WFD and Payments for Water Services

Andrew Walker – Yorkshire Water

Issues to address

a)opportunities to meet WFD requirements at reasonable costa) Whose cost – Taxpayer/ Polluter/ Water Services Customerb) Whose responsibility – EA/ Polluter/ Society/ Water Services Customerc) 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 wayf) Sustainable solutions must be that – not optimised for one beneficiary to detriment of others

b)barriers to this – including policy issuesa) Recognising the need to change – climate change, historic management of peatlandsb) Making markets for services real, and the rewards attractive – CAP/ HLSc) Understanding the science – filling in the gapsd) Taking a holistic view, from source to seae) Pollution offsetting – global markets – how do we get round these issues?

c)suggestions and policy recommendations/ actions needed from othersa) Review current designations for Uplands – SSSI’s for Carbon?b) identifying future threats to peatlands – climate change/ renewables

Why Change? – Boltby Reservoir 20/06/2005

Askwith Moor 23/06/2009

River Wharfe 24/06/2009 – 30 miles like this

What do we need from our Peatlands?

Resilience to Climate Change is essential

Keep Peat where it belongs

What can the past tell us about the future?

1500 years continuous presence of sphagnum – missing for the last 150 years plusWater tables much more variable now – previously more stable and protected the peatPeatlands can survive climatic events (Little Ice Age, Middle Ages, Wildfires )

but only if they’re healthyMonocultures 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 conditionsClimate change suggests peatlands at risk now – need to act fast to protect what we have

Comparison with the changefrom Baseline A

X - Pessimistic Y - Central Z - Optimistic

1.Status quo

Trendline B5% increase in DOC

Baseline AContinued deterioration

Baseline AContinued deterioration

-£49,932MIEX AMP7

Inc opex

£0Miex AMP7

£5m

£0Miex AMP7

£5m

2.Free Market

Trendline D50% increase in DOC

Trendline C30% increase in DOC

Trendline B5% increase inDOC

-£2,772,242Miex AMP6

Inc opex

-£2,593,538Miex AMP6

Lesser inc opex

-£1,049,932Miex AMP7

Inc opex

3.Balanced intervention

Baseline AContinued deterioration

Trendline E15% decrease in DOC

Trendline FPLATEAU by 2020

£0Miex AMP7

£5m

£2,794,533Miex AMP9

£3,938,251No Miex

The Ecosystem Services Approach

Theoretical catchment colour output at an average upland works for

different land management scenarios over the next 25 years

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Year (based on AMPs)

Hazen

A B C D E F Design envelope

Point at which a capital treatment solution will be required

130

• Land management interventions to change peat hydrology havethe potential to deliver significant benefits.

• The interventions for water quality are compatible with activitiesthat will also benefit biodiversity.

• The valuation process has had to be simplified and must becarefully interpreted.

• The exercise is based on one small catchment in the SouthPennines Region but could be transferred to other uplandcatchments with similar characteristics.

Conclusions

Taking responsibility for thewater environment for good

“We maintain and improve the waterenvironment from source to sea andinfluence others to do the same”.

Excellent catchments,rivers and coasts