Loweswater: a case study on the importance of ‘local’ scale for ecosystem management

Lisa Norton, Claire Waterton, Judith Tsouvalis, Stephen Maberly, Linda May,

Alex Elliott, Nigel Watson, Ken Bell, John Rockliffe, Leslie Webb, and the Loweswater Care Project.

RELU aims to help deliver

• Modern, sustainable and competitive farming• Protection of the environment• Beneficial social and economic outcomes

Interdisciplinary science

Stakeholder engagement

Knowledge transfer

Introduction to the Rural Economy and Land Use programme

Co-sponsored by Defra and SEERAD

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/relu

Loweswater is a small catchment ~ 8km in the Lake District National Park

Introduction to study site

Understanding and acting within Loweswater – Community catchment management

Soil – nutrient cycling, climate regulation, air quality, biodiversity

Landscape – cultural, recreationaesthetics, inspirations, heritage etc

Fresh water – quality and quantity

Food production

Loweswater

Loweswater

A small dispersed rural community of ~100 residents, predominantly over 50 years old including 8 farmers and a high proportion of ‘incomers’ choosing to live in a beautiful landscape.

Loweswater Care Project

The Loweswater Care Project (LCP) is a grassroots organisation made up of local

residents, businesses, farmers, ecologists, sociologists, agronomists,

environmental agencies and other interested parties. We work collectively to

identify and address catchment-level problems in an inclusive and open manner.

The LCP’s vision is to gain a better understanding of the diverse challenges faced

by the Loweswater catchment and together to seek economically, socially and

ecologically viable ways forward and put them into practice.

An experiment in rural catchment management

Mission statement

Land management

Biodiversity on land

Biodiversity in water

Nutrients on land

Nutrients lost to water

Economic viability

Community

Landscape structure

Lake structure

Natural England/Defra(CAP)

Environment Agency(WFD)

Lake District National Park Authority

National Trust

Ecological research at the catchment scale

Farmers

Model objectivesTo understand how what is done in the catchment is

related to the algal blooms in the lake

What are the building blocks for the Loweswater model?

Land cover information Land management information and soil P levels for farmed land (local data) Numbers of people (local data) Septic tank condition, use and management (local data) Rainfall (local data) Lake discharge Wind speed Air temperature/humidity Cloud cover Lake data for validation

Loweswater catchment model

Modelling strategy

Collect farm data

Create farm nutrient budget

(PLANET)

Calculate farm nutrient excess

Collect rainfall & flow data

Calibrate rainfall/runoff

model (GWLF)

Generate daily runoff values

Calculate nutrient runoff concentrations

(= nutrient excess/flow)

Generate daily nutrient inputs to lake

(GWLF)

Predict lake response (PROTECH)

Adjust for soil P deficit

Add P losses from septic tank

(as point or diffuse)

Create farm management scenario data

Status quo

Scenario testingLocal weather

Land cover

0

100

200

300

400

S1

S1A

S2

S2A

S3

S3A

S4

S4A

S5

S5A

Phosphorus-load (kg y-1)

Scen

ario

P-loads predicted by the different scenarios

Scenario Description

S1Current land cover & stocking densities(A = Septic tanks as point sources)

S2All farmland changed to deciduous forest(A = Septic tanks as point sources)

S3All improved grassland changed to natural grassland(A = Septic tanks as point sources)

S4No cattle; double sheep(A = Septic tanks as point sources)

S5Double cattle; half sheep(A = Septic tanks as point sources)

Collect farm data

Create farm nutrient budget

(PLANET)

Calculate farm nutrient excess

Collect rainfall & flow data

Calibrate rainfall/runoff

model (GWLF)

Generate daily runoff values

Calculate nutrient runoff concentrations

(= nutrient excess/flow)

Generate daily nutrient inputs to lake (GWLF)

Predict lake response (PROTECH)

Adjust for soil P deficit

Add P losses from septic tank (as point or diffuse)

Create farm management scenario data

Status quo

Scenario testingLocal weather

Land cover

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400

An

nu

al m

ea

n c

hlo

rop

hy

ll a

(mg

m-3

)

Phosphorus load (kg SRP y-1)

H:G

G:M

M:P

Chlorophyll production vs SRP load for the scenarios

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400

An

nu

al m

ea

n c

hlo

rop

hy

ll a

(mg

m-3

)

Phosphorus load (kg SRP y-1)

H:G

G:M

M:P

S3

S2

S3A

S2A

S1

S1AS5

S4

S5A S4A

Collect farm data

Create farm nutrient budget

(PLANET)

Calculate farm nutrient excess

Collect rainfall & flow data

Calibrate rainfall/runoff

model (GWLF)

Generate daily runoff values

Calculate nutrient runoff concentrations

(= nutrient excess/flow)

Generate daily nutrient inputs to lake (GWLF)

Predict lake response (PROTECH)

Adjust for soil P deficit

Add P losses from septic tank (as point or diffuse)

Create farm management scenario data

Status quo

Scenario testingLocal weather

Land cover

What the modelling shows

• Despite simplifications the three models, PLANET (farm), GWLF (hydrological) and PROTECH (algal) were successfully linked to produce a reasonable simulation of the effect of the land on the lake

• Currently, the lake will need to improve to reach Good Ecological Status for the WFD

• The models suggests that if the load was halved, the lake could be brought to good ecological status (time……). The model could be used as a tool to inform future land-management decisions.

• Septic tanks have a relatively small effect on P and phytoplankton today, but- they can be improved without major changes to way of life and would become increasingly important if P-losses from the land were reduced.

Data/information that is likely to be important but which we don’t have/ haven’t been able to incorporate

Slurry tank/midden stead condition Yard water /waste arrangements Connectivity between waste storage

and water bodies (under normal conditions)

Connectivity between waste storage and water bodies (under extreme weather conditions)

Locations of animal feeders in relation to water bodies

Animal access to water bodies in lake feeder streams

Data limitations, even at this scale

Advantages of working at a local scale with local governance

• Local engagement with ecological problems

• Increased potential to understand the causes of those problems and find solutions (NT/farmers)

• Better understanding and integration between local and national actors, in particular farmers and bodies responsible for environmental quality

• Better understanding within the community itself (residents/farmers)

• Local empowerment

• Improved access to potential funding sources – HLS, LEADER+

Questions

• Is the political system as we know it, with it’s current processes an structures, ready for more radical approaches to public participation in environmental governance?

•Are publics ready to participate having got used to thenotion that the Government will solve ‘things’ for them?

Other aspects of ecosystem management

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fence only

Wall only

Hedge

Lines of trees

Ecological

• Most farmers have diversified • Agricultural income ranges from 32-58% of farm income, • The remaining % is from the Single Payment Scheme or agri-environment schemes. • Total farming profit in the year of the survey was on average £7k.• High variability between the 8 farmers in the catchment in terms of ; farm size, field size, stocking rate, boundary types and management, income and labour• 6 farmers in the catchment are over 50 yrs old, 3 of those have potential inheritors

Economic