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!