CatMan: A natural capital framework based on whole catchment modelling

Rachelle Ngai

@JBAConsulting

Objective

•

•

•

Ecosystem services and natural capital

What are ecosystem services?

•

Regulating

Flood controlPollination

Air purificationWater purification

Supporting

Water cycleNutrient cyclePhotosynthesis

Provisioning

FoodTimber

MedicineOther products

Cultural

RecreationAesthetic value

HealthHeritage

What is natural capital?

“Natural capital refers to the elements of nature that produce value or benefits to people (directly and indirectly).”

Our use and exploitation of natural capital has supported the development of economies over time. It underpins everything we collectively produce and consume.

Species

Air

Freshwater

Soil

Minerals

Source: Natural Capital Committee

Natural capital and ecosystem services

Natural capital assets

WoodlandFreshwaterCoastSoil

Ecosystem services

EnergyFoodTimberAir qualityRecreation Nutrient cycling

Benefits

Human wellbeingHealth

Extraction and use affects the assets

DEFRA, ONS

Natural capital and the flow of services

Grassland providing feed for livestock

Floodplain to reduce flood risk; biodiversity

Woodland providing timber and carbon sequestration, and increase soil stability and reduce runoff

Arable land for food production

River providing fresh water, increasing water quality, recreation, angling opportunities

Landscape aesthetics

Petteril, CumbriaDecision support model

Petteril, Cumbria

•

•

•

•

•

Catchment approach

Physical scenarios / Options appraisal

Stakeholder consultation and

engagement

Water quality model (SIMCAT/Farmscoper)

Flood model (JFlow)

Physical model – CatManinterface

Economic modelNatural capital accounting

Exhibits

Economic, policy, and contractual scenarios

Baseline

The Petteril has many natural assets which provide value to beneficiaries.

Polygon ID

Carbon sequestration in grazing land

Carbon sequestration in existing woodland land

Livestock with subsidy

Existing trees

Benefits total with subsidies

247 30 7 2,057 4 2,098

248 28 166 1,878 85 2,157

249 23 - 1,579 - 1,602

250 21 926 1,429 476 2,852

251 28 33 1,921 17 2,000

252 5 - 341 - 346

253 8 174 542 90 813

254 72 591 4,855 304 5,821

255 10 - 672 - 682

256 7 - 471 - 478

257 35 1,293 2,383 666 4,377

258 38 376 2,554 194 3,162

259 24 320 1,648 165 2,158

260/261 - 11 26 6 43

262 6 200 408 103 717

263 15 - 1,036 - 1,052

264 8 80 510 41 638

265 16 - 1,109 - 1,125

Total 374 4,178 25,420 2,151 32,122

This £32m includes a subsidy of £25m for livestock

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

Livestock production correlates closely with the value of ecosystem services produced.

Polygons 247, 254, 257 and 258 highest productivity in livestock and are likely to be most affected by land use change away from livestock.

Polygons 250,254, 257 and 258 produce most ecosystem services in total.

254

258

257

259

265

247

251

250

248

249

263

253

264

255

256

262

252

260 261

S3

S4_Petteril

NVZ

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

Stakeholder engagement

• Pastoral Land

•

• Forest

•

•

•

•

•

• ‘Good’ WFD

status upstream

• Mostly

‘Moderate’

• ‘Poor’ for a

section along

Blackrack Beck

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

Surface water flooding around Plumpton

Minor surface water flood risk in Blencowe

Fluvial and surface water flood risk in Greystoke

Increasing maize production for biomass generator

Increasing tourism, Go North and Ride

Partnerships are key.

Options considered

UU water treatment

S1 – status quo - -None

S2 – chemical dosing asset based approach- -

Chemical treatment

S3 – woodland increased in 2 reaches (10% and 20% increase)

Reed-beds

S4 – woodland increased in whole catchment (10% and 30% increase)

Reed-beds

S4D - woodland increased in whole catchment (diffuse)

None

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

Water quality and flood risk

•

•

•

•

•

Water quality

Phosphorus Nitrates FIOs

SIMCAT

Farmscoper

Flood risk

JFlow9

% change diffuse load reductions

% change to surface water

peak hydrograph

Stakeholder engagement to understand baseline and possible scenarios

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

CatMan – An interface

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

ResultsNatural capital accounting

Natural capital accounting

Natural capital stock and condition

Ecosystem services

Valuation

The four scenarios modelled suggest that decreasing chemical dosing and increasing forest cover are preferable.

S2 S3 10% S4 30% S4 30% diffuse

Carbon stored in trees and pastures 0.0 0.9 26.6 26.6

Habitat establishment of new woodland 0.0 (0.4) (12.9) (12.9)

Livestock (with Basic Payment Scheme)

Dairy 0.0 (0.2) (6.4) (6.4)

LFA grazing livestock 0.0 0.0 (0.4) (0.4)

Lowland grazing 0.0 0.0 (0.8) (0.8)

Timber Sales

Existing woodland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New woodland 0.0 0.1 3.9 3.9

Avoided flood damage 0.0 0.0 (0.2) (0.2)

Water treatment (16.0) (8.1) (8.1) 0

Carbon costs

Operational Carbon (0.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Embedded Carbon (0.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net present value (16.6) (7.9) 1.7 9.8

Employment effects

Livestock related wage bills 0.0 (0.4) (13.3) (13.3)

Timber related wages0.0 0.2 4.6 4.6

Baseline Stakeholder engagement Options appraisal Natural science modelling CatMan interface Economic model

Conclusions and next steps

Conclusions

•

•

•

Next steps

… started looking at updating source inputs of SIMCAT from groundwater and atmospheric modelling.

Thank you for listening!