Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Peatland Payments for Ecosystem Services in the South West
Water and Carbon on Exmoor
English Upland Peatland Network Conference
Exeter
13 November 2012
Charles Cowap
Chartered Surveyor
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Context: Exmoor example
Exmoor
R Barle
R Exe
Wimbleball Resr & R Haddeo
ExebridgePumping Station
Replenishment PumpingApprox 5 miles, lifting water from 120 to 240 m AOD
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Peatland on Exmoor
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Pumping Costs
Treatment Costs
Future Storage/Abstraction
Costs
Incentive payments to landowners –
managers - occupiers
Savings for water buyers
Profit for reinvestment or distribution
CARBON
Economics+ OTHER ESS
PAYMENTS???
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Benefits must be owned by the landownerSource of revenue for landownerNeed for trust fund to remedy any problems, eg solar deals with trust fund set up to remove kitCheaper water bills for SWW customersEnvironmental benefitsJobsHLSWater retention, less flash flooding downstreamMore wildlifePutting land that was drained back to its natural stateFinancial - tradeable commodity, income for managing land naturallyEcosystem service [? ..airs?]None
Is it irreversible?Opportunity for existing schemeHealth of livestock - flukeLivestock safetyIt might not work, restoration might not workLand not suitable for grazing, destock land
Contravening Single Farm Payments
Collateral damagePIF [Permanently Ineligible Features for SFP]Increased carbonIncreased silt peat into riverDevaluation of agri landRPA ProblemsHealth and safety problemsFuture funding for restoration of damageWhat are the potential impacts downstream?HLS Capital Works money being used for mire rather than hedge work which directly benefits local communities
Conflict of interest between RPA and Mire project - when spot check on acreage for payment resulted in stating that they would not pay for area affected by mire work
Opportunity costs for other activities
If is not owned by the landowner who owns the land and project?Damage to grazing reversing 2,000 years of ag progressNo rewards for joining the projectSWW overriding everythingNo allowance for inflationIs there any way of making up the reduction?
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Summary of concerns, benefits, questions
Concerns Benefits Questions Totals
Revenue/cost 6 3 2 11Asset Value 4 2 0 6Legal/ownership 1 1 3 5Agricultural productivity 2 0 0 2External liabilities 3 1 0 4Animal welfare 2 0 0 2H&S 1 0 0 1Environmental 4 5 1 10Wider economic 3 2 0 5Scheme relationships 6 1 1 8Confidence 8 1 2 11Totals 40 16 9 65
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Top Three Concerns
• Confidence
• Revenue/Cost
• Scheme Relationships
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Top Three Positives
• Environmental
• Revenue
• Asset Value and wider economic aspects
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Top Three Questions
• Legal/ownership concerns
• Revenue and cost
• Confidence
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Questions?
Charles CowapMBA MRICS FAAVCharles CowapMBA MRICS FAAV
Contact Details
Translating new knowledge for rural professional practice
07947 706505
Twitter: @charlescowap
Blog: http://charlescowap.wordpress.com/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/cdcowap