the role of ecosystem services in decision making presentations/dp18/2… · aesthetic value ˄ ˄...

Inês Ribeiro

[email protected]

A case study: Ogston Reservoir

The role of ecosystem services in decision making

Mott MacDonald | NEP Catchment Management Investigations 2

Mott MacDonald | CIWEM Diffuse Pollution: Evidence, Effective Practice and Lessons for Policy,

Practice and Investment Conference3

Water quality – Defining the problem

- Exceedances in Ogston Reservoir prompt

investigation of source

- Plant Protection Products (PPPs)

- Nutrients



Decision on whether to value or not (WAT-AST)

Monetisation of benefits –

(Stage 1 valuation) Cost to STWL

(Corporate Optimiser)

UKWIR framework

Potential impacts of

intervention scenarios

(WAT-AST)

BCR

(Including Sensitivity Analysis)

Methodology Recommended interventions

Qualitative assessment Quantitative assessment

02 August 2018Mott MacDonald | CIWEM Diffuse Pollution: Evidence, Effective Practice and Lessons for Policy,


02 August 2018Mott MacDonald | Mott MacDonald | CIWEM Diffuse Pollution: Evidence, Effective Practice and

Lessons for Policy, Practice and Investment Conference6

SWAT model results

Metaldehyde



Cost Benefit Analysis Scenarios

Scenario Description

1.1

Metaldehyde substitution1.2

1.3

MCPA and 2;4D substitution1.4

2.1PPP management

2.2Nutrient management

2.3PPP & nutrient management

3.1Abstraction management

4.1 Metaldehyde removal at WTW

4.2MCPA and 2;4D removal at WTW

MCPA and 2;4D

Metaldehyde

02 August 2018Mott MacDonald | Presentation 8

Collaborative approach

OgstonReservoir

STWL experience

Catchment advisor

Site visit

Literature review

EA

Farmers

08/03/2017 Mott MacDonald | NEP Catchment Management Investigations 9

Substitution Advice Treatment

Ecosystem Service(s) 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 4.1 4.2

Fresh water ˄ ˄ o o ˄ ˄ ˄ ˄ ˄

Water for non-consumptive use o o o o ˄ ˄ ˄ o o

Air Quality regulation o o o o ˄ ˄ ˄ ˅ ˅

Climate regulation o o o o o o o ˅ ˅

Pest regulation, Erosion regulation, Water regulation,

Provision of habitat, Photosynthesis o o o o ˄ ˄ ˄ o o

Pollination ˄ ˄ ˅ ˅ ˄ ˄ ˄ o o

Water purification and waste management, Recreation

and tourism o o o o ˄ ˄ ˄˄ o o

Aesthetic value ˄ ˄ o o ˄ ˄ ˄ o o

Intellectual and scientific, educational o o o o ˄ ˄ ˄ ˄ o

Social relations ˄ ˄ ˄ ˄ ˄ ˄ ˄ ˅ ˅

Nutrient cycling ˅ ˅ ˅ ˅ ˄ ˄ ˄ ˅ ˅



Cost Benefit Analysis Scenarios

Scenario Description

1.1 Metaldehyde substitution in high risk areas of the Ogston Reservoir catchment (51% of arable land or

2.83km2)

1.2 Metaldehyde substitution in high and medium risk areas of the Ogston Reservoir catchment (89% of

arable land or 4.91km2)

1.3 MCPA and 2;4D substitution on all improved pasture in Ogston Reservoir catchment (improved pasture

covers an area of 15.12 km2 or 54% of the catchment)

1.4 MCPA and 2;4D substitution on high risk areas in Ogston Reservoir catchment (7.93 km2, 52% of

improved pasture)

2.1 PPP management in Ogston Reservoir catchment: catchment advisor to run information events, hold

one-to-one meetings with farmers, advise on good practice

2.2 Nutrient management in Ogston Reservoir catchment: catchment advisor to run information events,

hold one-to-one meetings with farmers, advise on good practice

2.3 PPP & nutrient management in Ogston Reservoir catchment: catchment advisor to run information

events, hold one-to-one meetings with farmers, advise on good practice

3.1 Abstraction management: No abstraction at Ambergate during November and December

4.1 Metaldehyde removal by advanced oxidation at Ogston WTW

4.2 MCPA and 2;4D removal by existing processes (GAC Filtration) at Ogston WTW with regeneration

frequency aligned to PPP peak concentrations

NOT ASSESSED



Corporate Optimiser

Assessing CAPEX and OPEX of interventions

Substitution

• Farm infrastructures

• Advice

• Subsidies

• Staff

Advice

• Grants (infrastructure)

• Advice

• Staff

Treatment

• GAC (OPEX)

• AOP (CAPEX+OPEX)

Monitoring

Mott MacDonald | NEP Catchment Management Investigations 12

Scenario Ecosystem service benefits Risk of

failure

Annual

avoided

costs

Counterfactual None 100% £0

1.1 12.7km length of river, 0.79km² area of waterbodies 20% £44000


1.3 None 15% £112000

1.4 None 20%£112000




4.1 None 5% £44000

4.2 None 10% £44000



BCR value

range

Interpretation

<0.5 Measures are unlikely to be worthwhile in economic terms

Between 0.5-

1.5

Additional benefits could be worthwhile in economic terms. The stability of the BCR

value can be tested through sensitivity analysis or the intervention could be explored

further using the EA WAT Stage 1+ or Stage 2 Valuation tools if results are not clear

or a contentious issue requires more granular assessment.

> 1.0 Represents value for money and measures are worthwhile in economic terms if the

BCR is stable following sensitivity analysis.

> 1.5 Represents value for money and measures can be considered worthwhile in

economic terms with greater degree of certainty.

EA Stage 1 Valuation Tool


Practice and Investment Conference

14

Intervention scenarios BCR Additional Benefits (not monetised)

1.1 – Substitution metaldehyde: high

risk areas>1.0 Aesthetic values and social relations

1.2 – Substitution metaldehyde: medium

and high risk areas>1.0 Aesthetic values and social relations

1.3 – Substitution MCPA and 2;4D: all

improved pasture

0.5-1.0 Social relations

1.4 – Substitution MCPA and 2;4D: high

risk areas

0.5-1.0 Social relations

2.1 – Farming advice: nutrients 0.5-1.0 Pest management, erosion management, aesthetic

values, intellectual and educational values and social

relations

2.2 – Farming advice: PPPs 0.5-1.0 Pest management, erosion management, aesthetic


relations

2.3 - Farming advice: Nutrients and

PPPs>1.0 Pest management, erosion management, aesthetic


relations

4.1 – Treatment: AOP <0.5 Intellectual and educational values

4.2 – Treatment: GAC filtration <0.5 None

Costs and Benefits Illustration (assuming WFD status improvements)



15

Intervention scenarios BCR (WFD status

improved)

BCR (No WFD

improvements)Reasoning

0 – Counterfactual scenario 0.00 0.00 BCR of 0 with significant costs associated

1.1 – Substitution metaldehyde:

high risk areas>1.0 0.5-1.0 Second highest BCR due to avoided outage and fine costs, and

valued benefits to mammals, birds and pollinators.

1.2 – Substitution metaldehyde:

medium and high risk areas>1.0 0.5-1.0 Highest BCR due to avoided outage and fine costs, and valued

benefits to mammals, birds and pollinating insects. Highest BCR

because lower failure risk as effective over a larger area.

1.3 – Substitution MCPA and

2;4D: all improved pasture0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 BCR is lower than scenarios 1.1 and 1.2 because there are no

additional valued benefits to mammals, birds and pollinating insects.

1.4 – Substitution MCPA and

2;4D: high risk areas0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 Lower than 1.1 and 1.2 because no additional valued benefits to

mammals, birds and pollinating insects

2.1 – Farming advice: nutrients 0.5-1.0 <0.5 Is not recommended and does not pass sensitivity tests despite

benefits to all six NWEBS components. Has a very high risk of failure

(90%)

2.2 – Farming advice: PPPs 0.5-1.0 <0.5 Is not recommended and does not pass sensitivity tests despite

benefits to all six NWEBS components. Has a very high risk of failure

(90%)

2.3 - Farming advice: Nutrients

and PPPs>1.0 <0.5 Third highest BCR which passes sensitivity testing for rivers

assuming improvements to WFD status. Despite high risk of failure

(80%), significant and multiple benefits have been identified in the

AST.

4.1 – Treatment: AOP <0.5 <0.5 Combined BCR <0.5 and costs of investment outweigh cost

savings from outages and fines

4.2 – Treatment: GAC filtration <0.5 <0.5 BCR below 0.5 and it does not survive sensitivity tests with no

additional benefits identified in the AST.

Benefit cost ratio (BCR)Ogston catchment management intervention scenarios

𝐵𝐶𝑅 =𝑃𝑉 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 (£)

𝑃𝑉 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠(£)

Pollution Swap



16

Recommendations

1To reduce

metaldehydeconcentrations to below

PCV

Metaldehyde substitution with

ferric phosphate on high and

medium risk areas of arable

land.

2To reduce MCPA and

2;4D concentrations

to below PCV

Removal by existing

processes (GAC filtration) with

regeneration frequency aligned

to PPP peak concentrations +

farm advice.

3To reduce nutrients concentration in the

Ogston Reservoir

Farming advice relating to

PPP & nutrient management

in Ogston Reservoir catchment.

19 July 2018Mott MacDonald | CIWEM Diffuse Pollution: Evidence, Effective Practice and Lessons for Policy,


Qualitative and

quantitative

assessment

A case for ecosystem services

• The methodology accounts for investments into the environment

• Diffuse pollution management at a catchment scale

• Investment targets effective catchment management interventions

• Collaborative approach

Thank you

the role of ecosystem services in decision making presentations/dp18/2… · aesthetic value ˄ ˄...

Documents