PESFOR-W: Improving the design and environmental effectiveness of woodlands for water Payments for Ecosystem Services (original) (raw)
Related papers
E9a: Forests for Water Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence & prospects
2020
The PESFOR-W EU COST Action (15206) is a network of researchers and practitioners from 40 countries interested in the effectiveness of woodland measures in reducing agricultural diffuse pollution to watercourses, and the design and governance and cost-effectiveness of woodlands for water payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes. Diffuse pollution from agriculture is a significant pressure affecting over 40% of Europe’s river and coastal water bodies. Accumulating evidence indicates that the EU Water Framework Directive’s objective that each water body reaches “Good Ecological Status” by 2027 in many cases will only be achieved by targeted land use change. Small-scale forest planting (“Woodlands-for-water”) is a potential solution to this problem. To help underpin future development of woodlands for water projects, PESFOR-W is creating ‘look-up’ tables on the effectiveness of woodland creation for reducing a number of key diffuse pollutants. An initial evidence review found that...
Forest Green Infrastructure to Protect Water Quality: A Step-by-Step Guide for Payment Schemes
Ecological Research Monographs
This chapter describes how to design appropriate and cost-effective forest green infrastructure for water payment schemes to protect and improve water quality. It is structured by the main steps involved in establishing a payment scheme, starting with identifying the water issues and how tree planting and forest management can help, managing potential disbenefits and exploring multiple benefits, followed by scheme design, monitoring and communication. The approach is relevant to all actors involved in sustainable water management, farming and forestry, from policy makers, catchment planners and land managers to private investors, practitioners and local communities. We provide a common language and framework to help ensure schemes are successful in delivering water and other ecosystem services while minimising possible trade-offs (such as the potential for tree planting to reduce water resources).
The impact of forestry as a land use on water quality outcomes: An integrated analysis
Forest Policy and Economics, 2020
The adoption of the EU land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) regulation ensures that for the first time afforestation in Europe will contribute toward the achievement of European Union (EU) climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement. However, increased afforestation in Europe could have unintended environmental trade-offs that may hamper the achievement of EU Water Framework Directive targets. While much of the previous forestry research has focused on the potential negative impacts of afforestation and harvesting processes on water quality at a single point in time, this study applies an ordered probit model to investigate the impact of afforestation and forest cover (in a predominantly agricultural setting) on water quality over a 20-year period. In addition, we present an analysis of a simulated increase in afforestation and forest cover, and a corresponding decrease in agriculture area, on water quality. The results show an increase in water quality in 2.62% of cases. Both increased forest cover and the substitution of livestock have a positive impact on water quality outcomes. Despite the negative impacts associated with the process of afforestation, the long term positives associated with forest cover over the course of a forest rotation, make it a preferable land use option in terms of water quality relative to more seasonal agricultural land uses. Given the expected increase in afforestation in line with national policy, Ireland offers a unique opportunity to observe the outcomes of a large scale afforestation programme in a rural setting. The findings of this paper offer a deeper insight into the impacts of afforestation and forest cover over a meaningful time frame that is not available in site specific studies and studies focused on individual management interventions. status' in all surface waters by 2015 (or subsequent cycles) (Council Directive, 2000).). Water quality outcomes are influenced by a range of land use and catchment characteristics (Donohue et al., 2005; Doody et al., 2012; Withers and Haygarth, 2007), the most well documented being agriculture and independent wastewater treatment systems, such as septic tank systems (STS) (Haygarth et al., 2003; Novotny, 1999; Richards et al., 2016; Tong and Chen, 2002). Afforestation defined by the IPCC as the "planting of new forests on lands which, historically, have not contained forests" (IPCC, 2006), and forest management interventions, such as forest harvesting, have been linked with negative water quality outcomes (Clarke et al., 2015; Kelly-Quinn et al., 2016; Rodgers et al., 2012). In 2015, forest cover (32.6%) and agriculture (41%) combined, accounted for over 70% of EU Member States land cover (Eurostat, 2017). On average, 20% of the rural EU population are not connected to
Sustainable grassland systems in Europe and the EU Water Framework Directive
2009
The International Conference on 'Sustainable grassland systems in Europe and the EU Water Framework Directive' took place at Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Wexford from 12th to 14th November 2008. There were approximately 150 participants from Europe, the USA and New Zealand. Most of the invited papers are published in this conference issue. The main aim of the Conference was to identify the challenges that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) presents for grassland agriculture and to help guide the implementation of cost effective mitigation measures. The Conference focused on nutrient (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) loss from grassland and the implications for sustainable production and water quality. This paper summarises the main points and outcomes of discussions and recommendations from the Conference. It was concluded that it is difficult to link the management practices on individual fields or farms with the effects on water quality and ecological conditions in surface waters at the catchment-scale. There is a need to identify areas of highest risk of nutrient loss from point and diffuse sources to a waterbody of vulnerable status and then to focus mitigation measures in the critical source areas, where there is the greatest risk to water quality. Participants agreed that there can be a substantial lag time between the implementation of measures and improvements in water quality. A participatory approach at local level, with personal contact, is considered more productive for securing a positive response to adopting measures. Concerns were expressed that maps and models may be misinterpreted. It was recommended that estimates of accuracy should always be shown when presenting map data and modelled results. Success stories in reducing nutrient loss to water were reported and examples from Denmark and Switzerland were outlined. There is no consensus about the most important mitigation options; they will vary for different situations. The effective implementation of the Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Directives should go a long way towards meeting farming obligations under the WFD. The need for adaptive integrated management was recognised. How mitigation measures can be compared across a wide range of agricultural systems in several EU states, has not yet been explored and to achieve this, further cooperation on the most appropriate options is needed. Similarities and differences between the situation in New Zealand and the USA compared to the EU were also presented and discussed.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC) requires new ecological standards for rivers, lakes and coastal waters by 2015. In the United Kingdom the English Catchment Sensitive Farming Initiative has identified 40 catchments which are at risk of failing the European Commission WFD targets for good ecological status of water bodies because of a range of issues. The river Axe catchment situated in south-west England, with a mixture of diffuse and point sources of pollution, is one of these priority sites, as intensive dairy farming and cultivation of high risk crops (maize) cause problems with enhanced suspended sediment, nitrate and phosphorus levels in the river. Much of the Axe is under national and county landscape designations, making land use or management measures taken to achieve river status sensitive to these designations. For the purpose of this research the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT-2005) was used. The baseline scenario was based on field observation and interviews with the Environment Agency and farmers; it was run with and without point sources. Three different mitigation scenarios, designed to maintain the landscape of the catchment, were then tested. Field buffer strips (FBS), extensive land use management (EXT) and sheep land use management (SHP), were used to assess the effectiveness of the measures in reducing nutrient loads in the river Axe, UK. Management scenarios reduced the average annual loads at the main catchment outlet by 21.2% (FBS), 37.3% (EXT) and 45.0% (SHP), for total nitrogen and 47.7% (FBS), 60.6% (EXT) and 62.4% (SHP) for total phosphorus. The results of this study suggest that there may be a fundamental incompatibility between the delivery of WFD targets and the maintenance of viable agricultural systems necessary to maintain landscapes which are highly valued for their aesthetic, recreational and economic value.
Water-related ecosystem services of forests: learning from regional cases
Forests are widely recognised as recommended land cover for protection of water resources. It is commonly understood that forests control erosion, improve water quality and regulate water flows in catchments to some extent. Less-well understood are aspects of the so-called green water flow: biomass production in forests has a price locally in terms of evaporative water losses though it can provide rainfall elsewhere. In this chapter, we discuss the complex and sometimes contra-intuitive issues that emerge when trying to optimise forest management for water-related ecosystem services. We analyse three cases in very different geographical and socio-economic settings where the water-related ecosystem services of the forest have been a driver for forest man-agement transition. In the first example from Ethiopia, forests are restored for soil and water conservation purposes related to green water, while in the second case in South Africa, plantation forests are removed with the intention...
Forests
This paper examines the level of payment for ecosystem services (PES) concept implementation in the financing of water-related forest ecosystem services (ES) in the Republic of Croatia, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FB&H), the Republic of Slovenia, and the Republic of Serbia. The focus is on water-related forest ES recognised by the millennium ecosystem assessment (MEA). For the purpose of this paper, the term pure PES describes schemes that comply to all five conditions set by Wunder definition and term PES like for those schemes that miss some of those conditions. In the first step, the most important legislative documents related to forests, water, and environmental protection were selected. The second consists of a content analysis; focusing on the definition of ES; the definition of fees or payments; the establishment of ‘forest funds’, ‘water funds’, or ‘environmental funds’; and the way these funds were spent. Here we looked at the flow of funding into the forestr...
Safeguarding the provision of ecosystem services in catchment systems
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2013
This paper is 1 of 8 articles generated from the SETAC Special Symposium: Ecosystem Services, from Policy to Practice (February 15-16, 2012, Brussels, Belgium). The symposium aimed to give a broad overview of the application of the ecosystem services concept in environmental assessment and management, against the background of the implementation of the European environmental policies such as the biodiversity agenda, agricultural policy, and the water framework directive.