, studies that review the
impact of farming on flood risk frequently fail to establish a clear relationship between land
use/management changes and flood risk at the catchment level, and most evidence from
farm scale studies is anecdotal, with a general lack of monitoring evidence to demonstrate
or quantify benefits. However, some models have demonstrated some cost effective
solutions (e.g. buffer strips) when targeted at problematic land parcels, and there is also
strong scientific evidence that reducing surface runoff across the catchment has a range of
benefits, including flood prevention. Surface runoff will be tackled by the WFD, the Floods
Directive and the ECSFDI46. Where a clear relationship can be established between
flooding and land management, people are already protected by law, which may result in
land management practices being altered, with the cost borne by farmers15.
The potential impact of climate change on average annual flood damage has
recently been estimated in the Future Flooding report38. The report estimated that if floodmanagement policies and expenditure were to remain unchanged, annual flood losses
would increase under every climate change scenario by the 2080s (ranging from less than
£1 billion to £27 billion). These costs are also an underestimate, as they exclude
consequential losses like disruption to the transportation system. Figure 3 demonstrates
how the distribution of damage across the country varies widely for the scenarios, with
some parts of the country consistently having the worst increases, such as the
Lancashire/Humber corridor, parts of the coast (particularly in the south-east) and major
estuaries.
48
Appendix H
Figure 3. The distribution of average annual damage from flooding across England and Wales in the 2080s.
The maps represent changes in risk by the 2080s for four future scenarios. Darker shades of red signify
progressively greater increases in damage. Green signifies a reduction (taken from source 38).
The Pitt Review39 is the most recent assessment of flooding and was published in
response to the summer floods of 2007. It stated that the, ‘distribution, timing and intensity
of rainfall and the dynamics of water flow once rain hits the ground are notoriously
complex to model. Also, the nature of flooding is changing…the greater intensity of rainfall
and increasing urbanisation are leading to more flash floods caused by water running off
the surface of the land. River, surface water and groundwater flooding all took place this
summer, adding to the complications’.
The complexity of flooding makes it very difficult to understand the potential impact
of climate change, especially in relation to surface water flooding. The review does make
recommendations about how to proceed, placing development control (i.e. not developing
in areas of high risk) as a priority. It also highlighted the need for bigger and more
extensive flood defences, but also the need to complement these with ‘natural solutions’.
The ‘natural solutions’ mentioned are on the same financial scale as the man-made
solutions, and include creating washlands and wetlands, and the managed realignment of
49
Appendix H
coasts and rivers. Approval of such major capital projects in England will become the
responsibility of the Environment Agency this year (April 1st)41. Such solutions will deliver
measurable benefits, but the real challenge for flood risk management is to assess the
potential of relatively minor changes in land use/management, that could be adopted
widely within a catchment, and the subsequent impact on flood risk.
The Government strategy, entitled Making Space for Water40 (MSfW) outlines a
vision for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England, and this vision includes
major projects (such as realignment) but also minor actions that, when coordinated at the
catchment level, could produce a significant benefit. Measures include ‘taking maximum
advantage from the status of flood management as a secondary objective in the
Environmental Stewardship scheme’. Some would argue that if flood management is truly
important, its status should be promoted to a primary objective within this and other similar
schemes.
A report46, compiled to assist the delivery of MSfW, reviewed existing mechanisms
(like ES) that already contain measures that could assist in flood regulation, and could be
modified to incorporate additional measures (Table 5). This is considered important as the
authors stressed that it would be hard to justify the creation of new schemes to tackle
flooding because of, ‘the lack of robust evidence for land use/management impacts on
catchment scale flood risk’.
[Case study 9: Flood Risk Management Mechanisms. Using an ecosystem approach
review the ability of existing policies/mechanisms to incorporate FRM.]
The same report also summarised a comprehensive scientific review (Defra project
FD211448, 49, 50) which looked into the impacts of key rural land use and management on
flood generation (Table 6).
Finally, the report summarised 21 (15 catchment scale, 6 farm scale) case studies dealing
with land use/management changes to increase environmental benefits, including flood
regulation. The management techniques used within these projects included: willow and
alder carr to trap silt; wetland and washland creation; interception and infiltration ponds;
flood water storage in ditches; afforestation; moorland grip blocking; river restoration; and,
changed farm practices (e.g. contour ploughing, buffer strips, under-sowing, uncultivated
zones, reducing grazing pressure).
[Case study 10: Flood Risk Management Case Studies. Using an ecosystem approach,
review 21 case studies dealing with land use/management changes.]
50
Appendix H
Policy/mechanism
Single Payment
Scheme (SPS)
Entry Level
Stewardship (ELS)
Higher Level
Stewardship (HLS)
Catchment
Sensitive Farming
(CSF)
Woodland Grants
Scheme
Flood Risk
Management
Policy
Potential for delivery of flood risk management (FRM)
Contains a range of measures that relate to FRM, notably measures to
help prevent soil problems: protecting land from overgrazing; leaving
land uncultivated two meters from a watercourse; and, not removing
hedgerows. The SPS offers the potential to deliver basic, but potentially
widespread land management practice changes that can deliver flood
risk benefits.
ELS includes several options that relate to FRM: the management of
high erosion risk cultivated land; options for buffer strips on cultivated
land; maintaining over winter stubbles on arable land; preparing soil
management plans; ditch management; maintaining fences to prevent
damage to woodland from overgrazing; and, protecting permanently
waterlogged [upland] soils; and, not installing new land drainage or
modifying existing drainage that would increase run-off.
Additional options, such as moorland grip blocking, could be added to
ELS, and some options, such as cutting vegetation in ditches every
winter, could be removed, as the action could lead to increased flood
risk in the lower catchment.
HLS includes several options that relate to FRM: the creation of infield
grass areas to prevent erosion and run-off; reverting from arable to
grassland, to prevent erosion or run-off; creation of inter-tidal and saline
habitat on arable land or grassland; preventing erosion or run-off from
intensively managed improved grassland; creation of wet grassland;
inundation grassland supplement; moorland re-wetting supplement;
creation of coastal vegetated shingle and sand dunes; creation of
reedbeds; and, the creation of fen.
HLS already enables the landowner to apply for capital grants for
themselves and communal schemes to address environmental issues,
including FRM.
Although primarily advisory (e.g. assisting the development of soil
management plans) there is limited funding through a centralised CSF
Capital Grant for small scale works, such as watercourse fencing, tree
planting, and sediment pond creation.
Grants are available for the stewardship of existing woodland, and for
the creation of new woodlands. Grants known as annual Farm
Woodland Payments are also available for loss of agricultural income.
The former grants are issued if applications accrue a number of points
for initiatives that include ‘creation of floodplain woodland’, and ‘use
woodland to improve soil quality, water quality and quantity’.
Provides a financial mechanism to fund land management changes
through Defra grant aid.
Table 5. Existing mechanisms that already contain measures that could assist in FRM, and could be
modified to incorporate additional measures (adapted from source 46).
51
Appendix H
Main land
use/practice
Scientific
Understanding
Cultivation
techniques
Good quantifiable
evidence that
cultivation techniques
significantly affect
surface runoff.
Pasture
Large extent of
grassland land-use or
land management
change required to
produce relatively
modest reduction or
delay in downstream
flood peaks.
Impacts relatively well
understood.
Agricultural
drainage
Peat drainage
and grip
blocking
Actual impact varies
according to peat type,
climate, and catchment
characteristics.
Afforestation
and
deforestation
Evidence that wellmanaged forests can
help reduce local
flooding and peak flows
for smaller, more
frequent events, but not
for extreme events at
the catchment scale.
Growing evidence that
riparian and floodplain
woodland can
attenuate flood
propagation through
increased hydraulic
roughness, reducing
flood flows and
increasing downstream
time to peak.
Uncertainties/
knowledge
gaps
Ongoing
research
Uncertainty
how local
changes impact
at the
catchment
scale.
Runoff
processes at
the field scale
vary spatially
and also year
to year at the
same location.
Ripon multi
objective pilot
and Parrett
Catchment
project.
Research at
Pontbren on
upland land
management
impacts.
Conservation,
diffuse
pollution, and
biodiversity.
Necessary to
understand
land
management of
the catchment
to the field
scale.
Nafferton
Farm
Proactive
Runoff
Management
project and
Ripon Multiobjective pilot
study.
Research
project on
peat
hydrology by
United
Utilities
(SCaMP)
Biodiversity.
Defra project
SLD2316,
Restoring
Floodplain
Woodland for
Flood
Alleviation,
aims to
establish
feasibility.
Biodiversity
carbon and
nutrient
storage, and
mitigation
against diffuse
pollution.
Uncertain
whether longterm changes
in peat
hydrology are
reversible.
Limited
understanding
how climate
change may
affect drainage.
Floodplain
woodland must
be strategically
situated
because
increased
floodplain
roughness may
enhance
flooding
upstream.
Wider
benefits of
positive
management
Conservation,
diffuse
pollution, and
biodiversity.
Opportunities
to restore
priority
habitats,
minimize
carbon loss,
and improve
water quality.
Table 6. Summary of scientific understanding, ongoing research, and wider benefits for land practices
(adapted from source 46).
52
Appendix H
Coordination of FRM to maximise benefits is a considerable challenge, however, this will
start to be addressed through the instigation of Catchment Flood Management Plans
(CFMPs) by the Environment Agency which aim to ‘identify broad policies for sustainable
flood risk management within individual catchments for the long term (50 -100 years), and
are designed to incorporate predicted changes to the climate’42. Catchments are the
logical spatial unit for FRM to begin (CFMP boundaries are illustrated in figure 4), but
require an in-depth understanding of the many local-scale effects that combine to provide
the wider problem46.
Figure 4. Plan of CFMP Catchment Boundaries (taken from source 42).
CFMPs are still under development but some have been published already 43. Each
provides a detailed assesment of the catchment (climate, typography, geology, hydrology,
wildlife, recreational value, land use, flood risks, and risk management), and also projects
future changes and possible management responses. For example, in the north east
region, the Derwent pilot CFMP44 is already available. The Derwent catchment is a
predominantly rural area (upper catchment is mainly heather and grass moorland, lower
catchment is mainly arable) and is further subdivided into six geographic areas (Policy
Units) in which targeted actions, lead and supporting organisations to deliver these
actions, and timescales have been identified. Actions relevant to agricultural land
management include: increasing the number and area of wetland sites; enhancing
biodiversity; reviewing stocking levels; reviewing sowing of crops; introducing buffer strips;
increasing meanders; increasing forestation; increasing flood storage; and slowing the
rate of land erosion through ES uptake. Although this CFMP will lead to benefits in terms
of flood regulation, it has caused concern amongst the agricultural community, in particular
53
Appendix H
the proposed restoration of the natural floodplain, which would result in the loss of 1000s
of acres of productive arable land45. It is important that such mechanisms use the
ecosystems approach to justify, through a clear explanation of the benefits, why it is
necessary to take such actions.
[Case study 11: Catchment Flood Management Plans. Using an ecosystem approach,
review FRM actions outlined in the published CFMPs.]
It is important to note that a new directive on flood risk management came into force at the
end of 2007. The Floods Directive47, which is synergistic with the WFD, will require
Member States to undertake preliminary flood risk assessments (by 2011), develop flood
hazard and flood risk maps (by 2013), and to draw up flood risk management plans, with a
focus on prevention (by 2015). However, it is acknowledged that in the UK we are already
well prepared to meet the Directive’s needs.
4. Discussion
During the case study phase of this project it will be necessary to value ecosystems
services at least to some degree, and an ‘Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem
Services’ 51 has been published, alongside the ecosystem approach document, to assist
this valuation process (from a policy appraisal perspective). The guide states that
attributing an economic value is a challenge, due the uncertainty about how ecosystems
interrelate to provide services, and how ecosystems function, but it also argues that a
‘perfect’ ecosystem service valuation may not actually be required. Any system that
makes people value the wider impact of management change is a sensible starting point,
and such a system is presented within this report in the form of an ‘initial checklist’. The
checklist requires a simple assessment (Table 7) of the effect of a change on the range of
ecosystem services (detailed in the Action Plan) against a ‘do-nothing’ baseline.
Score
++
+
0
-?
Assessment of Effect
Potential significant positive effect
Potential positive effect
Negligible effect
Potential negative effect
Potential significant negative effect
Gaps in evidence
Table 7. Qualitative assessment of potential change/s on ecosystem services.
Such a simple approach to valuation will unearth challenges; for example, some actions,
such as afforestation, could have beneficial effects on water quality, but could also
increase the risk of flooding upstream. However, both of these would need to be
considered under the ecosystem service of ‘water regulation’ in the checklist. Also, in
terms of broad recommendations, it would be impossible to know how negative, or indeed
positive, the upstream flooding would actually be, without detailed knowledge of the
characteristics of the specific area in which afforestation was to occur. Thus, management
actions to effectively deliver most ecosystem services will require some degree of regional
targeting, even if this is at the relatively large spatial scale of government office regions, or
catchments.
54
Appendix H
In terms of valuing ecosystem services in relation to land management, Defra project
NR01073 made an initial assessment of the ecosystem concept in relation to England’s
terrestrial ecosystems, and highlighted two potential approaches:
1. A ‘habitats approach’ which focuses on the BAP4 [UK Biodiversity Action Plan]
Broad and Priority Habitats, and reviews which goods and services they provide.
2. A ‘services approach’ which focuses on the identification of the ecological
functions and processes that generate the service.
Although a useful starting point, through our experience, we strongly believe that the focus
should be on environmental benefits. An environmental benefit is a ‘product’ that is
directly valued (enjoyed, consumed, or used) by humans. Clean drinking water - the
provision of water of an appropriate quantity and quality to water companies - is an
example of an environmental benefit. The ecosystem services involved in producing it
include: the ‘supporting service’ of water cycling; the ‘provisioning service’ of fresh water;
and, the ‘regulating service’ of ‘water purification’.
A focus on the benefit allows the real ‘products’ that people value to be appreciated.
People don’t value ‘pollination’; they value the products of pollination (e.g. apples they eat,
and the aesthetic value of wild flowers). A focus on benefits also removes the risk of
double counting, as, for example, a service like erosion regulation can be valued in itself,
but also contributes to the value of ‘water quality regulation’ (eroded soil particles can
reduce water quality), ‘flood regulation’ (eroded soil particles can clog rivers), ‘air quality
regulation’ (eroded particles can be blown into the atmosphere), and ‘natural hazard
regulation’ (erosion can increase risk of landslides). It was for this reason that in the initial
assessment of regulating services we took the decision to remove erosion regulation as a
service, as its value could be incorporated fully within the other services. We therefore
propose an extension to the ideas presented above to place more emphasis on the
environmental benefits, rather than the ecosystem service.
1. The ‘land unit approach’ (a ‘bottom-up’ approach) in which a parcel of land is
assessed to ascertain what environmental benefits it can help supply.
2. A ‘benefits approach’ (a ‘top-down’ approach) which focuses on the environmental
benefits. The approach starts by asking what society ‘wants’ (e.g. drinking water,
and fish), and how much they want it - the ‘demand’. The approach then asks how
a particular system (e.g. agricultural) can influence the ‘supply’, and at what cost.
Ideally the first step for the ecosystem approach would be to create an inventory of the
environmental benefits that people want, and how much they want them. This would
enable the process to operate much more like a conventional commodity that could be
‘traded’. The focus on environmental benefits also removes the problem of particular
actions causing both positive and negative effects within a particular service (as illustrated
in the example on afforestation mentioned earlier). Societal needs will also need to be
tailored regionally, as, like conventional commodities, demand for most environmental
benefits are not be homogeneous across the UK. Only when we fully understand what
people want, can we ascertain the true demand and thus take appropriate actions to
influence the supply. It is recommended that the case study phase of this project adopts a
benefits approach, where possible.
[Case study 12: Environmental Benefits. Establish an inventory of environmental
benefits that agriculture influences.]
55
Appendix H
Once societal needs have been elucidated, the next logical step is to establish/review
limits (the level of provision that is judged to be acceptable) for environmental benefits and
develop a suite of environmental indicators to monitor these limits. In many cases
potential indicators already exist, for example indicators are, and are being, developed to
assist the implementation of the WFD37. For the case study phase it would be advisable to
establish the level of knowledge on environmental thresholds (natural limits of a system),
managed limits and indicators for any given environmental benefit.
As mentioned throughout this document, the major challenge for ecosystem
services from a climate change perspective is to understand how ecosystems deliver
environmental benefits today and how much they are currently valued in order to make
sensible future projections. But one of the key challenges for ecosystem services more
generally is the coordination of the ecosystem approach across a wide range of disciplines
and organisations. The problem of coordination is highlighted by the fact that many of the
mechanisms with the greatest potential for embedding ecosystem services in land
management are not unified across England and Wales. For example, the Rural
Payments Agency (which administers the SPS), the Making Space for Water initiative, the
three consultations on DWPA, and the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Initiative,
are all being conducted for England only. Defra needs to clearly establish who is
responsible for developing the ecosystems approach in Wales, as this will influence the
level of coordination that will be required. A further challenge for coordinating the
ecosystems approach is in integrating existing potential mechanisms for ecosystem
service delivery (CSF, SPS, HLS, ELS, CAMS, CFMPs etc.) to guarantee complementary
objectives and to maximise synergies. And the final challenge for coordination will be to
ensure that incentives, such as those in the ES schemes, are taken up widely across
vulnerable regions so that measurable differences in the level of environmental benefits
can be achieved.
The final general challenge for ecosystem services is to ensure that the approach
really is carried out holistically. It is crucial to remember that the provisioning services that
agricultural systems provide would rank high in the inventory of societal needs. Arguably
the limits for acceptable provision from UK agriculture would be one of the first limits to be
established and monitored to ensure production above these limits.
There is currently a lot of activity in developing the ecosystems approach within
Defra, Natural England, Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission and the
ecosystems approach is being embedded in their strategies for policy development and
implementation2. It will be necessary to discuss the extent to which these suggested case
studies will be addressed through parallel initiatives by such, or similar organisations. For
example, Defra will be reviewing how existing Environmental Stewardship schemes are
delivering ecosystem services, and how they could be adapted to deliver them more
effectively, and the current review on ES schemes will establish how climate change can
be incorporated more fully. In our opinion the ES scheme is an excellent vehicle for the
delivery of ecosystem services in the first instance, for several reasons: the mechanism
already exists; is funded; is realistic; does not jeopardise farm profitability; and, offers the
potential to be tailored and coordinated to suit regional vulnerability, via organisation like
Natural England.
56
Appendix H
List of Abbreviations
BAP
CAMS
CFMPs
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies
Catchment Flood Management Plans
CH4
Methane
CO2
CoGAP
CSF
DEFRA
DWI
DWPA
EA
ECSFDI
ELS
ES
FRM
GAEC
GMU
HLS
HOF
MA
MSfW
Carbon Dioxide
Codes of Good Agricultural Practice
Catchment Sensitive Farming
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Drinking Water Inspectorate
Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture
Environment Agency
England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery
Initiative
Entry Level Stewardship
Environmental Stewardship
Flood Risk Management
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
Groundwater Management Units
Higher Level Stewardship
Hands-Off Flow
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Making Space for Water
N2O
Nitrous Oxide
NH3
NVZ
Ammonia
Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
O3
PM
RIA
SMRs
SPS
VI
WAGs
WFD
WRMU
WUE
Ozone
Particulate Matter
Regulatory Impact Assessment
Statutory Management Requirements
Single Payment Scheme
Pesticides Voluntary Initiative
Water Abstractors Groups
Water Framework Directive
Water Resource Management Units
Water-Use Efficiency
57
Appendix H
1. MEA (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being. Island Press. Millennium.
2. Defra (2007), Securing a Healthy Natural Environment: An Action Plan for Embedding
an Ecosystems Approach.
3. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2007): The Ecosystem Concept and the
Identification of Ecosystem Goods and Services in the English Policy Context. Review
Paper to Defra, Project Code NR0107, 21pp.
4. Biodiversity Action Plan, Habitat List: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/habitats.aspx (Accessed
03/01/2008).
5. Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J.,
Murphy, J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S. (2002), Climate
Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of
East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 120pp.
6. Defra (2002), Directing the flow: Priorities for future water policy.
7. European Commission, Nitrates Directive:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html (accessed
07/01/2008).
8. European Commission, Water Framework Directive:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html (accessed
07/01/2008).
9. Defra (2007), Consultation on diffuse sources of water pollution from agriculture:
Defuse Sources: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waterpollutiondiffuse/index.htm (accessed 07/01/2008).
10. Defra (2007), Draft Code of Good Agricultural Practice to protect water, soil and air
quality.
11. Defra (2007), Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on Proposals to revise Nitrate
Vulnerable Zone (NVZs) Action Programme and extend NVZ coverage in England.
12. Defra (2007), Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on proposals relating to tackling
diffuse pollution from agriculture.
13. Defra (2007), Single Payment Scheme: The Guide to Cross Compliance in England
14. Defra (2007). The Protection of Waters against Pollution from Agriculture: Consultation
on implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.
15. Environment Agency (2007), The total external environmental costs and benefits of
agriculture in the UK.
16. Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R.E., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L., Raven, H.,
Rayment, M.D. and van der Bij, G. (2002), An Assessment of the Total External Costs
of UK Agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65 (2), 113-136.
17. Environment Agency (2002), Agriculture and natural resources: benefits, costs and
potential solutions.
18. Environment Agency, Pesticide Pollution Incidents: http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/1190084/business_industry/agri/pests/1625781/?lang=_e
(accessed 08/01/2008).
19. Pesticides Voluntary Initiative:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/water/csf/catchments/priority/pesticides.htm
#1 (accessed 08/01/2008)
20. Defra (2006), Case Studies Aimed At Reducing Diffuse Water Pollution From
Agriculture In England
21. ECSFDI, Associated Projects:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/water/csf/catchments/associate-projects.htm
(accessed 08/01/2008)
58
Appendix H
22. Defra (2007), Diffuse nitrate pollution from agriculture – strategies for reducing nitrate
leaching. ADAS report to Defra, supporting paper D3 for the consultation on
implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.
23. Defra (2006), An Inventory of Methods to Control Diffuse Water Pollution from
Agriculture (DWPA). ADAS/IGER report to Defra - supporting Defra project ES0203.
24. POSTNOTE (2006), Balancing Water Supply and the Environment. February 2006,
Number 259.
25. Environment Agency (2006), The Warwickshire Avon Catchment Abstraction
Management Strategy.
26. Environment Agency (2007), Identifying areas of water stress. Consultation document.
27. Downing, T.E., Butterfield, R.E., Edmonds, B., Knox, J.W., Moss, S., Piper, B.S. and
Weatherhead, E.K. (and the CCDeW project team) (2003), Climate Change and the
Demand for Water, Research Report. Stockholm Environment Institute Oxford Office,
Oxford.
28. Environment Agency (2002), Managing Water Abstraction the Catchment Abstraction
Management Strategy process.
29. Environment Agency (2005), The Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy
Process. Managing Water Abstraction - Interim Update.
30. Enviroment Agency, regional CAMS development: http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/waterres/564321/309477/568017/?version=1&lang=_e
(accessed 09/01/2008).
31. European Commission, Habitats Directive,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm(acce
ssed 09/01/2008).
32. A fair share of water for agriculture: a strategy for irrigation in Eastern England:
http://www.ukia.org/flyers/5020%20-%20EEDA%20Water%20Brochure%20A-W.pdf
(accessed 09/01/2008).
33. The Water Strategy: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/strategy/index.htm
(accessed 09/01/08).
34. Environment Agency, Water Resources Strategy: http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/waterres/981441/137651/?version=1&lang=_e (accessed
09/01/08).
35. Weatherhead E.K., Knox J.W., de Vries T.T., Ramsden S., Gibbons J., Arnell N.W.,
Odoni N., Hiscock K., Sandhu C., Saich A., Conway D., Warwick C., Bharwani S.,
Hossell J. and Clemence B. (2005), Sustainable water resources: A framework for
assessing adaptation options in the rural sector. Tyndall Centre Technical Report,
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UEA, Norwich.
36. Environment Agency (2007),Waterwise on the farm, Version 2: A simple guide to
implementing a water management plan.
37. Westcountry Rivers Trust (2006), Cornwall rivers project: final report of project activities
(2006).
38. Office of Science and Technology (2004), Foresight: Future Flooding. Executive
Summary.
39. The Pitt Review (2007), Learning lessons from the 2007 floods An independent review
by Sir Michael Pitt.
40. Defra (2005), Making Space for Water: Taking forward a new Government strategy for
flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. First Government response to
the autumn 2004 Making space for water consultation exercise.
59
Appendix H
41. Environment Agency, funding for major capital projects for flood risk management:
http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/1217883/1217968/1826527/?lang=_e (accessed
11/01/2008).
42. Environment Agency (2004), Catchment Flood Management Plans. Volume I – Policy
Guidance. July 2004
43. Environment Agency, Catchment Flood Management Plans: http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/1217883/1217968/907676/999493/?version=1&lang=_e
(accessed 11/01/08)
44. Environment Agency (2007), Managing Flood Risk: Yorkshire Derwent Catchment
Flood Management Plan, March 2007.
45. Malton and Pickering Mercury, Flood 'Management' Plan may be worst disaster of
them all: http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/Flood-39management39-plan-maybe.3371879.jp (accessed 11/01/2008).
46. Environment Agency (2007), Delivery of Making Space for Water, HA6 Catchment
Scale Land-Use Management, HA7 Land Management Practices. Interim Report
(Draft) September 2007
47. European Commission, Floods Directive:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/implem.htm (accessed 14/01/2008)
48. Defra and Environment Agency (2004), Review of the impacts of rural land use and
management on flood generation. Impact Study report, R&D Technical Report
FD2114/TR.
49. Defra and Environment Agency (2004), Review of the impacts of rural land use and
management on flood generation. Research Plan. R&D Technical Report FD2114/PR1.
50. Defra and Environment Agency (2004), Review of the impacts of rural land use and
management on flood generation. Current state of managed rural land and mitigation
measures. R&D Technical Report. FD2114/TR.
51. Defra (2007), An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services.
60
Appendix I
An ecosystem service cascade – the logic underlying the ecosystem services
paradigm (taken from Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. and D. Cheshire. (2006),
Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development. A Scoping
Study. Final Overview Report to Defra, 44 pp, Project Code NR0102).
61
Appendix J
An Ecosystem Approach (EsA) for
Agricultural Land Management
A User Guide
Prepared as part of Defra project AC0308
Ecosystem Services for Climate change Adaptation in Agricultural Land
Management
August 31st 2008
Authors:
Jason Pole, Rosemary Collier, Robert Lillywhite, and Peter Mills
(Warwick HRI, the University of Warwick)
If you use this document please cite as:
Pole, J., Collier, R., Lillywhite, R. and Mills, P. (2008), Ecosystem Services for
Climate Change Adaptation in Agricultural Land Management. Defra project
AC0308.
62
Contents
Appendix J
Introduction
Tracking the evidence base: the use of comment boxes (CBs)
64
1. Demand Parameters
1.1
Column A: Natural and managed goods and services: Themes
1.2
Column B: Natural and managed goods and services: Products
1.3
Column C: Desired Outcomes
1.4
The Demand/Supply Parameters sheet
1.5
Column D: Product Value
66
66
68
69
70
72
2. Supply Parameters
2.1
Column E onwards: management options
2.2
Marginal change in supply
2.3
Marginal change in value
2.4
The percentage uncertainty supply score and uncertainty range
75
75
75
76
77
3. Outcomes
77
The Dynamic Evidence-Based Knowledge Feedback System
79
References
80
Annex 1. MA Typology of ecosystem services
81
Annex 2. Illustration of evidence/information required for use
within comment boxes
83
63
Appendix J
Introduction
The Convention on Biological Diversity8 has defined the ecosystem approach (EsA) as:
“…a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that
promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.”
The use of the EsA is consistent with the Government’s vision for the natural environment
as described within the Public Service Agreement 289:
“…the Government’s vision is to secure a diverse, healthy and resilient natural
environment, which provides the basis for everyone’s well-being, health and prosperity
now and in the future; and where the value of the services provided by the natural
environment are reflected in decision-making.”
This PSA along with climate change are the top two strategic priorities for Defra 10. At the
End of 2007, Defra published two documents as an initial step to embed an EsA in policymaking and delivery1,3.
Central to any EsA is the concept that the natural and managed environment produces a
range of goods and services. Global recognition of the importance of such goods and
services to human well-being was achieved through the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA)2.
Natural goods and services are provided by natural processes that have historically been
undervalued or not valued at all. Examples of such services (Annex 1) from the MA would
include:




The provision of fresh water;
The provision of wild food, feed and fibre;
The regulation of air quality;
The regulation of the climate.
Managed goods and services are provided through the management of natural goods and
services and frequently have a clear economic value. Examples of such services from the
MA would include:

The provision of cultivated food, feed and fibre.
When natural goods and services are used to assist the production of managed goods and
services they are often used unsustainably (at a faster rate than they can be replaced
naturally). An example would be the use of soil nutrients to produce cultivated crops.
Some reasons as to why natural goods and services are often undervalued and used
unsustainably include:



That they are natural and do not incur costs traditionally accounted for (e.g. labour
costs and capital costs).
That they are ‘used’ relatively slowly and as a consequence it often takes many
years for them to drop below a threshold where their unsustainable consumption is
noticed.
That they arise through complicated and often poorly understood processes.
64
Appendix J
This EsA, hereafter referred to as ‘the EsA Matrix’, aims to provide a framework in which to
evaluate the environmental, economic and social effects of land management decisions
and has the potential to be used at a range of spatial and temporal scales. The EsA
Matrix has a particular use in assessing the wider implications of decision making and
enables decisions to be made based on best available knowledge. Decisions are made
through assessing marginal changes in the value of goods and services. This value, as
endorsed by the MA, is measured through impacts on human well-being. Although an
idealistic measure of value, human well-being is fundamental to the success of any EsA as
it accepts that many natural goods and services are frequently difficult to value
economically, and additionally provides justification for decisions that would not be
acceptable if only viewed from an economic perspective.
The EsA operates via an Excel-based matrix (EsA Template.xls) which is divided into
three main sections (Demand Parameters; Supply Parameters; and Outcomes) which will
be described in the remainder of this guide.
Tracking the evidence base: the use of comment boxes
A key component of the EsA is its ability to track the evidence used within decision
making. This enables external stakeholders to clearly see how particular management
choices have been made.
Tracking is enabled through utilising comment boxes within Excel. Comment boxes can
be inserted within any cell by:
1. Selecting the desired cell in which the comment is to be made.
2. Right clicking the mouse and selecting insert comment from the menu.
Figure 1. A Comment Box within Excel.
Once a cell has had a comment box embedded within it a red mark is displayed in the top
right hand corner. Moving the cursor over such a cell displays its embedded comment.
Clicking within the cell and right clicking the mouse enables the Comment Box to be edited
or deleted by selecting the appropriate option from the menu.
Figure 2. The edit menu for comment boxes within Excel.
65
Appendix J
The use of Comment Boxes will be discussed in the relevant sections of this User’s Guide
(and are summarised in Annex 2) but all have the primary aim of tracking evidence-based
changes within the Matrix.
Ideally any reasoning should be backed up with a full reference. The full reference should
be entered on the Comment Box Reference Index sheet on the next available entry line.
The associated reference number should be cited after the relevant evidence in the
comment box in the following format: (ref n).
For practical reasons, where significant amendments to the evidence base are being
made, this process may be facilitated by structuring the evidence in a word processing
document. All the data can then be transferred to the EsA Matrix on a single occasion.
1 Demand Parameters
The Demand Parameters section clarifies two key questions:
a) What are the goods and services demanded from our natural and managed
environment? (columns A-B).
b) What is the ‘value’ of those goods and services? (columns C-D).
1.1 Column A: Natural and managed goods and services : Themes
Column A can be viewed as a list of themes7. There are two primary reasons for using
themes to describe goods and services:
1. Themes, and associated products (column B), develop the ecosystem service
classifications (the ‘typology’) promoted by the MA (see Annex 1) into a practical
framework through highlighting ecosystem services with a direct value to humanwell being. This, as a consequence, minimises the risk of overlap, and the risk of
double counting (see Box 1).
2. Themes can be interpreted and understood by the general public which assists with
efforts to increase awareness about how they impact upon well-being.
Themes should be designed to represent natural and managed goods and services with a
direct value to human well-being. For example, Clean Water for Human Consumption is a
suitable theme category. A theme entitled Fresh Water (as used within the MA Typology)
would not be adequate. This is because fresh water has value to all species (not just
humans) amongst many other additional uses, such as irrigation water for the production
of food crops. In these two cases it would be individual species, and specific food crops
that carry the direct value to human well-being. Although a difficult concept to master, it is
critical to aid understanding of how goods and services contribute to human well-being and
how to minimise the risk of double counting values. Box 1 attempts to visualise this
concept to assist understanding.
66
Appendix J
Box 1. Minimising double counting through a direct value approach.
A major challenge in the application of an ecosystem approach is minimising the
issue of double counting. Double counting occurs when values are captured more
than once in a valuation process. This difficulty can be illustrated through valuing the
contribution of fresh water to human well-being. Fresh water is valuable to human
well-being directly, but also indirectly. The direct value of water to humans can be
captured in the demand for clean water for human consumption. However, fresh
water also has an indirect value to human well-being. This indirect value would
include the value of water to food crop irrigation, and the value of water in supporting
‘other’ life. It is the food crops and other life (biodiversity) which has the direct value
to human-well being.
The other elements of demand (products) and supply illustrated in the diagram will be explained in
subsequent sections.
Some potential theme categories are provided in Table 1, which includes a category for
biodiversity. The capacity of this EsA to allow for the addition of a category for biodiversity
is a particular strength. The MA does not list biodiversity within its typology as its value is
captured through the ecosystem services biodiversity provides. However, a range of
biodiversity indicators, such as skylarks and the Adonis Blue, have been developed 11 to
assess ecosystem health. Such indicators (which measure products, see column B) are
able to have a direct value to human well-being attributed to them and therefore can be
considered within a biodiversity theme.
Theme Comment Boxes (TCBs) should include a general:
a) Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being.
b) Description of potential future pressures.
It is recommended that the themes, and supporting information, are set at and fixed at a
national level to reflect global and sub global needs. This is because an evaluation that
takes place on a relatively small spatial scale may fail to sufficiently capture the goods and
services required by the wider society; for example, the importance of regulating
greenhouse gases. This holistic viewpoint is fundamental to the success of any EsA.
67
Appendix J
1.2 Column B: Natural and Managed Goods and Services: Products
The theme quality and value is influenced by a series of natural and managed goods and
services, each with its own direct value to human well-being. In this EsA we refer to these
as products. It is the collective value of products that provide the total value of the themes.
For example, a theme entitled Regulation of Greenhouse Gases can only be valued by
identifying and summing the contribution of individual greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane) - the ‘products’.
As a product can have multiple uses it can also have multiple values. Where a product
has multiple values it can be entered more than once into the Matrix to reflect each of its
uses. Woodland, for example, can be classified as a product. However, woodland has
value to human well-being through providing fuel, a recreational space, and contributing to
biodiversity. In this case it would be appropriate to list the woodland product under the
potential themes of non-food crops, recreation, and biodiversity to reflect its multiple
values to human well-being.
Examples of some potential themes and their associated products are provided in Table 1.
There are many, potentially thousands, of products that impact on human-well being which
could be identified. As each product added greatly increases the amount of data required
for construction of the EsA Matrix it is recommended that an emphasis should be placed
on products that are deemed to contribute significantly to human well-being. Many such
products have long been established; especially where the impacts on human well-being
are relatively clear (e.g. carbon dioxide and pesticides).
Product Comment Boxes (PCBs) should include a general:
a) Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being. This section should
include an indication on potential sources and sinks of the product.
b) Description of potential future pressures.
c) Areas of uncertainty.
The main aim of the PCBs is to enable the supply calculations to be made by people with
little or no expertise in natural and managed goods and services.
As with the themes, it is recommended that the products, and the associated supporting
information, are set at, and fixed at, a national level to reflect global and sub global needs.
68
Appendix J
Potential Theme
Associated Products
Cultivated Food Crops
(for Human Consumption)
Wheat, milk, eggs...
Cultivated Non-food Crops
(for Human Consumption)
Oilseed rape for biodiesel, wheat for
biofuel…
Clean Air
(for Human Consumption)
Ammonia, tropospheric ozone, dust,
pollen…
Stable Global Climate
(Regulation of Greenhouse Gases)
Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
methane…
Stable Local Climate
(Regulation of Natural Hazards)
Off-farm floods, storms, fires,
landslides…
Regulation of Pest and Diseases
(of Humans)
Coliforms, E.coli…
Clean Water
(for Human Consumption)
Nitrate, phosphate, Cryptosporidium,
pesticides and other chemicals.
Recreation
Countryside access, aesthetic
quality…
Biodiversity
Skylark, Adonis Blue…
Table 1. Some examples of potential themes and associated products.
1.3 Column C: Desired Outcomes
The identified products may contribute either positively (e.g. wheat) or negatively (e.g.
tropospheric ozone) to human well-being and this determines whether it is desirable to
produce more or less of them. The symbols + (more) and - (less) are used in column C to
illustrate these alternative desired outcomes. This desire may not be uniform across all
spatial scales. For example, it may be desirable to let agricultural land flood in some
regions under evaluation. In this circumstance the desire is for a reduction in agricultural
products in return for an increase in off-farm flood prevention.
Additionally, some products may not be applicable at a defined regional level. For
example, a particular species listed under the biodiversity theme (e.g. the Adonis Blue)
may not have, or be able to have, habitat space within the region being evaluated. Rather
than removing the product from the regional list, the symbol (NA) should be used.
Outcome Comment Boxes (OBCs)
OCBs should illustrate why a particular product outcome has been chosen. This is
particularly important in circumstances where the chosen outcomes are not intuitive (e.g.
fewer food products could be tolerated where certain biodiversity products increase).
It is recommended that desired outcomes, and the associated supporting information, are
set regionally using national guidance.
69
Appendix J
1.4 The Demand/Supply Parameters sheet
Various factors influence the level of demand for, and supply of, a particular product,
including: the spatial scale, the temporal scale, the climate change emission scenario, and
the socio-economic scenario. The Demand/Supply Parameters sheet requires the user to
set and consider these factors when assessing current and future product demand and
supply.
i) Spatial scale
The level of demand for and supply of products is heterogeneous across society. For
instance, some products are of global significance (e.g. carbon dioxide) and have
relatively low value at a small spatial scale, whereas others are of regional significance
(e.g. off-farm flood prevention) and have relatively low value at a large spatial scale.
Although this EsA can be used at relatively large spatial scales the national scale is
likely to be too large. Consequently it is recommended that it is used at the level of
Government Office Regions12, or smaller. However, it is also recommended that
products of global significance (e.g. carbon dioxide) have their value set nationally, and
the value of locally significant products set relative to these.
ii) Temporal scale
Longer timeframes are recommended for assessing product supply and demand as
they enable future societal needs to be considered. Additionally, longer timeframes
increase the likelihood of detecting small but sustained increases/decreases in product
supply. The relatively long timeframes used for assessing climate change 4 (2020,
2050, 2080) are suitable for use within this EsA and enable available climatic data to
be utilised in establishing demand/supply values.
Short timeframes can also be used (e.g. ‘one-year’, and ‘today’) but this could result in
decisions being made that do not adequately reflect the needs of society in the longer
term.
It is recommended that this parameter is set at the national scale.
iii and iv) Climate change emission scenario: current and desired
Climate change will fundamentally impact upon the demand for products. It will also
alter the capacity of the environment to supply them. However in terms of assessing
the supply and demand of products it is important to consider both the most likely
climate change path, and the desired climate change path.
The current climate change scenario that we are most likely to follow will influence the
demand and supply of products required for climate change adaptation (e.g. the
demand for clean water for human consumption might be expected to increase during
hotter drier summers, whereas its supply would be anticipated to decrease).
The desired climate change scenario that we wish to follow will influence the demand
for goods and services involved in climate change mitigation (e.g. demand for less
carbon dioxide to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets).
It is recommended that these parameters are set at the national/global level.
70
Appendix J
v) Socio economic scenarios: current and desired
Four UKCIP socio-economic scenarios (UKCIP SES) have been developed for the UK 5
spanning two time frames, the 2020s and the 2050s. The scenarios are: National
Enterprise; World Markets; Local Stewardship; and Global Sustainability (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Four socio-economic scenarios for the UK (taken from source 5).
The four scenarios represent four future possibilities defined by a ‘Values’ and a
‘Governance’ axis.
The values axis
Consumerism: Values are dominated by private consumption and personal freedom.
The rights of the individual and the present are privileged over those of the collective
and the future. Resources are distributed through free and competitive markets.
Community: Values are dominated by the common good. The rights of the collective
and the future are highly valued. Resources are distributed through increasingly
managed markets.
The governance axis
Interdependence: Economic and political power is distributed away from the national
state level towards globalised economic and political systems.
Autonomy: Economic and political power is retained at the ‘national’ and ‘local’ level
away from globalised economic and political systems.
As with the climate change scenarios it is necessary to specify the current and desired
socio-economic scenario. For example, conventionally values are orientated towards
‘consumerism’ (as shown in Figure 3). Such values could reduce the value of local
food products, especially where equivalents could be imported at a lower cost. Society
would not be particularly concerned that the negative products associated with food
71
Appendix J
production were exported. In contrast this might actually be viewed as a positive
outcome. If, on the other hand, the desired socio-economic scenario was oriented
towards ‘community’ the value of local food production might increase, with consumers
willing to pay more for local products with potentially lower environmental impacts even though the negative impact would now be in their ‘backyard’.
It is recommended that the socio-economic scenario parameters should be set at the
regional level whilst following national guidance.
1.5 Column D: Product Value
Whereas column B identifies the products that are demanded by society column D, in
conjunction with the Demand/Supply Parameters sheet, aims to establish a relative value
for each product. This value aims to capture the impact of the product on well-being,
which takes into account existing supply and demand, and future demand. However, it
does not take into account future supply changes as this is taken into account within the
Supply Parameters section. An illustration of what should be taken into account within
product value is illustrated below using the example of the product of pesticide and its
negative value in the theme Clean Water for Human Consumption.
An illustration of high (negative) product value
Current pesticide concentrations are unacceptably high resulting in EU limits constantly
being breached or costly water treatment being frequently required. The spatial scale
under consideration has a high population and as a consequence the demand for water is
correspondingly high. The population is forecast to grow rapidly during the timescale
under consideration.
An illustration of low (negative) product value
Current pesticide concentrations are consistently low and never/rarely breach EU limits.
There is little or no cost associated with water treatment to remove nitrate. The population
is low in the spatial scale under consideration and so is the demand for water for human
consumption. The population is not forecast to change greatly within the timescale under
consideration.
It is important to note that the above valuations do not incorporate the potential change in
supply of clean water for human consumption (e.g. altered water availability or pesticide
levels) as this is accounted for within the Supply Parameters section.
Although the MA endorses valuation through impact on human well-being, it is recognised
that economic valuations play a role in any EsA. Defra’s publication on valuing ecosystem
services3 reviews a range of Total Economic Value (TEV) techniques that can be used to
asses the value of products. However, TEV techniques may not always be available for
some products (e.g. ascertaining the aesthetic value of a landscape) and economic values
may need to be adjusted to reflect the value to well-being within a region (e.g. food
products within the region may be able to be substituted by importing food products from
outside the region – although any substitution should consider the impacts of increased
production outside of the region – this would enable the local well-being value of food
production within the region to be reduced).
72
Appendix J
The products valued utilising TEV techniques can form a relative value framework (see
Figure 4) upon which other products, that are difficult to value, can have their relative
values judged.
A 2008 report entitled Environmental Accounts for Agriculture6 is one of the most
comprehensive attempts (to date) to value the positive and negative non-marketed
impacts of agriculture on the environment. The environmental impact categories included
within the report were:











Freshwater quality status (groundwater and surface water);
Transitional water quality (estuaries);
Marine water quality;
Pollution incidents due to agriculture;
Contamination of drinking water;
Agricultural abstraction and spray irrigation;
Flooding attributed to agriculture;
Emissions to Air;
Soil Erosion;
Landscape, Habitats and Species;
Waste.
The authors of the environmental accounts attempted, where possible, to minimise the
issue of double-counting and consequently some of the data is able to be transferred for
use within the EsA Matrix. However, careful consideration should be given to the product
name so that it reflects what is, and, importantly, what is not being captured within the
product value. For example, in the environmental accounts6 the ‘soil erosion’ category
only captures the costs of dredging waterways along with the damage to property and
roads (clean up costs). In this in this circumstance we would recommend the product to
be named:
‘Soil/sediment deposits on roads, property and in rivers’
This would make it clearer that the value does not capture soil erosion costs that relate to
flood damage, water treatment, air quality, biodiversity, carbon dioxide regulation, or the
loss of agricultural productivity.
73
Appendix J
Figure 4. The relative value framework. (a) Solid horizontal lines represent the well-being values of six products (V1 V6) established using conventional economic valuation techniques. (b) Broken horizontal lines represent three relative
values (RV7 – RV9) of products that are challenging to value conventionally. For example, the RV7 is judged to have
a positive value to well-being between V2 and V3, with its value being closer to V3 than V2.
It is recommended that value is expressed using an arbitrary scale rather than an
economic scale. This is due to the recognition that economic value does not always
correlate with human well-being. It is recommended that the initial value range is -10 to
+10 (note: negative values are associated with products with a desired outcome for fewer
products and vice versa). In successive versions the EsA Matrix the value range is likely
to increase. For instance, a product deemed as value 10 may become more valuable, or a
new product may be identified with greater value.
Although this is a somewhat rudimentary approach to valuation it achieves its primary aim
in establishing the relative importance of products to human well-being.
Product Value Comment Boxes (PVCBs)
PVCBs should provide evidence as to why a particular value has been chosen (e.g based
on regional data for that product).
74
Appendix J
2. Supply Parameters
The Supply Parameters section aims to quantify the effect of a range of potential
management options, and the impact of relevant parameters defined on the
Demand/Supply Parameters Sheet (e.g. the impact of climate change), on the marginal
change in future product supply. This section also captures uncertainty in supply change
(whether it is due to gaps in the knowledge of the ecosystem function associated with
product level, or due to other factors, such as issues with the spatial/temporal scale being
considered).
This section also automatically calculates the marginal change in value for every product
under each management option. This is achieved by multiplying the marginal change in
supply for a product by the product’s value. It also takes uncertainty within the data into
account.
2.1 Column E onwards: management options
Land management options under consideration could range from relatively minor changes
(e.g. establishing in-field grass buffer strips) right through to fundamental changes (e.g.
afforestation of arable land). The first option considered should always be the ‘do nothing’
option. This option establishes a baseline for the marginal change in supply that is
anticipated to occur as a consequence of chosen parameters defined on the
Demand/Supply Parameters sheet (e.g. the impact of climate change). This baseline
marginal change should be factored in to all supply calculations for each management
option.
Management Option Comment Boxes (MOCBs)
MOCBs should provide a description of the management option under consideration.
Each management option is allocated 5 columns: marginal change in supply; marginal
change in value; % uncertainty; and % uncertainty range (2 columns).
2.2 Marginal change in supply
This column attempts to quantify the potential change in marginal supply of the product for
each management option. In the EsA Matrix marginal change is measured using a
relatively simple, and thus manageable, scoring system, -10 to +10, where: -10
represents a major decrease; and +10 represents a major increase (see Figure 5). For
marginal change it is not necessary to consider the total supply. In some respects it is
useful to ‘zero’ the existing level of product supply, for what needs to be established is how
much more, or how much less of product would be produced under each management
option, rather than the total.
Consequently, care must be taken when using percentage change data for obtaining a
marginal change in supply score. This is because a 100% increase in one product may be
significant in some situations (e.g. where current product total is high) but not in others
(e.g. where current product total is low).
75
Appendix J
Figure 5. Scoring marginal change in supply.
It is likely that the supply score will reflect the most likely outcome. However, in some
situations it could be preferable to alter the supply score away from the most likely
outcome; for example, in cases where an unlikely outcome is highly undesirable. For
example, if zero cultivation was the management option under consideration, in a relatively
few cases nitrous oxide release from soils may increase significantly (especially where
water logging occurs as a consequence). Although the most likely outcome would be little
increase in nitrous oxide (e.g. score 1), the risk of nitrous oxide increase might be so
undesirable that a higher supply score (e.g. score 5) might be justifiable.
Supply Comment Boxes (SCBs)
SCBs should provide evidence as to why the marginal change in supply score has been
chosen.
2.3 Marginal change in value
The marginal change in value cells contain a formula that multiplies the product value (PV)
by its associated marginal change in supply value (S) for each management option.
Products with a high value and a large increase in supply will have the highest marginal
change in value, and vice versa.
76
Appendix J
2.4 The percentage uncertainty supply score and uncertainty range
Inevitably there will always be uncertainty associated with any supply score. Many factors
influence the level of uncertainty, including:



Gaps in the understanding of how products are regulated;
A wide range of possible outcomes due to the heterogeneity of the spatial scale
under consideration;
A wide range of possible outcomes due to uncertainties within the temporal scales
under consideration (e.g. socio-economic or climate change scenarios).
The percentage uncertainty score attempts to capture this associated uncertainty, where:
50-100 %
= Highly Uncertain (e.g. major knowledge gaps or issues with scale).
25-49 %
= Uncertain (e.g. some knowledge gaps or issues with scale).
0-25 %
= Relatively Certain (e.g. few/no knowledge gaps or issues with scale).
The EsA Matrix uncertainty cells automatically change colour when a value is entered, to
red, orange or green, to highlight whether supply data is highly uncertain, uncertain or
relatively certain, respectively. The use of a colour coded scoring system enables key
uncertainty issues to be elucidated and addressed. This could be through stimulating
research to plug knowledge gaps, or focusing on a less heterogeneous region, for
example.
The uncertainty range cells use the percentage uncertainty value to calculate a range for
the marginal change in value. For example, a marginal change in value of 100 with a
supply uncertainty value of 50% would have an uncertainty range of 50 – 150.
Uncertainty Comment Boxes (UCBs)
UCBs should summarise the specific factors that contribute to the uncertainty.
3. Outcomes
In the Outcomes section the total marginal change in value for each management option is
presented (in addition to the total uncertainty range). This is calculated by summing the
individual marginal change in value for each product.
The total marginal change in value for each theme is also displayed. This permits the user
to see which themes benefit and which themes are compromised as a consequence of the
various management options. This should be for illustrative purposes only, as the grand
total should be the only total to influence the decision made. A decision should not be
made based on a perceived unacceptable impact on a particular theme. This is due to the
impact being offset by minor, but collectively large, changes in other themes (see Figure 6)
or incorrect values being attributed to certain products. If it is the latter reason, values
should be recalculated.
77
Appendix J
Figure 6. Detecting minor changes.
Option 1: The marginal value of product 1 (P1) increases by 90. The marginal value of products 2, 3, and 4
(P2–P4) decreases by 30, 30, and 40 respectively. Option 1 therefore has a total marginal change in value
of -10.
Option 2: The marginal value of product 1 (P1) decreases by -10. The marginal value of products 2, 3 and 4
(P2–P4) all increase by small amounts, 20, 10, and 10 respectively. Option 2 therefore has a total marginal
change in value of 30.
Option 2 appears to be the better option as, although there is no large change in the level of any product, it
produces a favourable total change in marginal value. In this situation we can tolerate a negative impact on
P1 as this negative impact is offset by the collectively large positive impacts on P2-P4.
78
Appendix J
The Dynamic Evidence-Based Knowledge Feedback System
The success of the EsA Matrix relies on a Dynamic Evidence-Based Knowledge Feedback
System (The System). The System encourages continuous evidence-based input from as
many stakeholders as reasonably to provide a solution to ‘the problem’ (see Figure 7).
It is recommended that the use of this EsA Matrix is initially developed by a selected range
of experts. This would then be followed by a continuing period of public consultation to
enable wider opinion to be sought. Any change would need to be evidence-based and
logged within the EsA Matrix’s comment box and reference system. Despite the EsA
Matrix being continuously updated and improved it can be consulted at any time in order to
make a decision as the decision would be based on the best available knowledge at that
time.
The dynamic nature of the EsA Matrix makes it extremely flexible and receptive to new
information (e.g. revised climate change scenarios or mitigation strategies). It is also, like
conventional markets, responsive to over and under supply through allowing amendments
to product values, which would immediately filter through to the outcome calculations.
Figure 7. Solving ‘the problem’. The entangled line in the centre of figure represents a complex problem:
for example, how to use an ecosystem approach (EsA) to manage our environment to maximise human wellbeing. The EsA should be an interdisciplinary approach utilising the knowledge and expertise of a range of
stakeholders. Even when many different stakeholder groups are consulted aspects of the problem will
inevitably be overlooked. However, the established solution to the problem will be based on ‘best available’
knowledge and resources.
79
Appendix J
References
1. Defra. (2007), Securing a Healthy Natural Environment: an Action Plan for
Embedding an Ecosystems Approach.
2. MA. (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well Being. Island Press. Millennium.
3. Defra. (2007), An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem services.
4. Hulme,M., Jenkins,G.J., Lu,X., Turnpenny,J.R., Mitchell,T.D., Jones,R.G., Lowe,J.,
Murphy,J.M., Hassell,D., Boorman,P., McDonald,R. and Hill,S. (2002), Climate
Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University
of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 120pp
5. UK Climate Impacts Programme. (2001), Socio-economic Scenarios for Climate
Change Impact Assessment: a Guide to Their Use in the UK Climate Impacts
Programme. UKCIP, Oxford.
6. Jacobs. (2008), Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final Report (SFS0601).
Prepared for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Welsh Assembly
Government; Scottish Government; Department of Agriculture & Rural Development
(N. Ireland).
7. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2008), England’s Terrestrial Ecosystem
Services and the Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach. Overview Report, 30 pp.
(Defra Project Code NR0107).
8. Convention on Biological Diversity. Definition of the Ecosystem Approach.
http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/ (accessed 15/07/08).
9. HM Government. (2007), PSA Delivery Agreement 28: Secure a Healthy Natural
Environment for Today and the Future.
10. Defra. Strategic Priorities: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/index.htm (accessed
15/07/08).
11. Defra. Biodiversity Indicators: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/biodiversity/biostrat/indicators/index.htm (accessed 16/07/08).
12. National Statistics. Government Office Regions:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/GB_GOR98_A4.pdf (accessed
16/07/08).
80
Appendix J
Annex 1
MA Typology of Ecosystem Services (Taken from: Defra (2007), Securing a Healthy
Natural Environment: An Action Plan for Embedding an Ecosystems Approach).
Provisioning services
These are the products obtained from ecosystems, including:
 Food. This encompasses the vast range of food products derived from plants, animals
and microbes.
 Fibre. This is derived from materials such as wood, jute, cotton, hemp, silk and wool.
 Fuel. Wood, dung and other biological materials serve as sources of energy.
 Genetic resources. This covers the genes and genetic information used for animal
and plant breeding and biotechnology.
 Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals. Many medicines, biocides,
food additives such as alginates and biological materials are derived from ecosystems.
 Ornamental resources. Animal and plant products, such as skins, shells and flowers
are used as ornaments, and whole plants are used for landscaping and as ornaments.
 Fresh water. People obtain freshwater from ecosystems and therefore the supply of
freshwater can be considered a provisioning service. Fresh water in rivers is also a
source of energy. Because water is required for other life to exist, however, it could
also be considered a supporting service.
Regulating services
These are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including:
 Air quality regulation. Ecosystems both contribute chemicals to and extract chemicals
from the atmosphere, influencing many aspects of air quality.
 Climate regulation. Ecosystems influence climate both locally and globally. For
example, at the local level, changes in land cover can affect both temperature and
precipitation. At the global level, ecosystems play an important role in climate by either
sequestering or emitting greenhouse gases.
 Water regulation. The timing and magnitude of run-off, flooding and aquifer recharge
can be strongly influenced by changes in land cover, including, in particular, alterations
that change the water-storage potential of the system such as the conversion of
wetlands or the replacement of forests with croplands or croplands with urban areas.
 Erosion regulation. Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention and the
prevention of landslides.
 Water purification and waste treatment. Ecosystems can be a source of impurities
(e.g. in fresh water). However, they can help in the filtering out and decomposition of
organic wastes introduced into inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems and
can also assimilate and detoxify compounds through soil and sub-soil processes.
 Disease regulation. Changes in ecosystems can directly change the abundance of
human pathogens, such as cholera, and can alter the abundance of disease vectors,
such as mosquitoes.
 Pest regulation. Ecosystem changes affect the prevalence of crop and livestock pests
and diseases.
 Pollination. Ecosystem changes affect the distribution, abundance and effectiveness
of pollinators.
 Natural hazard regulation. The presence of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves
and coral reefs can reduce the damage caused by hurricanes or large waves.
81
Appendix J
Cultural services
These are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual
enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences,
including:










Cultural diversity. The diversity of ecosystems is one factor influencing the
diversity of cultures.
Spiritual and religious values. Many religions attach spiritual and religious values
to ecosystems or their components.
Knowledge systems (traditional and formal). Ecosystems influence the types of
knowledge systems developed by different cultures.
Educational values. Ecosystems and their components and processes provide the
basis for both formal and informal education in many societies.
Inspiration. Ecosystems provide a rich source of inspiration for art, folklore,
national symbols, architecture and advertising.
Aesthetic values. Many people find beauty or aesthetic value in various aspects of
ecosystems, as reflected in the support for parks and scenic drives and in the
selection of housing locations.
Social relations. Ecosystems influence the types of social relations that are
established in particular cultures. Fishing societies, for example, differ in many
respects in their social relations from nomadic herding or agricultural societies.
Sense of place. Many people value the ‘sense of place’ that is associated with
recognised features of their environment, including aspects of the ecosystem.
Cultural heritage values. Many societies place high value on the maintenance of
either historically important landscapes (‘cultural landscapes’) or culturally
significant species.
Recreation and ecotourism. People often choose where to spend their leisure
time based, in part, on the characteristics of the natural or cultivated landscapes in
a particular area.
Supporting services
Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem
services. They differ from provisioning, regulating and cultural services in that their impacts
on people are often indirect or occur over a very long time, whereas changes in the other
categories have relatively direct and short-term impacts on people. (Some services, like
erosion regulation, can be categorised as both a supporting and a regulating service,
depending on the timescale and immediacy of their impact on people.)





Soil formation. Because many provisioning services depend on soil fertility, the
rate of soil formation influences human wellbeing in many ways.
Photosynthesis. This process produces oxygen, which is necessary for most living
organisms.
Primary production. The assimilation or accumulation of energy and nutrients by
organisms.
Nutrient cycling. Approximately 20 nutrients essential for life, including nitrogen
and phosphorus, cycle through ecosystems and are maintained at different
concentrations in different parts of ecosystems.
Water cycling. Water cycles through ecosystems and is essential for living
organisms.
82
Appendix J
Annex 2 Illustration of evidence/information required for use within comment boxes
General Information
Theme Comment Boxes (TCBs) should include a general:
c) Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being.
d) Description of potential future pressures.
Product Comment Boxes (PCBs) should include a general:
a) Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being.
This section should include an indication of potential product sources and sinks.
b) Description of potential future pressures.
c) Areas of uncertainty.
Specific Information
Information should relate to the set parameters as defined within the
Demand/Supply parameters sheet.
Outcome Comment Boxes (OBCs)
OCBs should illustrate why a particular product outcome has been chosen. This is
particularly important in circumstances where the chosen outcomes are not intuitive (e.g.
fewer food products could be tolerated where certain biodiversity products increase).
Product Value Comment Boxes (PVCBs)
PVCBs should provide evidence as to why a particular value has been chosen (e.g based
on regional data for that product).
Management Option Comment Boxes (MOCBs)
MOCBs should provide a description of the management option under consideration.
Supply Comment Boxes (SCBs)
SCBs should provide evidence as to why the marginal change in supply score has been
chosen.
Uncertainty Comment Boxes (UCBs)
UCBs should summarise the specific factors that contribute to the uncertainty.
83
Appendix K
An Ecosystem Approach (EsA) for
Agricultural Land Management
The EsA Matrix Template
Prepared as part of Defra project AC0308
Ecosystem Services for Climate change Adaptation in Agricultural Land
Management
(August 31st 2008)
Please see separate Excel File ‘Appendix K EsA Matrix Template.xls’
Authors:
Jason Pole, Rosemary Collier, Robert Lillywhite, and Peter Mills
(Warwick HRI, the University of Warwick)
If you use this document please cite as:
Pole, J., Collier, R., Lillywhite, R. and Mills, P. (2008), Ecosystem Services for
Climate Change Adaptation in Agricultural Land Management. Defra project
AC0308.
84
Appendix L
URBAN & Builtup
Bracken
Inland Rock
Supralittoral Rock
Supralittoral Sediments
Standing Open Water & Canals
Rivers & Streams
Montane Habitat
Fen, Marsh & Swamp
Dwarf Shrub & Heath
Coniferous Woodland
Calcareous Grassland
Broadleaved & Yew Woodland
Bogs
Neutral Grassland
Acid Grassland
Arable& Horticulture
Service-themes
Improved Grassland
Broad Habitat
Boundary and Linear Features
Association between ecosystem services and the BAP Broad Habitats in England
Adapted from: Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2007), The Ecosystem Concept and
the Identification of Ecosystem Goods and Services in the English Policy Context. Review
Paper to Defra, Project Code NR0107, 21pp.
Aesthetic
Heritage
Jobs
Recreation
Scientific
Spiritual
Fibre
Food
Freshwater
Genetic
Medicinal
Other
Air Quality
Buffer
Climate
Disease (F?)
Erosion
Fire
Natural Hazard
Other
Pest (F?)
Pollination (F?)
Water flow regulation (F?)
Water quality regulation
(F?)
Nutrient cycling (F?)
Primary productivity (F?)
Sediment
Soil formation (F?)
Number of services
18*
16*
16
19*
20
19
22
17*
15
22
18
12
20
16
20
1
5
9
This table was constructed (by the authors) utilising information derived from
a questionnaire, literature review and workshop assessments. Coloured
cells indicate that the service is provided by the BAP habitat. Cross-hatched
cells indicate that they are likely to be the most important services for the
BAP habitat. Services marked with an F? indicate where some of those
consulted argued that the themes represent ecological functions rather than
sevices The cells have been sorted by the service of ‘food’ (green shaded BAP habitat cells) and then by
‘jobs’. This reveals that the BAP habitats ‘Arable and Horticulture’ and ‘Improved Grassland’ are the most
relevant to this project and these produce 18* and 16* services respectively.
*Please note that for some services (marked *) our count of ‘number of services’ differ from the original
source. In the original source the cells marked with cross-hatching but not coloured (we have indicated
these with the red borders) were probably not counted, and this would explain the totals. However, we
cannot establish why this would have been done.
Cultural services
Provisioning services
Regulating services
Supporting services
85
11
Appendix M
A Qualitative Description of Selected
Ecosystem Services (Themes and Products)
that Influence the Production of Clean Water
for Human Consumption
Prepared as part of Defra project AC0308
Ecosystem Services for Climate change Adaptation in Agricultural Land Management
Incorporating an ecosystem approach (EsA) for agricultural land management
August 31st 2008
Authors:
Jason Pole, Rosemary Collier, Robert Lillywhite, and Peter Mills
(Warwick HRI, the University of Warwick)
If you use this document please cite as:
Pole, J., Collier, R., Lillywhite, R. and Mills, P. (2008), Ecosystem Services for
Climate Change Adaptation in Agricultural Land Management. Defra project
AC0308.
86
Appendix M
Introduction
It is the intention of this document to provide a brief qualitative description of selected
ecosystem services following the themes and products approach outlined in An Ecosystem
Approach (EsA) for Agricultural Land Management: A User’s Guide (Appendix J).
The main aim is to illustrate the range of general information that might be required
to assist the process of choosing values for the relevant EsA Matrix data cells. In particular
products will be described and some main influencers of product level (including
indications of the possible influence of climate change and their relevance to adaptation)
and how the products impact upon human well-being will be highlighted.
A comprehensive review of each of the selected themes and products is not
provided as it is beyond the scope of this project. The case study phase of this project,
which evaluates the practicability of the EsA Matrix (Appendices N and O), will focus on
areas that require the parameters within the Demand/Supply parameters sheet to be set
(e.g. specific regions, timescales and socio-economic and climate change scenarios) and
specific management options.
It was agreed, in conjunction with the project’s Steering Group, that the final phase
of this project should focus on water-related regulating ecosystem services. The output of
this focus was the production of an Interim Report (Appendix H). The Interim Report was
constructed prior to the full development of our EsA which focuses on themes and
products. However, a brief overview was provided for drought, and for flood and as these
became closely aligned with the product of ‘Water Availability’ within the theme of ‘Clean
Water for Human Consumption’ and the product of ‘Off-farm Flood Prevention’ within the
theme ‘Stable Local Climate: Regulation of Natural Hazards’, respectively, this document
will not re-review these products.
This document focuses on several key products that influence the theme of ‘Clean
Water for Human Consumption’ as these were not covered in detail within the Interim
Report. These products are nitrate, sediment and phosphate, pesticides and other
chemicals, and cryptosporidium.
The document commences with a brief overview of the theme ‘Cultivated Food
Crops for Human Consumption’ to illustrate the importance of this fundamental
provisioning service to human well-being, that also, unfortunately, places stress upon
many other ecosystem service themes, including the provision of clean water for human
consumption.
Theme: Cultivated Food Crops for Human Consumption
a.
Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being
Human intervention in the ecosystem to enhance food production has occurred for 1000s
of years. The provision, preparation, and consumption of food are daily activities that have
significant impacts upon human well-being (ref 9). UK food production systems not only
enable the production of safe and affordable food, but also provide additional ‘nonmarketed’ benefits, such as a unique landscape, a range of specialised habitats,
thousands of rural jobs, and a source of folklore and rural culture (ref 15). This theme,
however, focuses purely on the marketed food products that are consumed directly by
humans (e.g. wheat, lamb, potatoes).
An economic value of food products can be established relatively easily as they
carry a marketable value and are summarised annually by Defra (ref 16). However, these
prices fail to capture the value of agricultural products to the wider food chain. In 2007 the
food chain received £148 billion through consumers and exports (minus the cost of
imports) and was 61% self-sufficient for all food, and 74% self-sufficient for indigenous
type food (ref 16).
87
Appendix M
The regional distribution of the wide variety of agricultural food crop and livestock products
in the UK is captured annually in the June Agricultural Survey (ref 18) and this data is also
captured pictorially in a range of crop and livestock maps within the Agricultural Atlas (ref
19).
Cereals are, and are likely to remain, the foundation of human food supply (ref 9).
Globally, food production per capita has been increasing. However, the consumption of
calories is unbalanced across the World’s population. Millions of people are
undernourished and the majority (96%) of them live in developing countries. Conversely,
millions of people are obese, and many of them live in developed countries (ref 9).
The food market is a global commodity and decisions that affect the production of
food in the UK impact upon the wider global society. One of the key questions to ensure
the appropriate delivery of this fundamental ecosystem service in the UK is:
What are the acceptable production limits for UK food products?
If we are to produce food for a global society then we may need to make difficult choices
about ecosystem service trade-offs when faced with evaluating alternative cultivation
strategies. Intensification would be expected to lead to a greater use of fuel, irrigation,
fertilizer, and pesticides at the local level, whereas, extensification would increase
pressure on natural habitats, biodiversity and carbon sequestration (and many other
ecosystem services) on land converted for cultivation (ref 12). Additionally, reducing the
outputs from cultivated systems in the UK may lead to the cultivation being displaced
overseas, and to the associated negative effects of production being exported.
The report on cultivated systems prepared as part of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA) suggested that the necessary increases in global food output should be
achieved through the development of more environmentally and ecologically sound
intensification (ref 12). Additionally, a recent high profile conference (ref 13) concluded
that the issue of food security should be addressed through the stimulating food
production, increasing investment in agriculture, addressing obstacles to food access and
using the planet’s resources sustainably, for present and future generations.
b.
Future pressures
Global population is forecast to grow from around 6.5 billion today, to 9.2 billion by 2050
(ref 11) and this will lead to increases in demand for food from our cultivated systems.
Additionally the per capita consumption of calories is projected to follow recent trends and
keep on increasing. The primary sources of these calories are also predicted to continue
to shift as rising incomes across many parts of the world (e.g. Asia) is increasing the
demand for meat products, which in turn increases the pressure on cultivation systems to
provide feed inputs (ref 9).
There is concern, however, surrounding the ability to reproduce the yield gains of
recent decades into the future (ref 9). Climate change, for example, is anticipated to have
major impacts on global food production. Some potential general impacts for UK
agricultural production have been summarised (ref 14).
Carbon dioxide
Increased carbon dioxide levels may potentially lead to increased yields for some crops,
but others may have their quality affected.
88
Appendix M
Temperature
Increased temperatures will alter the abundance of native and alien pest and diseases and
will also reduce the vernalisation (cool) period required by some crops. Extreme
temperatures will also impact negatively (yield and quality) upon some crop and livestock
systems. However, warmer temperatures may favour some crops and animals currently at
the northern limits of their ranges, or enable new crops to be grown. This could encourage
traditional agricultural systems to move northwards. Warmer temperatures will also
lengthen the available growing season.
Sea level rise
Sea level rise may lead to the loss of coastal, estuary and floodplain agricultural land. It
will also increase erosion and the salinisation of groundwater.
Precipitation
Decreased summer rainfall may reduce yields for some crops and increase irrigation
requirements. Increased rainfall may increase water logging, the incidence of certain pests
and diseases, and soil erosion.
Despite these projected impacts, the capacity in the UK to produce staple food
products, such as wheat, is anticipated to increase (until at least 2080). This is in contrast
to many developing nations where staple food production is anticipated to decrease.
Consequently, the world will become ever more reliant on developed countries, such as
the UK, to play an important role in providing global food security (ref 17).
Theme: Clean Water for Human Consumption
a.
Introduction, current state, and impact on human well-being
The provision of water of sufficient quantity and quality to households is fundamental to the
well-being of society. The EU defines water used for human consumption as that used for
drinking, cooking, food preparation, or other domestic purposes (ref 3). A minimum of 10
litres of water has been established as the minimum limit needed to support ‘short-term
survival’. However, far more water is actually required to support our everyday lifestyles,
including water for personal washing, home cleaning, sanitation, gardening and recreation
(ref 32).
Access to safe water is now regarded as a universal human right (ref 22) and in the
UK water is abstracted from surface and ground water sources to supply the population’s
needs (ref 31). The UK, and in particular parts of England, are already categorised as
water stressed, with the level of water stress tending to increase from low water stress in
the north to serious water stress in the south-east (ref 1).
The quality of water for human consumption is as important as its quantity. There
are a number of agricultural contaminants that reduce water quality. These include nitrate,
sediment and phosphate, Cryptosporidium, and pesticides and other chemicals. These
are controlled or removed to ensure that water is safe for human consumption, but also, to
varying degrees, to ensure the provision of water of suitable quality for the environment.
The value of water quality to the environment, however, should be considered within
alternative themes (e.g. Biodiversity).
89
Appendix M
The cost of treating surface water to remove agricultural pollutants in the UK has been
estimated at £127 to £148 million per year (2004 prices) which represents 60-70% of the
total cost of water treatment (ref 35). A 2008 report corroborates this total cost placing it at
£129 million per year (although the cost is for England and Wales only) (ref 31). Regional
information on specific water quality issues is published annually by the Drinking Water
Inspectorate (ref 34).
Occasionally, events can occur that are so severe our water treatment infrastructure
is overcome. For example, this occurred at the Mythe water treatment works in
Gloucestershire on 22 July 2007 after it was submerged by rising flood water. Water
supplies to 140,000 properties (affecting approximately 350,000 people) were lost.
Supply was maintained through a complex logistical 17-day operation, which involved both
Severn Trent Water and the Armed Forces, to ensure that the current minimum of 10 litres
of drinking water per person per day was met (ref 32). Although the costs associated with
such a flooding event might be best captured within another theme (e.g. Stable Local
Climate: Regulation of Natural Hazards), the example serves to illustrate how society is
dependant upon the provision of this basic need.
The theme of Clean Water for Human Consumption, in contrast to many other
themes, carries a clear economic value through charges made to consumers by water
companies. However, the true value of water may not be fully captured at an individual
consumer level, especially in relation to un-metered access in which there is no direct
extra cost for each additional litre used.
Water for direct human consumption is only one of several demands for this
important resource. Additional ‘consumers’ of water include industry, agriculture and the
environment. The value of water in these examples should be identified and captured
within additional themes. Only once the true value of water to these other consumers is
established can we aim to distribute this precious resource to ensure maximum well-being.
b.
Future pressures
The climate change scenarios for the UK (ref 2) predict that many changes to our
hydrological cycle will occur that, in addition to other climate driven changes (e.g. land
use), will impact upon the capacity to provide clean water for human consumption.
Temperature
In addition to the predicted increase in average annual temperatures (between 2°C to
3.5°C by the 2080s, depending on the emissions scenario) it is also anticipated that there
will be an increase in the occurrence of very hot summers. Even under the low emissions
scenario hot summers, like that of 1995, are predicted to become normal (two in every
three summers) by 2080. Such changes in temperature would influence both the supply of
water (e.g. through increased evaporation, and altered precipitation patterns) and its
demand (e.g. people consuming more water for drinking, washing, recreation and
gardening). Additionally, the quality of water may also decrease due to thermal
contamination of water sources resulting in reduced dissolved oxygen content, mixing
patterns, self-purification capacity and potential increases in algal blooms (ref 22).
Sea-level rise
Relative sea levels will continue to rise around most of the UK. For example, the sea level
in south-east England could rise between 26 and 86cm (by 2080, depending on scenario).
Such sea level rises could lead to the salinisation of vulnerable coastal groundwater
sources.
90
Appendix M
Precipitation
Annual average precipitation is not predicted to alter significantly in the UK (0 to 0.15%
decrease by the 2080s, depending on the emissions scenario). However, the distribution
of that precipitation is. For example, extreme winter precipitation will become more
frequent and heavier (up to 20% heavier, by the 2080s) and very wet winters, like 1994/5,
may occur as much as once a decade (medium-high emissions scenario). In contrast
summers will become drier with very dry summers, like 1995, being common by 2080 (one
in every two). Extreme rainfall events may not only reduce water quality through
increasing the quantity of pollutants being washed into supply water, but could also
potentially reduce available water as, for example, the faster flowing surface water could
reduce ground water recharge periods. Drier conditions would not only reduce the
quantity of water available but also its quality (as any pollutants tend to become more
concentrated).
The Environment Agency has identified areas of water stress in England (ref 1)
using a number of criteria. These criteria include forecast water resource availability, but
also a number of other critical drivers such as the forecast population growth, and the
forecast growth in per capita demand.
Since average annual precipitation is not predicted to alter dramatically in the
future, it may be how we capture, distribute, and use water that will be the key influencers
on the future level of clean water for human consumption.
Product: nitrate
a.
Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being
The EU European Drinking Water Directive has placed a permitted limit of 50 mg/l of
nitrate for water intended for human consumption (ref 3). This limit is necessary to control
methaemoglobinaemia (blue baby syndrome) in very young children. This syndrome is,
however, extremely rare in the UK. The last recorded case was in the 1950s and was
associated with the use of a shallow private well and no cases have arisen from use of
public water supplies (ref 5).
Nitrate levels are primarily controlled as excess amounts can result in rapid plant
growth in waters (eutrophication) (ref 4) and this can have a negative impact on water
ecosystems and their associated biodiversity. However, the value of nitrate in relation to
eutrophication should be captured in additional themes (e.g. Biodiversity).
Nitrate (N03) is highly soluble in water and is the product of oxidation of ammonium using
nitrite as an intermediary (nitrification), or can be supplied direct (for example as
ammonium nitrate fertiliser) (ref 4). Pollutant sources of nitrate include nitrogen fertilisers,
livestock wastes, mineralisation of organic nitrogen and atmospheric depositions (ref 6).
Agricultural systems contain nitrogen (N) well above natural levels. This is due to
the externally-derived inputs of nitrogen into the system, for example, through animal
feeds or fertilisers. For most production systems nitrogen inputs tend to greatly exceed the
output of nitrogen and this results in a nitrogen surplus available for conversion into an
atmospheric (e.g. nitrous oxide) or water (e.g. nitrate) pollutants. The greater the surplus
the greater the risk of loss of nitrogen, whether to air or water, is (ref 4).
91
Appendix M
Efforts to tackle nitrate pollution have to consider the risks of pollution swapping. For
example, reducing the amount of nitrate entering waters can result in the nitrate being
converted to another pollutant (often via different pathways, e.g. ammonia gas) (ref 4).
Nitrate losses to water can be reduced through a range of measures including those
associated with soil management, crop management, fertiliser management, manure
management, livestock management, and land use change (ref 33).
The cost of treating surface water to remove agricultural pollutants in the UK has
been estimated at £127 to £148 million per year (2004 prices) which represents 60-70% of
the total cost of water treatment (ref 35). The relative contribution of individual agricultural
pollutants has also been calculated (ref 6) and 7% of the total cost was found to be due to
the cost of nitrate removal. More recent valuations attribute a much higher cost of nitrate
removal (ref 31) placing the value of its removal at around £49 million in 2007.
b.
Future pressures
Nitrate levels in water may increase as a consequence of climate change. For example,
warmer temperatures would be expected to increase the rate of organic matter
decomposition which would increase soil nitrate levels (ref 8). Extreme events may also
increase nitrate levels in water destined for human consumption. Flash flooding may wash
more nitrate into public water sources and drought conditions may result in nitrate
becoming more concentrated. Both would lead to increased filtration/dilution of water being
required.
A range of environmental measures currently being considered to reduce water
pollution would be expected to decrease the amount of nitrate entering water in the future,
in particular the measures outlined to assist the implementation of the Nitrates Directive
(ref 33).
c.
Uncertainty
The impact of any management option on nitrate contamination of water taken at a large
scale, such as a Government Office Region, would be expected to vary widely across the
region. Nitrate loss varies from field to field due to the relationship between land use, soil
type, environmental conditions, and agricultural management practices (ref 4). In addition
fields closer to points of public water abstraction would be expected to exert a larger
influence on nitrate load. Also whether the water is sourced from surface or ground water
would also exert an influence.
Product: Sediment and phosphate.
a.
Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being
The EU European Drinking Water Directive has no permitted limit on phosphate for water
intended for human consumption (ref 3). This is because phosphates are not toxic to
people or animals unless they are present at very high levels. In fact phosphate is actually
added to drinking water as a lead control measure (ref 31).
Phosphate is water soluble and occurs naturally in the environment, through
weathering of rocks and other mineral deposits. Phosphate is also derived from a number
of manmade sources including partially treated and untreated sewage, detergents, and
runoff from agricultural sites mainly from phosphate carried by soil particles (ref 20).
Phosphate is primarily a concern due to its ability to stimulate the growth of plankton and
aquatic plants beyond what can be consumed by the ecosystem.
92
Appendix M
This overproduction can lead to anoxic waters (through decomposition), algal blooms, and
a decrease in biodiversity (ref 20). Thus, the majority of the value in controlling phosphate
levels in water should be captured in other themes (e.g. Biodiversity).
In relation to water destined for human consumption the contamination of water
sources with sediment/soil is more significant than phosphate. Sediment contamination of
water, through soil erosion, is exacerbated by agricultural practices but the level of impact
is extremely variable. The impact depends on soil type, topography, and climate
(especially precipitation) (ref 31). Management practices play an important role in
reducing the erosion risk. Practices include: the use of cover crops and buffer strips to
avoid bare soil; the cultivation of land in the spring rather than autumn; the adoption of
minimal cultivation systems; cultivation across sloping land; avoiding tramlines over winter;
increasing soil organic matter levels; and permitting field drainage systems to deteriorate
(ref 36).
The cost of treating surface water to remove agricultural pollutants in the UK has
been estimated at £127 to £148 million per year (2004 prices) which represents 60-70% of
the total cost of water treatment (ref 35). The relative contribution of individual agricultural
pollutants has also been calculated (ref 6) and 24% of the total cost was found to be due
to the cost of phosphate and sediment removal. There is some uncertainty about how this
cost is distributed between phosphate and sediment. However, a separate category for
sediment removal is now being incorporated within the environmental accounts for
agriculture (ref 31). When the costs for the two pollutants can be disaggregated it is
recommended that they are treated as two independent products within this theme.
b.
Future pressures
Sediment (and phosphate) levels may increase as a consequence of climate change. For
example, the predicted increase in extreme precipitation events (ref 2) would be expected
to increase the vulnerability of land to soil erosion, especially when such events occur
when there is less crop cover (i.e. in winter).
A range of environmental measures being evaluated to reduce diffuse water
pollution from agriculture (ref 36) would be expected to decrease the amount of phosphate
entering water in the future.
c.
Uncertainty
The impact management options on sediment/phosphate contamination of water taken at
a large scale, such as the Government Office Region level, would be expected to vary
widely across the region. The impact would depend on the current vulnerability and
distribution of land parcels, especially in relation to soil erosion. For example, land that
slopes steeply, with poor vegetative cover located in close proximity to public water
sources would be expected to be influenced more greatly than flat, well vegetated land
located at a distance from vulnerable water sources. Therefore, the greatest impact is
likely to be achieved through careful targeting of management options. For example, a
study in Upper Wharfedale found that strategic afforestation of just 5% of the land area
could reduce sediment yields by up to 85% per year (ref 10).
Surface waters also vary in their vulnerability to phosphate contamination from the
same quantity of sediment. Sediment is more likely to be retained in a slower flowing river
or a lake and this tends to increase the potential from contamination from phosphate (ref
21). However, it would also be expected that in slower flowing waters the quantity of
sediment reaching water treatment works would also be reduced. This phenomenon
enforces the fact that it may be preferably in the future to treat phosphate and sediment as
two independent products within this theme.
93
Appendix M
Product: Cryptosporidium
a.
Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being
There is no limit for Cryptosporidium provided by the EU European Drinking Water
Directive (ref 3) due to the difficulty in conducting routine analysis (ref 26). However, the
Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations for England and Wales do impose a regulatory
treatment standard of <1 oocyst per 10 L of water (ref 28).
Cryptosporidium is a microscopic parasite that can cause severe and persistent
diarrhoea (cryptosporidiosis) and is spread by oocysts. It is most commonly transmitted
through direct contact with people or animals (such as livestock). Rarely, however,
infection can also occur through drinking water supplies or recreational waters (ref 26).
Cryptosporidiosis need not occur for well-being to be affected. For example, in
June 2008 Anglian Water customers in and around Northampton and Daventry were
instructed, as a precautionary measure, to boil their drinking water prior to consumption
affecting 250,000 households (ref 29). This stimulated Anglian Water to pass on ‘goodwill
payments’ to its customers of around £3 million as a means to compensate for the
disruption in normal supply (ref 30).
Cryptosporidium is best managed by identifying and controlling its sources within
catchments. This is particularly important in surface water catchments with upstream
livestock, but is also of importance in some catchments with shallow groundwater.
Controlling sources could include simply providing a physical barrier between livestock and
susceptible water, and appropriate management of animal wastes (ref 26). Sewage
works, in addition to livestock, are the other major source. However as sewage is a point,
as opposed to a diffuse, source of cryptosporidium it has enabled pollution episodes from
sewage to be dramatically improved in recent years (ref 21).
In addition to identifying and controlling its sources, Cryptosporidium can also be
removed from contaminated water supplies through conventional treatment processes,
particularly through clarification and filtration (ref 26).
The cost of treating surface water to remove agricultural pollutants in the UK has
been estimated at £127 to £148 million per year (2004 prices) which represents 60-70% of
the total cost of water treatment (ref 35). 10% of the cost to remove agricultural pollutants
is due to Cryptosporidium (ref 6). Even higher costs have been attributed to
Cryptosporidium removal in more recent publications (ref 31) which include capital and
incremental operational expenditure.
b.
Future pressures
The increase in frequency of extreme precipitation events anticipated by the climate
change scenarios (ref 2) would be expected increase the risk of Cryptosporidium
contamination. This would be due to increased quantity and velocity of runoff from
livestock areas. Increased solids (such as sediment) in water available to water treatment
works can also lead to filters becoming clogged more rapidly and this may also increase
the risk of cryptosporidiosis epidemics. Additionally, contamination risk may also increase
from periodically raised water tables (ref 27).
94
Appendix M
In developed countries changes in risk from this contaminant as a consequence of climate
change is likely to be overwhelmed by influences of public health investment, water
treatment technologies and drinking water regulations (ref 27).
A range of environmental measures being evaluated to reduce diffuse water
pollution from agriculture (ref 36) would be expected to decrease the amount of
Cryptosporidium entering water in the future
c.
Uncertainty
The risk of contamination from cryptosporidium depends on many variables. These
include: the number of potential sources (e.g. livestock quantity); the management
practices at those potential sources (e.g. manure management); and the geography of the
area (e.g. topography, soil type, proximity to vulnerable water sources, and local climate).
Product: Pesticides and Other Chemicals
a.
Introduction, current state and impact on human well-being
The use of pesticides and other chemicals are strictly regulated. Despite these controls
residues can sometimes reach water (ref 23). Pesticides refer to insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, nematocides, acaricides, algicides, rodenticides, slimicides, and related
products (e.g. growth regulators) and their relevant metabolites, degradation and reaction
products. Other chemicals include veterinary medicines (in particular, sheep dip) (ref 3).
The EU European Drinking Water Directive has placed a permitted limit of 10 µg/l of
most individual pesticides for water intended for human consumption (aldrin, dieldrin,
heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide has a limit of 0.03 µg/l) and a 50 µg/l total (ref 3). The
EU drinking water standard is set on the basis that all pesticide residues should be at the
lowest practicable level, irrespective of their individual toxicity. In addition to the negative
impact on drinking water quality pesticide contamination of water is also a potential threat
to wildlife (ref 23), although cost of this should be considered within other themes (e.g.
Biodiversity).
Despite over 300 active ingredients being approved for use within UK crop
protection only 9 -12 consistently threaten permitted limits in surface and, sometimes,
groundwater. These are mainly herbicides (ref 23) and are derived from both agricultural
(e.g. crop protection) and non-agricultural sources (e.g. weed control on highways and in
gardens) (ref 7). The agricultural sector is responsible for 96% of pesticide use, but only
85% of incidents in which water quality indicators for pesticides are exceeded. This is a
reflection of the higher level of regulatory control and better management within this sector
(ref 31).
Pesticides may contaminate water by spillage, spray drift and runoff (ref 21). Water
companies are required to assess the risk to drinking water from pesticide use in their
catchments and then conduct testing to monitor their levels (ref 7).
Best practice in the use of chemicals is arguably the most effective way to reduce
pesticide contamination of water. Best practice measures include: understanding water
flows through individual land parcels, careful timing and targeting of chemicals, careful
handling, maintenance of application equipment, crop monitoring, varietal resistance, the
use of cultivation techniques and seed treatments, use of selective products, utilising
buffer zones and undertaking Local Environment Risk Assessments for Pesticides (ref 24).
95
Appendix M
Water companies can incur additional costs in removing unwanted chemicals from water
to ensure that it meets the strict EU standards (ref 23). Where needed, water companies
have installed water treatment (activated carbon and ozone) so that pesticides can be
eliminated from drinking water (ref 7). Water treatment not only involves a high initial
capital expenditure, but also has high associated operating costs (including energy
consumption). Water, albeit infrequently, can be contaminated with heavy loads (peaks) of
pesticides that are unable to be removed by even the most sophisticated technology
resulting in water companies needing to halt abstraction altogether (ref 23).
The cost of treating surface water to remove agricultural pollutants in the UK has
been estimated at £127 to £148 million per year (2004 prices) which represents 60-70% of
the total cost of water treatment (ref 35). 52% of the cost to remove agricultural pollutants
is due to pesticides, this is significantly higher than any other water pollutant (the removal
of sediment/phosphate is the second highest cost at 24% of the total). This cost is
possibly a reflection of the low permissible limits for these contaminants (ref 6). However,
a more recent valuation study has placed the cost of pesticide contamination of water
sources far lower, reducing the cost from their 2004 estimate of £131 million to £35 million
in 2007. The improvement in performance was attributed to better practice over the last
decade (the 2004 figures were based on 1992-1997 data) (ref 31).
b.
Future pressures
The main climate drivers for changing pesticide fate and behaviour are likely to be
changes in rainfall intensity and increased temperatures. Increased rainfall intensity will
encourage pesticide-rich water to move more rapidly through soils, and increase flows to
drains and across the surface. It will also lead to increased water contamination through
elevated soil erosion. Periodic high groundwater levels may also intercept pesticides in
the unsaturated zone. High temperatures will also increase the volatilisation and
degradation of pesticides, but also may lead to cracking of soils increasing the potential for
by-pass flow. Lower river flows may also lead to a significant reduction in dilution potential
leading to an increased concentration of pesticides in surface waters (ref 25).
The uptake of best practice measures by agriculture and the crop protection
industries to protect biodiversity and water quality from pesticides through the Voluntary
Initiative (ref 24) would be expected to reduce the concentrations of pesticides and other
chemicals in sources of drinking water in the future.
c.
Uncertainty
Pesticide contamination of water is extremely variable. Pesticide levels vary significantly
day to day, season to season, crop to crop and from place to place. The variability of
weather and soil management techniques has a large influence on the potential for water
to become contaminated to unacceptable levels (ref 23). In the long-term, land-use
change driven by changes in climate, and regulatory change may have a more significant
effect on pesticides in the environment than the direct impacts of climate change (ref 25).
96
Appendix M
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Environment Agency. (2007), Identifying Areas of Water Stress. Consultation
document.
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G.,
Lowe, J., Murphy, J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S.
(2002), Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02
Scientific Report. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 120pp.
European Commission. (1998), Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998
on the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption.
Defra. (2007), Diffuse Nitrate Pollution from Agriculture – Strategies for
Reducing Nitrate Leaching. ADAS report to Defra. Supporting Paper D3 for the
Consultation on Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.
Drinking Water Inspectorate. (2001), Nitrate:
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/consumer/nitrate.htm (accessed 28/05/08).
Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R.E., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L., Raven,
H., Rayment, M.D. and van der Bij, G. (2002), An Assessment of the Total
External Costs of UK Agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65 (2), 113-136.
Drinking Water Inspectorate, (2007), Drinking water in England 2006: Eastern
region.
Mitchell, R.J., Morecroft, M.D., Acreman, M., Crick, H.Q.P., Frost, M., Harley.
M., Maclean, I.M.D., Mountford, O., Piper, J., Pontier, H., Rehfisch M.M.,
Ross, L.C., Smithers, R. J., Stott, A., Walmsley, C., Watts, O. and Wilson, E.
(2007), England Biodiversity Strategy: Towards Adaptation to Climate Change.
Final Report to Defra for Contract CR0327.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Global Assessment Reports, Volume 1
Current States and Trends Assessment. (2005), Chapter 8 Food.
National Trust. (2008), Land Management and Flood Risk Evidence for the Pitt
Review.
United Nations. (2006), World Population Prospects: the 2006 Revision
Population Database: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ (accessed 16/06/08).
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Global Assessment Reports, Volume 1
Current States and Trends Assessment. (2005), Chapter 26 Cultivated Systems.
Declaration of the High-Level Conference on World Food Security: The
Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/HLCdocs/declarationE.pdf (accessed 16/06/08).
NFU. (2005), Agriculture and Climate Change. National Farmers' Union,
Stoneleigh Park, Warwicks. 48 pp.
NFU. (2006), What Agriculture and Horticulture Mean to Britain.
http://www.whyfarmingmatters.co.uk/documents/Why%20Farming%20Matters%
20FINAL%2030%20Nov.pdf (accessed 16/06/08).
Defra. (2008), Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 2007.
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/default.asp (accessed
16/06/08).
Parrya, M.L., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M. and Fischer, G.
(2004), Effects of Climate Change on Global Food Production Under SRES
Emissions and Socio-economic Scenarios. Global Environmental Change 14
(2004) 53–67.
97
Appendix M
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Defra. June Agricultural Survey.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/cs/farmstats_web/default.ht
m (accessed 21/07/08).
Defra. (2006), Agricultural Atlas.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/cs/farmstats_web/2_SURVE
Y_DATA_SEARCH/MAPS/2006/agricultural_atlas_items_06.htm (accessed
21/07/08).
Total phosphorus and phosphate impact on surface waters: http://www.waterresearch.net/phosphate.htm (accessed 10/07/08).
The Government's Strategic Review of Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture
in England. Paper 1: Agriculture and Water: a Diffuse Pollution Review.
Summary Report:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/diffuse/agri/reports/dwpa01a.
htm (accessed 10/07/08).
Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds. (2008), Climate
Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp. MOVE – REF 22
The Voluntary Initiative. (2006), Voluntary Initiative Pilot Catchment Study.
UKWIR Report Ref. No. 07/WR/26/2/
The Voluntary Initiative. Best Practice for the Application of Crop Protection
Products. http://www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/Content/Agr_BP.asp (accessed
11/07/08).
Bloomfield, J.P., Williams, R.J., Gooddy, D.C., Cape, J.N. and Guha, P. (2006),
Impacts of Climate Change on the Fate and Behaviour of Pesticides in Surface
and Groundwater—a UK perspective. Science of the Total Environment 369
(2006) 163–177.
Water UK. (2008), Cryptosporidium.
http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/cryptosporidium (accessed
11/07/08).
Casman, E., Fischhoff, B., Mitchell, S., Dowlatabadi, H., Rose, J. and Morgan,
G. (2001), Climate Change and Cryptosporidiosis: A Qualitative Analysis.
Climatic Change 50: 219–249, 2001.
The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000. Statutory Instrument 2000
No. 3184.
Anglian Water. (2008), Boil Update Notice: 25 June 2008.
http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/index.php?sectionid=51&parentid=50&contentid=
1128 (accessed 11/07/08).
Anglian Water. (2008), Anglian Water Boil Notice Lifted: 4 July 2008 Boil Notice
lifted for ALL affected customers in Northamptonshire Goodwill payment
announced.
http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/index.php?sectionid=51&parentid=50&contentid=
1136 (accessed 11/07/08).
Jacobs. (2008), Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final Report
(SFS0601). Prepared for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
Welsh Assembly Government; Scottish Government; Department of Agriculture
& Rural Development (N. Ireland).
The Pitt Review. (2007), Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods. An
Independent Review by Sir Michael Pitt.
Defra. (2007), Diffuse Nitrate Pollution from Agriculture – Strategies for
Reducing Nitrate Leaching. ADAS report to Defra. Supporting Paper D3 for the
Consultation on the Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.
98
Appendix M
34
35
36
Drinking Water Inspectorate. (2008), Drinking Water National and Regional
Reports. http://www.dwi.gov.uk/pubs/annrep07/contents.shtm (accessed
22/07/08).
Environment Agency. (2007), the Total External Environmental Costs and
Benefits of Agriculture in the UK.
Defra. (2006), an Inventory of Methods to Control Diffuse Water Pollution from
Agriculture (DWPA). ADAS/IGER report to Defra - supporting Defra project
ES0203.
99
Appendix N Case Study Evidence Base (Below)
Appendix O Case Study Partially Populated EsA Matrix (Please see separate Excel
File ‘Appendix O Case Study Populated EsA Matrix.xls’)
Product value (PV)
The products included in the matrix were chosen to full two criteria: (1) a diverse selection
to illustrate the full scope of potential ecosystem services and (2) to concentrate on water.
As a consequence, they represent the main areas that we consider important to this
project although we recognise that many other important services have been excluded.
The product value is a relative scale based at UK level; some products are based
on available economic values but most are based on expert knowledge. Product values
are used to illustrate how the matrix works and can be refined in future projects if required.
Values for cultivated food are taken from Agriculture in the UK (Defra, 2007) and
are the value of production at the existing market price: wheat (£1,307 million), fresh
vegetables and potatoes (£1,726 million), mutton and lamb (£628 million) and milk (£2,830
million). The value for milk provides the upper limit within the relative product value scale
and all other products and services are scaled to this, so for example, wheat with a value
of £1,307 million is worth 46% of milk and is valued at 5 in the 0 to 10 product value scale.
All other products and services are valued in the same way.
The value of cultivated non-food crops is harder to quantify since the area, and
therefore market, for plants grown for biofuels is currently small and limited data exists.
Based on the production of oil seed rape grown on set-aside, the value of oil for biodiesel
is in the region of £30 to 50 million. The market for Misacanthus is still in its infancy but we
estimate that current production is valued at between £3 to 5 million only. The value of
sawn timber and wood products as supplied by sawmills, panel manufacturers and
importers to the distribution and manufacturing stages of the supply chain was £2,400
million in 2005 (Timber Trade Federation1). This value includes some processing so may
be elevated in comparison to agricultural products.
The value of clean air and a stable global climate is immense but assessing it’s
value almost impossible. A stable local climate can be valued by the cost of any instability
and mitigation. If the value of off farm flood protection can be equated to the cost of
repairing damage as a result of flooding, then a value of £1,000 million per annum is
average.
Clean water can be valued. The charge made to supply, and remove waste water,
by the water companies is put at £3,000 million per annum. Like the cost of removing
pesticide residues and nitrates which are £100 million and £7 million, respectively.
Calculating the costs of controlling outbreaks of pests and diseases is very
complicated and depend on the scale of the study. At a UK scale, the 2001 foot and mouth
outbreak is estimated to have cost the economy £8 billion2 and affected the delivery of
ecosystem services across a number of themes, e.g. cultivated food, clean air, biodiversity
and recreation. However, food and mouth is thankfully a rare occurrence and is difficult to
assess when compared to other regional pest and disease issues like bovine TB and Blue
Tongue. Bovine TB is estimated to cost £100 million3 annually in compensation to farmers
while the costs of vaccinations and movement restrictions associated with Blue Tongue
are not yet know although losses in Wales could be as high as £28 million4. At region,
catchment or local level, contaminants like Cryptosporidium, Escherichia coli and other
coliform bacteria can cause localised problems that very hard to value.
1
www.ttf.co.uk/industry/statistics/
www.nao.org.uk/pn/01-02/0102939.htm
3
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/5041862.stm
4
www.hybucigcymru.org/uploads/MediaRoot/1218.pdf
2
100
Appendix N
Although indicators for biodiversity are well established, assigning values to those
indicators is still in its infancy. Crop pollination, since it serves a commercial interest, is the
most developed and values of £200 million5 have been placed on the services of honey
bees. However, even valuing crop pollination is fraught with danger since losing the
services of pollinators would result in total failure of some crops and the value of the loss
would be greater than the current value of pollination. Freshwater invertebrates are used
as indicators for water quality but have little intrinsic value themselves but act as proxies
for the whole river ecosystems. The economic value of rivers may be better assessed
using leisure activities such as fishing and boating. In 2005, fresh water angling was
estimated to be worth £3.5 billion6. Some work has been undertaken on valuing the
aesthetic value of landscapes but it is speculative and subjective and depends on the area
being considered.
Recreational use of ecosystems is high. In addition to freshwater angling, walking
and cycling generates large economics returns. For example, a recent British Waterways
survey suggested that some 215 million visits a year were made to its own waterway 7.
Direct spending by visitors within the national parks of the Yorkshire and Humber region is
estimated at £660 million and could therefore be responsible for almost £1 billion total
output annually within the region8. Nationally, the national parks attract over 100 million
visits annually; although no value has been placed on these visits, it is likely to be in
excess of £10 billion.
Integrating these different themes and products into a single matrix is difficult.
Although relative have been given to all products, we recognise that some are arbitrary
and will undoubtedly be the subject of discussion and disagreement. However, they are
included to illustrate how the matrix may work and can be refined within later studies.
Scenarios
Three different suites of scenarios have been developed to illustrate how the matrix works.
1. Scenarios 0 to 9 to cover the whole spectrum from agriculture to biodiversity
2. Scenarios 10 and 11 for winter wheat (floodplain and floodplain 2050)
3. Scenarios 12 and 13 for dairy (floodplain and floodplain 2050)
The scenarios are designed to represent both changes in land management as well as
changes in land use. These scenarios are illustrative and the data to populate them is
based on expert knowledge.
The ecosystems services matrix is a relative index, so all scenarios can be compared to
one another. However, this approach makes the choice of baseline scenario critical. In
choosing ‘Set aside / unstocked rough land’ we have endeavoured to find middle ground
between agricultural production and ‘natural’ ecosystems. We have chosen a system that
receives no inputs and produces no product which should allow the other scenarios to be
easily distinguishable.
The delivery of ecosystem services is assessed using a marginal change in value (the
score). The score can be positive or negative but should always be compared to zero, the
baseline scenario. A negative score means that overall, the system under study provides
less ‘good’ ecosystem services in comparison to the baseline scenario and positive scores
represent an increase in ‘good’ services.
5
www.iob.org/userfiles/File/biologist_archive/Biol_53_2_Cuthbertson.pdf
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/angling2015forweb_945225.pdf
7
www.iwac.org.uk/downloads/reports/DEF-PB12797-IWAC-Rep.pdf
8
www.cnp.org.uk/docs/Exec_summary_website.pdf
6
101
Appendix N
Scenario 0 – Baseline (Set aside / unstocked rough land)
This is the baseline scenario against which all other scenarios can be compared. The
conditions adopted are designed to represent a mid way point between agricultural
production and land managed for biodiversity. There are no inputs and no outputs.
Scenario 1 – Winter wheat (Conventional)
This scenario assumes a conventional plough based production system to maximise yield.
Yielding approximately 8t/ha.
Scenario 2 - Winter wheat (Conventional – adopt minimum cultivation systems)
This is option 4 from the DWPA user manual. It uses discs or tines (rather than ploughing)
as the primary surface cultivation or to drill directly into stubble. The result is a slight
reduction in yield but also reductions in the production of nitrous oxide and reduced soil
erosion.
Scenario 3 - Winter wheat (Conventional – allow field drainage system to
deteriorate)
This is option 12 from the DWPA user manual. It allows existing (old) drainage systems to
naturally deteriorate by not maintaining them which results in reductions in nitrate and
phosphate leaching and improvements and water flow through the soil. Yield may
decrease to 7t/ha.
Scenario 4 – Dairy (Conventional. 2 cows per hectare)
This scenario represents a ‘standard’ UK dairy farm. Cows are grazed outdoors from late
spring to autumn and housed the rest of the time.
Scenario 5 – Dairy (Conventional. 2 cows per hectare. Reduce length of grazing
season)
This is option 14 from the DWPA user manual. It reduces the length of time that livestock
are allowed to graze in the fields, either by keeping stock inside during the night or by
shortening the length of the grazing system, particularly in autumn. The result is reduced
nitrate leaching and some reductions in phosphate and FIOs as well.
Scenario 6 – Dairy (Conventional. 1 cow per hectare)
This is option 13 from the DWPA user manual. It lowers the total number of livestock on
the farm which results in reductions of inputs and well as outputs of manures, N, P and
FIOs.
Scenario 7 – Woodland
This scenario assumes mature woodland. The result is increased carbon sequestration,
greater biodiversity, greater water holding capacity and higher water infiltration rates.
Scenario 8 – Flood plain with sheep grazing
This scenario assumes grassland within an established flood plain from which sheep can
be removed in the event of flooding.
Scenario 9 – Miscanthus / short rotation coppicing
This scenario assumes biomass production with zero inputs after the first year.
102
Appendix N
Results and discussion
The themes, and the products contained within them, are unequal in influence and make
up. Themes like food, non-food, stable climate, biodiversity and recreation contain only
positive desired outcomes, whereas clean air and pests and diseases contain negative
outcomes. One theme, clean water, contains both positive and negative outcomes. The
matrix currently contains 35 products; 19 of which have a positive desired outcome
whereas 16 have a negative outcome. At this stage of the project, no sensitivity analysis
has been carried out but care may be required to ensure that the choice of products, and
the attached desired outcome, does not introduce unintentional bias into the results.
This same argument applies to the product values. A theme like biodiversity, which
currently contains six products with low values, can easily have less influence that a single
product, like nitrous oxide. These inconsistencies should be resolved as financial values
are assigned to all the products and a true economic ranking can be drawn up.
Where the theme is wholly positive or negative is possible to rank the themes in
terms of their importance within the supply of ecosystem services. Currently, food
production is considered more important than emissions of greenhouse gases, which
seems logical, but regulation of pests and diseases is more important than biodiversity
which seems less convincing.
In general, land under intensive agricultural production returns a negative score in
comparison to land under biomass crops or extensive systems. The three winter wheat
scenarios averaged -42 and the three diary scenarios -88. In contrast, woodland scored
269, salt marsh 42 and biomass crops 108. As an overall result this would appear to agree
with the general consensus that dairy farming (and beef) has a greater impact of the
delivery of ecosystem services compared to wheat production. However, given the crude
nature of both the product values and marginal change in supply figures, no further
conclusions can be drawn.
Scenarios 2 and 11 explore how the production of winter wheat on non floodplain
land compares to floodplain land. The results suggest that a slightly decreased yield
combined with greater production of nitrous oxide means that non floodplain land is better
suited for the overall delivery of ecosystem services.
Scenarios 4 and 12 use a similar setup to look at dairying on the same two land
types and given the current product values, draws the same conclusion as the two wheat
scenarios: the greater production of nitrous oxide outweighs temporary water storage.
Climate change
Assessing the effect of climate change on the delivery of ecosystem services can be done
by altering the marginal change in supply. To illustrate how this can be achieved, we
assume that climate change will means warmer temperatures, greater winter rainfall and
an increased risk of ‘intense’ rainfall in summer. We assume there will be changes, rather
than gains or losses, in biodiversity, although the Monarch9 project suggests that Skylark
numbers will fall as a result of climate change.
Using the existing products, our 2050 scenarios show that water availability and Skylarks
will decrease while nutrient leaching and Blue Tongue will increase. The overall result is
that the delivery of ecosystem services becomes more negative.
9
www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/biodiversity/monarch.php
103