1. WFD and Payments for Water Services
Andrew Walker – Yorkshire Water
2. Issues to address
a)opportunities to meet WFD requirements at reasonable cost
a) Whose cost – Taxpayer/ Polluter/ Water Services Customer
b) Whose responsibility – EA/ Polluter/ Society/ Water Services Customer
c) Whose benefit – Environment/ climate/ society/ Landowners – or is it seen as a benefit?
d) Reward for stopping damaging practice, or enforcement through Article 7?
e) Running the YWS Estate in an open, honest, balanced way
f) Sustainable solutions must be that – not optimised for one beneficiary to detriment of others
b)barriers to this – including policy issues
a) Recognising the need to change – climate change, historic management of peatlands
b) Making markets for services real, and the rewards attractive – CAP/ HLS
c) Understanding the science – filling in the gaps
d) Taking a holistic view, from source to sea
e) Pollution offsetting – global markets – how do we get round these issues?
c)suggestions and policy recommendations/ actions needed from others
a) Review current designations for Uplands – SSSI’s for Carbon?
b) identifying future threats to peatlands – climate change/ renewables
9. What can the past tell us about the future?
1500 years continuous presence of sphagnum – missing for the last 150 years plus
Water tables much more variable now – previously more stable and protected the peat
Peatlands can survive climatic events (Little Ice Age, Middle Ages, Wildfires )
but only if they’re healthy
Monocultures and intensive management of Calluna can damage peatlands
and stop the future building of peat (impacts carbon storage & sequestration)
Peat forming species can come back if you provide the right conditions
Climate change suggests peatlands at risk now – need to act fast to protect what we have
10. The Ecosystem Services Approach
Comparison with the change
X - Pessimistic Y - Central Z - Optimistic
from Baseline A
1. Trendline B Baseline A Baseline A
Status quo 5% increase in DOC Continued deterioration Continued deterioration
-£49,932 £0 £0
MIEX AMP7 Miex AMP7 Miex AMP7
Inc opex £5m £5m
2. Trendline D Trendline C Trendline B
Free Market 50% increase in DOC 30% increase in DOC 5% increase inDOC
-£2,772,242 -£2,593,538 -£1,049,932
Miex AMP6 Miex AMP6 Miex AMP7
Inc opex Lesser inc opex Inc opex
3. Baseline A Trendline E Trendline F
Balanced intervention Continued deterioration 15% decrease in DOC PLATEAU by 2020
£0
£2,794,533 £3,938,251
Miex AMP7
Miex AMP9 No Miex
£5m
11. Theoretical catchment colour output at an average upland works for
different land management scenarios over the next 25 years
250
A B C D E F Design envelope
Point at which a capital treatment solution will be required
200
150
Hazen
130
100
50
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Year (based on AMPs)
12. Conclusions
• Land management interventions to change peat hydrology have
the potential to deliver significant benefits.
• The interventions for water quality are compatible with activities
that will also benefit biodiversity.
• The valuation process has had to be simplified and must be
carefully interpreted.
• The exercise is based on one small catchment in the South
Pennines Region but could be transferred to other upland
catchments with similar characteristics.
