Transcript Slide 1

Ecosystems – Joining things up in floodplains
• Thanks to:
•
•
•
Cranfield University: Joe Morris,
Tim Hess, Peter Leeds-Harrison,
Paul Trawick, Helena Posthumus,
Quentin Dawson
Open University: David Gowing,
Jim Rouquette, Andy Blowers,
Graham Tucker
River Restoration Centre: Jenny
Mant
– UK Research Councils,
notably ESRC and NERC
– RELU Programme Director
and Team
– Farmers, Defra,
Environmental Agency,
Local Government,
Association of Drainage
Authorities, Farming and
Wildlife Advisory Group
(FWAG) , Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds, and
others
– EPSRC Flood Risk Research
Management Consortium
Objectives: intended outcomes
Policy Context
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Global drivers - WTO
CAP – food, farmers & environment
Climate Change
Water Framework Directive
Making Space for Water
Catchment Flood Management Plans
Catchment Sensitive Farming
Draft Floods and Water Bill, 2009
To ‘integrate management of
flooding and coastal erosion to
recognise the links and
dependences between different
policy areas’
Governance,
Scale
Resources &
limits
0ptions &
choices
(source: Morris et al, 2009, in press
)
Integrated Land and Water Management:
The Case of Flood Plains
• Objectives
– Can multiple objectives be
achieved in ways which are
appealing to major
stakeholders?
– what data and methods
can help support decision
making?
– How can integration be
achieved in practice?
• Study methods
– 8 agric flood defence
schemes
– Historical analysis
– Policy & stakeholder analysis
– Integrated modelling
– 2007 flood impact
assessment
– Scenario analysis
– Ecosystems
Natural capital and ecosystems
Flows,
services,
benefits and costs
Stocks,
capital, assets
Stocks of Natural
(Ecosystem)
Capital
Flows of Ecosystem
Services
Ecosystem
Functions
Values and
Stakeholders
Floodplain ecosystem functions and services:
derived by stakeholder assessment
• Production
–
–
–
–
Agricultural production
Bio-energy crops
Coppicing
Reed production
• Regulation
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Flood water storage
Water quality regulation
Greenhouse gas balance
Atmospheric nitrogen emission
Water balance
Soil condition
Drainage
• Habitat
– Biodiversity habitat target
– Biodiversity species target
• Carrier
– Transport infrastructure
– Settlement
– Industry
• Information
–
–
–
–
–
Public rights of way
Recreation
Cultural heritage
Education / research
Landscape value
Floodplain scenarios
1.
2.
3.
4.
Seasonal flood
regime
Seasonal water
table regime
Production
Regulation
Carrier
Habitat
Information
5.
6.
Current situation
Maximising farm income
Maximising agricultural
production
Enhance biodiversity
within agricultural
systems
Enhance biodiversity
without agricultural
systems
Maximise flood storage
Indicator Values
Hydrological regimes
Standards of Agricultural Drainage
Water table depth below
ground level, m
Low
High
MG13: Inundation
grassland → inundation
pasture habitat
Months
Scenarios : trade-off and synergy
Beckingham Marshes: Land Use
*
Beckingh
Agricultural
production…
Landscape
Financial
[I]
return
[P]
Recreation
Employment
[I]
[P]
Space for
Soil quality
Water [C]
[P]
Settlement
Floodwater
[C]
storage [R]
Transport
Water
[C]
quality [R]
Greenhouse
Species [H]
gas…
Habitat
provision [H]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2006
scale: from 0 (worst
Scenarios : trade-off and synergy
Beckingham Marshes: Land Use
*
Beckingham Agricultural
production…
Landscape
Financial
[I]
return
[P]
Employment
Recreation [I]
[P]
Space for
Soil quality
Water [C]
[P]
Settlement
Floodwater
[C]
storage [R]
Water quality
Transport [C]
[R]
Greenhouse
Species [H]
gas…
Habitat
provision [H]
2006
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
scale: from 0 (worst
Scenarios : trade-off and synergy
Beckingham Marshes: Land Use
*
Beckingham Agricultural
production [P]
Financial
Landscape [I]
return
[P]
Employment
Recreation [I]
[P]
Space for
Soil quality
Water [C]
[P]
Settlement
Floodwater
[C]
storage [R]
Water quality
Transport [C]
[R]
Greenhouse
Species [H]
gas…
Habitat
provision [H]
2006
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
scale: from 0 (worst performance)
Scenarios : trade-off and synergy
Beckingham Marshes: Land Use
*
Beckingham Agricultural
production…
Landscape
Financial
[I]
return
[P]
Employment
Recreation [I]
[P]
Space for
Soil quality
Water [C]
[P]
Settlement
Floodwater
[C]
storage [R]
Water quality
Transport [C]
[R]
Greenhouse
Species [H]
gas…
Habitat
provision [H]
2006
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
scale: from 0 (worst
Scenarios : trade-off and synergy
Beckingham Marshes: Land Use
*
Beckingham - maximum flood
Agricultural
production…
Financial
Landscape [I]
return
[P]
Employment
Recreation [I]
[P]
Space for
Soil quality
Water [C]
[P]
Settlement
Floodwater
[C]
storage [R]
Water quality
Transport [C]
[R]
Greenhouse
Species [H]
gas…
Habitat
2006
provision [H]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
scale: from 0 (worst
Scenarios : trade-off and synergy
Beckingham Marshes: Land Use
*
Beckingham Agricultural
production…
Financial
Landscape [I]
return
[P]
Employment
Recreation [I]
[P]
Space for
Soil quality
Water [C]
[P]
Settlement
Floodwater
[C]
storage [R]
Water quality
Transport [C]
[R]
Greenhouse
Species [H]
gas…
Habitat
provision [H]
2006
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
scale: from 0 (worst
Ecosystems, values and stakeholders
Morris et al, 2009, Reed et al, 2009
Key results
• Defined water regime requirements
• Agricultural and ecological benefit
assessment
• Importance of ‘land drainage’
• Key synergies, conflicts and myths
• Ecosystem metrics
• Stakeholders and ecosystems
• Summer 2007 floods – a test case
• Potential rural role for future flood risk
management
Joining things up in floodplains
• Manage water regimes to deliver outcomes
• Link ecosystems with stakeholder benefits
• Use multiple science and knowledge to
understand trade-offs, synergies and limits
• Line up policy themes and funding
• Establish diverse collaborations and long
term commitment
• Review ‘entitlements’
• Research to inform discourse, policy choice
and stakeholder ‘buy-in’
• Big, visionary experiments