Some Learning from the Demonstration Bob Harris Test Catchments Programme (DTC) With thanks to Adie Collins, Kevin Hiscock, Andrew Lovett, Alex Inman and many others 1
Key Features Multiple research institutes • working on 3 separate catchments , but co-ordinated • Funded centrally but with additional funding derived locally to add value • Long term (from 2010 now 8+ years) – a platform for research rather than a project High frequency monitoring • to understand processes • Social science aspects became as important as natural science 2
The DTC Catchments Eden Wensum (Cumbria) (Norfolk) Livestock and mixed upland Arable farming farming University of East Anglia, Lancaster University, Cranfield University, British Newcastle University, Geological Survey, Entec, Durham University, NIAB and others... University of Cumbria, Eden Rivers Trust, CEH and others... Tamar Avon The DTC programme Phase 1 (Devon/Cornwall) (Hampshire) aims to evaluate the 2010 – 2014 extent to which on-farm mitigation measures can Phase 2 cost-effectively reduce the impacts of water 2014 – 2018 pollution on river Dairy, beef and sheep Mixed lowland farming farming ecology while Phase 3 ADAS, University of Reading, University of Bristol, maintaining food 2018 – 2019 QMUL, ENTEC, University of Exeter and others... production capacity. 3
– an interesting evolution • Set up to look at improving water quality – make up of research consortia initially scientific, with an analytic/reductionist approach. • Subsequently realised that social science aspects were important – but difficult to integrate • And then the economic issues became dominant in terms of policy-making • So the research questions changed/evolved… before the answers to the original questions had been answered 4
Catchment science – the challenge of detecting change 5
What has Defra got out of DTC? • Understanding catchment systems – Causes, effects and trends in multiple pollutants – Timeframe within which we can achieve water quality goals • Designing interventions – Cost effectiveness of combinations of measures – Targeting of measures • Ways to influence land managers – Understand behaviours – Stakeholder led approaches • Monitoring/ research methods – Developing new approaches 6
Some key findings Diffuse Pollution – understanding the processes 7
8
Rainfall Response: Nitrate Initial rainfall Prolonged elevated dilution concentrations Subsequent soil leaching 9
Rainfall Response: Phosphorus & Sediment Surface runoff initiated Rapid return to pre-event conditions 10
Interrogating the evidence Important to monitor all nutrient fractions , to fully understand the sources/pressures impacting on ecosystems and provide sensitivity for detecting post-measure changes 4 Particulate phosphorus 3.5 2012 2013 2016 Dissolved organic phosphorus 3 Annual load (kg P ha -1 ) 2.5 Soluble reactive phosphorus 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Priors Farm Cool's Cottage Ebble (upstream) Ebble (downstream) Kingston Deverill Brixton Deverill Burracott Bridge Caudworthy Ford 45 Particulate organic nitrogen Annual load (kg N ha -1 ) 40 Dissolved organic nitrogen 35 2012 2013 2016 30 Total oxidised nitrogen 25 20 15 10 5 0 Priors Farm Cool's Cottage Ebble (upstream) Ebble (downstream) Kingston Deverill Brixton Deverill Burracott Bridge Caudworthy Ford 11
Diffuse Pollution Hydrochemistry 1 • Catchment characteristics control nature/timing of nutrient flux to waters • Nutrient and sediment delivery is episodic – can only be fully understood through high frequency monitoring (minimum daily), but the uncertainties in observational data, even at high frequency, are high . • Nutrient chemistry varies according to landscape character – and can be underestimated if monitoring relies on inorganic nutrient fractions alone • Clay catchments have quickflow responses dominated by overland flow: – N and P delivery dominated by particulate and organic matter fluxes from surface deposits – Sediment delivery significantly affects ecosystem responses to diffuse agricultural pollution • Permeable (Chalk) catchments have slower responses dominated by baseflow from aquifers – Nitrogen flux dominated by nitrate leaching from soils to groundwater – Phosphorus delivery is dominated by erosion of P-rich soils from arable land – P-rich fine sediments stored in gravel bed rivers contribute significant ecosystem impacts Interannual variation in nutrient loading is marked, limiting our ability to • detect change in response to mitigation measures. 12
Diffuse Pollution Hydrochemistry 2 • Soluble reactive P delivery is a minor component of P available to biota and contributing to ecosystem impacts in rural catchments • N delivery is not dominated by nitrate-N , except in groundwater-dominated catchments and is never the sole contributor to ecosystem impacts • Organic and particulate N and P generate substantial impacts on stream ecosystem health in catchments, particularly in relation to livestock farming • Instream nutrient processing generates consequences downstream • Successful mitigation requires multiple stressor control , including management of nutrient pools accumulated in agricultural soils, aquifers, wetlands, stream sediments and the biota Mitigation response times are likely to be controlled by : • – The scale of the enrichment problem relative to baseline conditions – The size of the nutrient pools accumulated within the system – The residence (flushing) time of the catchment , and – The scale and targeting of the mitigation effort 13
Some key findings – Social science – understanding farmer behaviours At the catchment scale, people and their livelihoods are a significant part of the system… a flow of ideas and a shared dialogue of learning 14
Beliefs ..... a conviction an individual or group accepts as true, regardless of the lack of verifiable evidence. • Farmers more likely to adopt a measure if they believe it will deliver tangible environmental benefits • Providing information and motivating farmers to process it are important in changing beliefs Motivation to process information is low because farmers not • convinced there is a case for action. Realisation of the problem is a first vital step • Farmers recognise links between farming practice and water pollution but confused over scale and severity , compared to other sector inputs – so unsure whether they can make a difference • Farmers have seldom been presented with chemical/ecological data at the local level to help their understanding 15
Agency …the capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own free choices. • Many farmers lack basic knowledge - e.g. assessment of soil health • Lack of control over events caused by changing weather patterns: ‘When you get seven inches of rain falling in a few hours, which seems to happen more often nowadays, there’s no soil that can handle that no matter how well it is managed. You can do what you want but you can’t control the weather’ • Lack of security of tenure (and a reluctance to engage in longer- term activity that may not benefit them) • Time poverty is a barrier (e.g. undertaking non-productive work incl. training) • Debt levels preventing investment in much needed farm infrastructure - e.g. manure storage, yards, tracks • Lack of long-term financial security and feeling of financial disempowerment ( perceive themselves as price takers not price makers, uncertainty over Brexit) 16
Social norms ...rules that govern how individuals within a group should behave • Strong sense among farmers that earning a living from the environment is a less noble occupation than being a producer of food. • So, the norm within farming communities is productivist . Acting in contradiction to this ideology carries reputational risks and moves to challenge productivity goals likely to be met with resistance ‘If I were to get the same money as my neighbour but I’m getting it from the environment whilst he is producing food, I’d feel a fraud. I suppose it’s a macho thing us farmers have got in us’ ‘This farm used to be known to everyone as a real gem, a really productive bit of land. Then it got taken over by someone from outside – not a farmer – and completely given over to the environment. I think you could describe this as a complete waste’ 17
Social norms (contd.) • Family, neighbours, farming groups more likely to exert influence than the conservation community • Farmers don’t seek recognition from their peers for undertaking pollution mitigation and public pressure to deliver mitigation activity perceived as low • Supply chain pressure to deliver mitigation activity also perceived as low , but growing due to lobbying activity of environmental NGOs 18
Recommend
More recommend
