uplands for carbon capture meeting - aberystwyth · pdf fileuplands for carbon capture meeting...

20
1 Photo by Mr. Ian Keirle @ IBERS, AU Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting Friday 25th May 2012 at IBERS Building, Room 0.33 Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus

Upload: trinhdieu

Post on 25-Mar-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

1 Photo by Mr. Ian Keirle @ IBERS, AU

Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting Friday 25th May 2012 at IBERS Building, Room 0.33 Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus

Page 2: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

2

Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting Friday 25th May 2012 at Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus IBERS Building, Room 0.33 The morning session with presentations from invited speakers preceded an afternoon session with engagement and workshop discussions in themed breakout groups. Outputs from these discussions are also presented in this report.

Start:

End:

Event:

9:45 am 10:00 Coffee & Welcome 10:00 10:20 ‘Introduction to the meeting and its aims’

Dr Dylan Gwynn-Jones (Aberystwyth University) (15mins +5 questions)

10:20 10:30 ‘Challenges and opportunities: soil carbon in the uplands’ Dr Alan Jones (Aberystwyth University)

10:30 10:50 ‘Plant community diversity & upland soil carbon: Evidence from UK peatland studies’ Dr Sue Ward (CEH, Lancaster University)

10:50 11:00 ‘Sustainable upland policy for carbon management’ Clifton Bain (IUCN Peatland Programme) and Dr Mark Reed (University of Aberdeen)

11:00 11:20 ‘Fire in the uplands’ Prof. Tom DeLuca (Bangor University)

11:20 11:50 ‘Habitat restoration of degraded upland soils’ Dr Andrew Detheridge (Aberystwyth University)

11:50 12:10 ‘Impacts of grazing in the uplands’ Dr Mariecia Fraser (Aberystwyth University)

12:10 12:30 ‘Valuing the economics of combined upland resources’ Prof. Peter Midmore (Aberystwyth University)

12:30 13:15 Lunch 13:15 13:30 Discussion session: introduction and organisation 13:30 15:00 Discussion session in relevant breakout groups 15:00 15:30 Coffee 15:30 15:50 Synthesis of outputs from breakout groups - sharing overall conclusions from meeting 15:50 16:00 Meeting close

Page 3: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

3

E-mail List – participants

Name Organisation e-mail

Williams, Arfon RSPB [email protected]

Christian, Sean RSPB [email protected]

Gary Servant Upland Ecology [email protected]

Liz Lewis-Reddy Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust [email protected]

Charles Morgan Wales Biodiversity Partnership’s Upland Ecosystem Group [email protected]

Andrew Detheridge IBERS, Aberystwyth University [email protected]

Gemma Bell Environment Systems [email protected]

Mark Reed Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability [email protected]

Buckingham, Helen National Trust [email protected]

Sian Thomas Dulas Renwable Energy [email protected]

Alan Jones IBERS, Aberystwyth University [email protected]

Dylan Gwynn-Jones IBERS, Aberystwyth University [email protected]

Alun Davies CCW [email protected]

Hugh Evans Forestry Commission [email protected]

Finlay McAllister Forestry Commission [email protected]

Rob Marrs University of Liverpool [email protected]

John Lloyd Jones Cambrian Mountains Initiative [email protected]

Bakker, Chris National Trust [email protected]

Tom DeLuca Bangor University [email protected]

Sue Ward Lancaster University [email protected]

Roberts, Andrew National Trust [email protected]

Patrick Thompson RSPB [email protected]

John Scullion IBERS, Aberystwyth University [email protected]

Joe Daggett National Trust [email protected]

Nick Ostle CEH, Lancaster [email protected]

Davey Jones Bangor University [email protected]

Peter Jones CCW [email protected]

Mick Green Ecology Matters [email protected]

James Skates Welsh General Assembly [email protected]

Emily Foot Welsh Wildlife Trusts [email protected]

Michael Jones Trinity College Dublin [email protected]

Carolyn Griffiths Forestry Comission [email protected]

Mark Williams Member of Parliament co/ [email protected]

Mariecia Fraser IBERS, Aberystwyth University [email protected]

Peter Midmore IBERS, Aberystwyth University [email protected]

Jennifer Bussell IBERS, Aberystwyth University [email protected]

David Comont IBERS, Aberystwyth Univeristy [email protected]

Evans, Rhys National Trust [email protected]

Jessica Tyler National Trust [email protected]

Clifton Bain IUCN Peatlands Programme [email protected]

Chris Evans CEH, Bangor [email protected]

Page 4: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

4

Introduction to the meeting and its aims (Talk) Dr. Dylan Gwynn-Jones, IBERS, Aberystwyth University, SY23 3DA, UK E-mail [email protected] Wales has a long history of involvement in the carbon economy ranging back to the late 1800s when coal extraction in South Wales alone exceeded 50 million tonnes per annum. Such coal production and new found resource wealth represented the backbone that fuelled the second industrial revolution, created new communities, resulted in a religious revival, spawned political interest and enabled democracy for the working class masses. With the gradual decline and end of coal production era in mid 1980s came economic woe and need for regeneration in these industrialised parts of Wales.

New challenges are now upon us as growing global carbon emissions have resulted in a change of and warming of the climate. Food and water security are threatened and natural resources are now at a premium as the human population globally continues to grow. With a finite space of land available we must now step back and consider our capacity to sequester carbon and greenhouse gases and identify areas that are important in terms of carbon sinks. UK uplands potentially stores 5.1 billion tonnes of carbon in their soils. Can we use management to support the ecosystem services of uplands and their existing carbon stocks – to benefit for our long-term national climate change strategy?

The aims of the meeting were to:

Discuss opportunities that exist for carbon storage in suitable upland habitats and the implications of a future elevated CO2 climate.

Demonstrate the added value that management for soil carbon sequestration can offer in several types of upland habitats.

Provide a forum to discuss future strategies and directions that will optimise management of upland areas to benefit their ecosystem services, including below-ground carbon storage and carbon capture potential

Page 5: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

5

‘Challenges and opportunities: soil carbon in the uplands’ (Talk) Dr. Alan Jones, IBERS, Aberystwyth University, SY23 3DA, UK E-mail [email protected] The upland area of the UK constitutes one third of our land surface and has been defined as land ‘less favourable’ according to EU classification, due to its low economic status. The uplands comprise a diverse range of habitats, including moorland, bogs, mires and abandoned mining areas, each varying in terms of their biological heritage and levels of legal protection. The degrees of management in this landscape also diverge, in part due to a range of organisations administering care of the uplands. Despite this diversity, the uplands share common ecological functions that are important to the environment and human society, including that of carbon storage in their soils. Historically, policy, economics and public perception have undervalued upland areas, meaning that habitats are now degraded and failing to realise their biological potential. Upland plant communities and their soils are inherently sensitive to the human influence, environmental changes and disturbance. In this respect, climate change, the expansion of human activities into uplands and agricultural abandonment remain persistent threats. The upland area of the UK is presently a net emitter of greenhouse-forcing gasses, yet potential exists for this landscape to become a net sink for around 3% of UK emissions under careful management. By restoring degraded systems and maintaining existing habitats, it is possible to improve the biological resilience of the uplands and secure their carbon storage potential for the future. The resources needed to achieve this may only be realised if these areas are valued appropriately.

Page 6: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

6

‘Plant community diversity & upland soil carbon: Evidence from UK peatland studies’ (Talk) Dr Sue Ward, Lancaster University ([email protected]). The role of changes in plant community composition is increasingly recognised as an important driver of carbon assimilation and carbon losses from terrestrial ecosystems (De Deyn et al. 2008). Vegetation determines the quantity and quality of litter and root exudates entering the soil system, which in turn influences soil biota, with consequences for decomposition, greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient cycle feedbacks to the plant communities. However, despite the predicted changes in vegetation in the uplands due to global change phenomena, the effect of such biotic controls on carbon cycling are generally less well studied than abiotic factors such as temperature. Peatlands are highly relevant to the topic of soil carbon in the uplands, given the vast quantities of carbon stored, and concerns about the future ability of such ecosystems to sequester carbon in the light of global change (Dise 2009). Evidence of the role of plant community diversity in controlling carbon fluxes is presented from studies on an upland ombrotrophic blanket bog ecosystem at Moor House NNR in the north Pennines of England. Here, the vegetation community is dominated by three main plant functional groups: ericoid dwarf-shrubs (eg Calluna vulgaris), graminoids (eg Eriophorum vaginatum) and moss/liverwort/Lichens (eg Sphagnum and feather moss species). Each plant functional group is adapted to the cold, wet, nutrient poor environment, and each has a different set of traits, which have the potential to affect carbon cycling processes. The first study presented is from a long-term (> 50 years) burning experiment. The main effect of managed burning on vegetation community composition is to reduce above ground biomass, particularly of mature shrubs, with a resultant increase in the relative contribution of graminoids and mosses. Using static chambers to measure CO2, we show that despite a reduction in plant biomass, gross CO2 fluxes of respiration and photosynthesis were greater in burn relative to non-burn plots 9 years after a controlled burn (Ward et al. 2007). The net effect was for a greater CO2 sink in burn relative to non-burn areas. Effects were stronger during the growing season, and few change in soil microbial communities were detected, suggesting differences are primarily related to vegetation. Looking at the system 1 year after a controlled burn, no significant difference in gross or net fluxes were detected, despite vegetation being reduced to around 25% of pre-burn levels, and a reduction in fungi in the recently burned soils was seen. As vegetation is estimated to account for 41-54% of total ecosystem respiration (Hardie et al., 2009), this too suggests increased rates of CO2 cycling in systems recovering from recent burning. The second study considered used 13CO2 stable isotope pulse labelling, to trace the fate of newly fixed carbon over a period of 21 days. This technique showed differences in the rate of photosynthetic uptake of carbon between the 3 plant functional groups, with greater uptake of carbon and faster translocation of new photosynthates from the shoot tissues of vascular plants relative to mosses (Ward et al. 2009). Further, the uptake of 13CO2 was more than double in vegetation newly recovering from burning relative to more mature vegetation from non-burn areas, and that translocation to the soil biota was also greater

Page 7: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

7

after burning (Ward et al. in review). This offers a mechanistic explanation for the differences in CO2 fluxes described in the first set of experiments. The final study moves away from any confounding factors of burning, by using a unique plant manipulation and warming experiment. This was set up in 2008 to study the relative importance of plant community composition and climate warming and peatland carbon cycling, and interactions between vegetation change and warming. The experiment comprises fully factorial combinations of the 3 peatland plant functional groups, with a warming treatment applied to half of the experimental plots using open top passive warming chambers. Findings showed that rates of respiration consistently increased with warming across all vegetation types, by an average of 47% for ~1°C warming. In contrast, the effect on net CO2 flux was not consistent and depended on vegetation type, with greatest increases in CO2 sink strength seen during the growing season for shrub vegetation (Ward et al.. in prep). For CH4 the strongest controls were found to be vegetation type, with greatest efflux seen in the presence of graminoids, likely linked to the presence of aerenchymous tissues. In conclusion, by using trace gas flux and stable isotope pulse labelling techniques, it can be shown that plant community composition and the growth stage of vegetation influences the rate of carbon cycling processes in peatlands. Further, that there is new evidence that vegetation composition modulates the response of ecosystem carbon fluxes to climate change. Given that vegetation change is happening in the uplands due to global change phenomena of climate, land use and atmospheric deposition, there is a need to consider plant community composition, and interactions of plant community change with climate when predicting the future of soil carbon storage in upland peatlands. This research work was funded by NERC, and involved the author, Prof. Richard Bardgett (Lancaster University) Dr Nick Ostle (CEH Lancaster) and Simon Oakley (CEH Lancaster). References De Deyn et al. (2008), Ecology letters 11, 516-531. Dise (2009), Science 326, 810-811. Hardie et al. (2009), Geoderma 153, 393-401. Ward et al. (2007), Ecosystems 10, 1069-1083. Ward et al. (2009), Functional Ecology 23, 454-462.

Page 8: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

8

‘Sustainable upland policy for carbon management’ (Talk) Clifton Bain (IUCN Peatland Programme) and Dr Mark Reed (University of Aberdeen) Clifton Bain updated participants at the Aberystwyth Uplands Meeting on progress towards a UK Peatland Carbon Code. The idea behind the development of such a code is to provide the scientific basis for peatland restoration whilst quantifying the carbon and other benefits, and give confidence for investors. Peatlands are a vast carbon store, and of great wildlife importance. Investing in conserving and restoring them is a key tool to help deliver our climate change obligations. The development of a peatland code will help secure the funding necessary to deliver a pioneering nature-based solution to a global challenge. The code was submitted as a potential opportunity for consideration by DEFRA's Ecosystem Markets Taskforce, and has since been ranked as the UK's top business opportunity from the natural environment in a report they commissioned from NERC's Valuing Nature Network. The Ecosystem Markets Taskforce will provide limited R&D funding and recommend the top opportunities to the Secretaries for State for BIS, Defra and DECC in March 2013. IUCN are developing a route map towards development of the code for DEFRA, and are developing proposals for funding to develop Greenhouse Gas Emission Site Type (GEST) models for the UK that could enable cost-effective monitoring of GHG fluxes using remotely sensed data on vegetation composition change as a proxy for water table depths which are strongly correlated to GHG fluxes. A science panel will be established to input to his work, and work alongside the group developing the standards and protocols for the code itself.

Page 9: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

9

‘Fire in the uplands’ (Talk)

Prof. Tom DeLuca, SENA, Bangor University and CEH Bangor, E-mail:

[email protected] and Prof. Davey L. Jones, SENA, Bangor University.

Biomass in all ecosystems has the potential to burn in wildfire events. Over the past eight years there have been 55,000 grass fires in the UK and approximately 5,600 ha of grass and heather burned in the UK between 2009 and 2011. In the spring of 2012, there have been several large fires in North Wales. It is highly likely that wildfire will become more common in the uplands of North Wales with climate change and increasing population pressures. The purpose of this talk is to discuss fire effects on soils and specifically upland fire effects in Wales. Wildfire results in the evolution of biomass as CO and CO2. During this process, there is limited impact on surface mineral soils as heat transfer into soil is minimal due to the light fuel loadings of heathland and grassland ecosystems and the insulative properties of soil. Approximately 60 – 90 % of biomass is consumed in heathland fires, but total C evolution as CO2 is relatively low. Rapid resprouting of vegetation and charcoal production offset C evolution during combustion events. More frequent occurrence of fires may result in a decrease in mineral soil C contents, but this has not specifically been observed in heathlands of Great Britain. Nitrogen mineralisation is accelerated by fire events resulting in a short term increase in inorganic N in surface soils. Upland fires have minimal influence on soil alkaline metal contents in spite of the fact that alkaline metals are concentrated in ash. Wildfires result in the consumption of about 20% of the O horizon unless fires occur under extremely dry conditions where closer to 80% of the O horizon may be consumed. Approximately 750 kg C ha-1 may be lost in such fire events. To date, however, there has been little or no effort made to quantify charcoal production (a uniquely stable form of C) in upland fire events, as a means of offsetting C released during upland fire events. Future studies must quantify whole ecosystem C budgets (emissions, charcoal production, regeneration) during wildfire events.

Page 10: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

10

‘Habitat restoration of degraded upland soils’ (Talk)

Dr Andrew Detheridge IBERS, Aberystwyth University, E-mail: [email protected]

Carbon sequestration in undisturbed soils is limited by the degree of carbon saturation. As a result, an Increase in carbon inputs may not necessarily lead to increased levels of sequestration. Disturbed soils are below the saturation level of carbon and so higher input levels and correct management can lead to higher levels of sequestration. The more disturbed the soil the more the potential gain. Mine soils such as spoil tips are the extreme case. The initial level of recent organic carbon is zero (fossil organic carbon in the form of coal is abundant), and so they offer a large potential for sequestration. The main problem with very disturbed soils is overcoming the limitations to plant growth such as those caused by compaction, low nutrient levels and restricted soil biota. If these problems are overcome, we have shown in the SEREN project that organic carbon levels in correctly planted mine spoils can quickly approach (within 20 to 25 years) those of nearby reference soils. However, as well as inputs from plant growth we also need to consider outputs via decomposition and how mine soils affect the functioning of the decomposer community. This is important because it may affect the degree of permanence of the stored carbon and could lead to carbon stocks in disturbed soils overshooting those of undisturbed soils before the decomposer community becomes fully established. This is a question we will address in future work.

Page 11: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

11

‘Impacts of grazing in the uplands’

Dr Mariecia Fraser IBERS, Aberystwyth University, E-mail: [email protected]

Grazing has been a principal driver of ecological change in the uplands for centuries, particularly with regard to semi-natural vegetation communities. The headage payments which accompanied the post-war production drive led to widespread overgrazing, which was in turn instrumental in the decline of many upland ecosystems and the loss habitats of international conservation importance such as heathlands. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in 2003 and the associated de-coupling of support from production has brought about new challenges. In many areas falling livestock numbers has been linked to undergrazing, abandonment and further reductions in diversity. The loss of cattle from the hills has been of particular concern since they are more willing than sheep to consume invasive hill grasses such as Molinia caerulea and Nardus stricta. Trampling by cattle can also open up dense swards and create seed establishment sites. The role of breed in influencing grazing behaviour appears to differ for different species. Studies with cattle have shown that modern, rapidly-maturing breeds consume similar quantities of target species such as Molinia to traditional breeds. In contrast, different breeds of hill sheep have been shown to consume different diets when grazing heathland communities. Little is currently known of the grazing behaviour of different crossbred sheep in an upland environment, yet market forces and consumer demands for improved lamb carcasses are driving changes to the traditional stratified sheep production system. Such changes will inevitably have implications for recommended stocking densities given the increased nutritional demands of larger animals. Further research is urgently needed to develop new, more effective grazing guidelines that differentiate between restoration and maintenance management for different habitat types. Strengthening the evidence base regarding interactions between livestock productivity, emissions, vegetation composition and carbon capture within upland grazing systems would enable opportunities to improve ecosystem service delivery from these areas to be identified and exploited.

Page 12: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

12

‘Valuing the economics of combined upland resources’

Prof. Peter Midmore, SMB, Aberystwyth University, E-mail: [email protected]

Traditional environmental economics treats ecosystems as if they were subsystems of the economy, although more radical perspectives (e.g. Daly, 1992) suggest that economic activity should be constrained within the context of overall finite natural resources. More generally, economic, cultural and environmental systems overlap and are to an extent interdependent, and this should be the reference framework for thinking about the value, and consequent management, of upland peat systems. Currently, upland farms in Wales produce average cash incomes between £32,000-£35,000 annually, on land areas of around 15 hectares (Wales Farm Business Survey, 2012). However, also on average, the total value of subsidies is substantially greater, which implies that the value of what is being produced is less than society as a whole is paying for it, in terms of the prices of output and the grants made through different kinds of support scheme. However, it could be very much in the social interest if farming in the uplands produced so-called public goods (such as improved water quality, flood regulation, biodiversity, space for leisure, recreation and appreciation of landscape: but also importantly, carbon storage). But with the cost of agricultural support continuing to rise, and public expenditure under pressure to contract, it is important that the value of the ecosystem services produced by upland agriculture is correctly priced – and certainly not overpriced. How should such a value be calculated? For mainstream economists, value is reflected in prices, or what people as individuals are collectively willing to pay. For public goods, though, individuals cannot be prevented from benefiting from their provision, and so there is no incentive to pay for them, or means of excluding them from provision. In this case markets are said to fail. Hence the remedy is to try to restore things “as if” markets were working efficiently. The main tool developed to offset market failure is cost-benefit analysis. The costs of the policies that support farming in the uplands are relatively well-known, in terms of the value of payments and the resources required to administer them to farmers. Social value of benefits of carbon storage is harder to calculate: broadly, the rate of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), via climate change, affects future production capacity by reducing potential productivity. Consequently, the average savings achieved from preventing a tonne of carbon being released (or its GHG equivalent) can be estimated, though with widely dispersed estimates. On the assumption (Worrall and Evans, 2009) that pristine peatlands fix 18.9 tC per km2 annually, that roughly 4,000 km2 of peat land exists in Wales, and Stern’s (2006) estimate of $326 per tC is appropriate, then the annual ecosystem service value is about £15.7m. However, using Nordhaus’(2007) more sceptical valuation of $32 per tC, the value is much less at £1.5m. Comparing either value, though, with Single Payment Scheme spending (about £93 million annually) shows that managing land for carbon capture will not be a viable substitute for policy reform. While the values associated with preventing C losses from poorly managed peatlands might be much greater, in violating the “polluter pays”

Page 13: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

13

principle, compensation for not damaging carbon stored in peat opens up questions of moral hazard. The fragility of many of these arguments is pointed up by considering what lost productivity is being measured in the social value of carbon. The basis of the lower estimate is that, if carbon prices are low, greater economic growth is possible in the future and that will provide ample scope for mitigation and other necessary measures to overcome the constraints. The higher estimate is a reflection of the fact that these future costs are greater and more uncertain than we can at present visualise. Neither position can yet be resolved by an appeal to evidence. As a consequence, appeal to the precautionary principle, that we need to manage all possible means of controlling GHGs including effective peat land management, is the best case that can be made. References Daly, H. E. (1992) Steady-state Economics. London: Earthscan Publications. Nordhaus, W. D. (2007) The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT, 2007); available at http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/recent_stuff.html. O'Regan, A., Chapman, N. (2011) Farm Business Survey in Wales, Statistical Results for 2010/2011. Aberystwyth: Aberystwyth University. Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change, London: HM Treasury. Worrall, F. and Evans, M.G. (2009) The carbon budget of upland peat soils, in: A. Bonn, T. Allott (eds) Drivers of Environmental Change in the Uplands, Abingdon: Routledge.

Page 14: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

14

WORKSHOPS

Uplands for Carbon Capture 13:15-15:00 Discussion session - thematic topics: Valuing ecosystem services of Uplands Chairs: Mark Reed (Sustainable Uplands) & Clifton Bain (IUCN Peatlands Programme)

- Peter Midmore (IBERS, Aberystwyth University) - Charles Morgan (Wales Biodiversity Partnership Uplands Group) - Hugh Evans (and Finlay McAllister) (Forestry Commission) - Gemma Bell (Environment Systems)

Management of Uplands Chair: Alan Jones (IBERS, Aberystwyth University)

- Mariecia Fraser (IBERS, Aberystwyth University) - Chris Evans (CEH, Bangor) - Peter Jones (CCW) - Andrew Roberts (National Trust) - Arfon Williams (RSPB) - Emily Foot (Wildlife Trust of S & W Wales) - Rhys Evans (National Trust)

Future Challenges for the Uplands Chair: Dylan Gwynn-Jones (IBERS, Aberystwyth University)

- Tom DeLuca (Bangor University) - Nick Ostle (CEH, Lancaster) - Pat Thompson (RSPB) - Joe Dagget (National Trust) - Sian Thomas (Dulas) - Sue Ward (Lancaster University) - Rob Marrs (University of Liverpool)

Restoring Upland Systems Chair: John Scullion (IBERS, Aberystwyth University)

- Liz Lewis-Reddy (Montgomeryshire WT) - Chris Bakker (National Trust) - Jessica Tyler (National Trust) - Andrew Detheridge (IBERS, Aberystwyth University) - Simon Oakley (CEH, Lancaster) - Conrad Trevelyan (Dulas) - Jennifer Bussell (IBERS, Aberystwyth University) - David Comont (IBERS, Aberystwyth University)

Page 15: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

15

Workshop Group 1: Valuing ecosystem services of Uplands Clifton Bain (IUCN Peatlands Programme, CHAIR); Peter Midmore (IBERS, Aberystwyth University); Charles Morgan (Wales Biodiversity Partnership Uplands Group); Hugh Evans (and Finlay McAllister) (Forestry Commission); Gemma Bell (Environment Systems) There are a number of ecosystem services which, because of their public good characteristics, do not have a market value: these include outdoor recreation, carbon storage for climate regulation, potable water supplies and flood risk amelioration. Developing policies which guide management options for the uplands requires an evaluation of trade-offs and a prioritisation of these public goods, especially where trade-offs exist between them and the marketed outputs of food, fibre and timber. Whilst in principle economists can use contingent valuation methods to explore quasi-market values for ecosystem services, there are two major sources of potential error. Firstly, most studies of natural phenomena and the value of ecosystem services derived from them are site-specific (or sometimes species-specific); imputing the benefits derived from one example to all existing ecosystems can involve substantial error. Secondly, whilst the development of choice experiments overcomes some of the problems of subjective evaluation, a major drawback is that individual subjects in these experiments do not have complete information on which to base their decisions. The problem of uncertainty regarding future supplies of ecosystem services with public good characteristics is the most important issue facing environmental evaluation. Invoking the precautionary principle, a practical approach which could be used to guide policy could be an adaptation of El Serafy’s method of pricing extractable natural resources: this would involve setting values equivalent to the nearest alternative of achieving the public good from commercial resources. This would inevitably involve over-pricing of ecosystem services, but would constitute an upper bound which could be revised downwards if technology and knowledge concerning key processes improves.

Page 16: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

16

Workshop Group 2: Management of the uplands Alan Jones (IBERS Aberystwyth, CHAIR); Mariecia Fraser (IBERS, Aberystwyth University),Peter Jones (CCW), Andrew Roberts (National Trust), Arfon Williams (RSPB), Emily Foot (Wildlife Trust of S & W Wales), Rhys Evans (National Trust), Mick Green (Ecology Matters). Upland management traditionally formed a part of wider agricultural practice. The extensive, low-productive techniques once used were sympathetic to this fragile landscape and helped to conserve semi-natural upland ecosystems, yet this sort of management is no longer economically viable. Attempts to increase the productivity of the uplands, which took place up until the 1980s damaged these systems, producing areas that continue to decline, and are still degrading and losing carbon from their soils. The current aims of upland conservation start from the broad aims of managing biodiversity, however, these aims potentially complement those of the carbon storage agenda. The most resilient systems and those with the greatest biological value are considered to be those which also store carbon most effectively, even if this is only realised only as an ancillary benefit. Presently, challenges exist in upland management due to the funding constraints on conservation and the limited resources available. Resources are spread thinly and areas have to be prioritised in terms of need. It is not known precisely where these resources can be directed most effectively, to enable related aims of biodiversity conservation and the carbon storage function of the uplands to be supported. There is a need to appraise these benefits spatially in order to realise the greatest value from limited conservation resources in the uplands. The diversity of organisations, agencies and land managers involved in upland management mean that a fully co-ordinated approach for the management of this landscape is potentially difficult to achieve. Upland management approaches One major issue identified in our consultation was that of increasing upland areas dominated by the grass, Molinia caerulea. It was not known what effect this was having specifically on carbon storage, but these areas are considered indicative of a degraded habitat with reduced biological value. Molinia-dominance in acid grassland has arisen due to wider abandonment of grazing in the uplands from economic decline. To realise the full biological potential of these areas, management must be instigated in order to reduce Molinia-dominance. This can be achieved using the following methods: i) Mowing ii) Grazing iii) Burning iv) Chemical treatment (herbicide application) Each of these techniques has different levels of suitability, depending on the prevailing nature of vegetation and location. Chemical treatments may be restricted in some areas due to the policy of administering organisations, or where uplands form the catchments for drinking water supplies. Mowing or grazing each incur a large financial cost, so these managements can only be carried out to a limited scale. Burning may compliment grazing, but in particular situations it has associated risks, one of which is that with regular burning a

Page 17: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

17

Calluna-dominated shrub community may develop. Because of concerns with burning, some organisations will not adopt this form management as a control for Molinia. The ultimate aim of Molinia control managements is to restore a diverse plant community system, which includes Molinia as a balanced component. This ideal is not always possible, given limited resources for conservation work, so in some areas unmanaged Molinia-dominated grassland is likely to exist and will persist indefinitely. It was not considered practical to manage the uplands ‘specifically for carbon’, neither would this be ideal. Carbon storage related functions are likely to derive as an ‘accidental’ benefit from existing upland management aims, which will remain directed at conserving habitats and restoring degraded systems. In particular, it was considered unlikely that generic prescriptions for upland management would find favour with land managers. It was considered that these management options would need to be tailored to each site and appraised on a case-by-case basis. The managers of each site were thought to have the best knowledge, experience and understanding for this. On an organisational level, it was considered that little understanding, or general support existed amongst various land management organisations to simply regard the uplands as a ‘carbon storage area’. Targeting areas for management It is uncertain what the effect of ‘failing to manage’ in certain areas will have on carbon storage in the uplands, but due to the large and remote nature of this landscape, some areas will remain unmanaged, following agricultural abandonment. In the case of some acid-grasslands, the effect is that areas will remain Molinia-dominated. Molinia is considered to have limited peat forming capacity but little is known about this, or its effect of carbon storage. The peat forming capacity of this type of grassland may be less than that, however, of more diverse upland grass communities, or bog moss areas. At a landscape scale, upland management creates mosaic habitats characterised by three plant communities: i) Dwarf shrubs ii) Eriophorum grassland iii) Bog mosses A component of this diversity arises naturally due to variation in the landscape and management may only be needed in order to compliment this. Some areas will, hence, require lower levels of intervention in order to sustain diversity. In areas with a greater management need, benefits might be derived by targeting resources. The locations where the maximum value can be achieved for conservation of both biodiversity and carbon storage are not specifically known. It was considered that conservation of a mixed-mosaic of upland vegetation would complement both traditional conservation aims and those of carbon storage. In effect, such an ‘upland mosaic’ could potentially be used as an indicator of healthy upland ecosystem functioning. The need for more detailed indicators and proxies of upland ecosystem functioning, including that of carbon storage, was also identified. The present funding arrangements for upland conservation, particularly with regard to carbon storage were considered both an opportunity and a constraint. This funding

Page 18: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

18

situation was thought to be especially favourable for ‘restorative’ or ‘transformative’ work, but failed to value programmes that conserved existing upland ecosystems, despite these often performing equal or greater functions. Upland management and the future Ecosystem resilience was identified as a key trait to be taken into account in management planning for the future, particularly regarding climate change. Greater resilience was considered to exist wherever habitat diversity was created at the landscape scale, or when plant community biodiversity was supported at an individual site. Each of the ‘mosaic’ habitat-types previously identified was thought to possess degrees of resilience to climate stress. In terms of resistance to high temperatures and drought, however, dwarf shrub communities were specifically identified as having the most resilience potential. Public perceptions of the uplands were identified as an area requiring work for the future. In particular the group felt that uplands areas were poorly understood by the general public and, hence, unlikely to be widely valued. This meant that it was difficult to attract funding for upland conservation, despite the range of important functions these areas perform. The amenity value of the uplands was identified as important, particularly in attracting tourism income to remote rural areas. Few areas of conflict were thought to exist directly between conservation management and recreational use. The group identified, however, some indirect negative aspects of recreational use of the uplands (e.g. footpath erosion), which resulted in significant funds being diverted from habitat conservation. The loss of funds from the upland conservation budget was not costed appropriately, considering their implications for upland ecosystem functioning.

Page 19: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

19

Workshop 3: Future Challenges for the Uplands Chair: Nick Ostle (CEH, Lancaster, CHAIR); Dylan Gwynn-Jones (IBERS, Aberystwyth University); Tom DeLuca (Bangor University); Pat Thompson (RSPB); Joe Dagget (National Trust); Sian Thomas (Dulas); Sue Ward (Lancaster University); Rob Marrs (University of Liverpool) This discussion group considered the wide range of current and future threats to upland ecosystems. These included land use (particularly animal interactions), climate change (and related weather events e.g. flooding), fire and other disturbances. It was very clear from group discussion that individuals / stakeholders differentially valued and prioritised the various upland ecosystem servicers depending on their roles and interests. Securing carbon stocks represented just one element that needed consideration and future protection. We discussed the value of the uplands and the future and potential management of these cultural landscapes. Importantly, much of this land is grazed so already managed and exploited therefore any threatening factors would likely interact with animal activity and density / prescription. The possibility of leaving some land ungrazed and allowing scrub and wooded areas to establish was considered as this ‘could’ be effective in terms of carbon sequestration and in line with Welsh Government plans for the future of Forestry in Wales. To support this possibility we considered evidence provided earlier in the workshop (see Midmore P, above) which suggested earlier that the subsidies for such farms exceeded income. However, wildlife trusts would be unlikely to take on the ‘management’ of these systems in the future. Should farmers therefore farm to conserve rather than to produce? The upland is a mosaic of habitats and we agreed that too much attention had been given to peatland habitats. They have large carbon stores but represent a small component of the uplands (area) and it would be unlikely that we could increase future C sequestration in such systems. Importantly they needed to be protected and had other ecosystem services. Consideration of the uplands in terms of biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and wide range of other ecosystem services needed a far broader scope. We agreed that the mosaic of habitats and diversity of upland systems could provide potential resilience to future threats. Yet, at the same time a threat to one element could cascade to others. Resilience included environmental and economic elements. Importantly, these areas have low output in terms of human gain (low productivity and poor income generation) yet they hold importance in terms of several ecosystem services which are often underappreciated in terms of economic value. Overall, this session developed more of a discussion on what we should do with the uplands and how we should manage them in the future rather than threats. This whole topic needed far more discussion and consideration of more elements and unanswered questions before we could target protection of carbon reserves. Importantly an integrated approach was suggest with the aim of maximising the resilience of these systems.

Page 20: Uplands for Carbon Capture meeting - Aberystwyth · PDF fileUplands for Carbon Capture meeting ... James Skates Welsh General Assembly James ... New challenges are now upon us as growing

20

Workshop 4: Restoring Upland Systems John Scullion (IBERS, Aberystwyth University, CHAIR); Liz Lewis-Reddy (Montgomeryshire WT); Chris Bakker (National Trust); Jessica Tyler (National Trust); Andrew Detheridge (IBERS, Aberystwyth University); Simon Oakley (CEH, Lancaster); Conrad Trevelyan (Dulas); Jennifer Bussell (IBERS, Aberystwyth University); David Comont (IBERS, Aberystwyth University).

This group firstly attempted to identify significant ecosystems in the uplands that might require ‘restoring’; there was some discussion of this term but a meaning was accepted which implied some beneficial change in general function or towards a more appropriate ecotype. It was agreed to focus firstly on C issues, then to consider whether C mitigation measures might conflict with other biodiversity or ecosystem services objectives. Four systems were identified:

Degraded peatland systems

Land affected by ‘invasive’ species e.g. bracken

Acid grassland subject to agricultural improvement e.g. liming and fertilising

Degraded woodland or former woodland sites converted to pasture

Most of the discussion centred on peatlands. It was agreed that these systems would become C saturated over long timescales and that some degradation was probably part of a natural cycle. The issue of prioritising sites for restoration was then considered and whether from a C accumulation perspective heavily degraded sites were more valuable than lightly degraded ones. Difficulties in restoring heavily degraded sites were recognised and the easier biodiversity benefit from less degraded sites was noted. Other factors considered important in selecting sites were the extent of management control on the restored and surrounding areas, and slope gradient. The value of best practice guidelines was recognised but the importance of site specific factors necessitated some degree of flexibility in implementing these guidelines. The value of monitoring success post-restoration measures was agreed as was the need for some effective but simple process for doing this. On bracken infested sites a potential conflict between C retention and biodiversity improvement was recognised. There was some discussion of measures for partial thinning of stands and whether grassland (as opposed to woodland) was an appropriate restoration target. It was recognised that many hill improvement grasslands were likely to progressively acidify in the (likely) absence of further liming inputs. There was some discussion of whether this process should be left to proceed or whether some intervention might be appropriate to manage the transition back to acid grassland. The important role for woodland in upland land management and for potential C sequestration was recognised but time prevented further consideration of this other than to recognise the need to consider soil types (and C stocks) when selecting sites for planting.