www.landuse.co.uk

CAMBRIAN MOUNTAINS ADAPTIVE LANDCAPES PROJECT Main Case Study Report Prepared for Defra

by Land Use Consultants, Bangor University and Victoria University of Wellington, NZ

working with the Countryside Council for Wales and the Cambrian Mountains Initiative

June 2011 Defra contact CR0449

LUC SERVICES

Environmental Planning

Landscape Design

Landscape Management

Masterplanning

Landscape Planning

Ecology

Environmental Assessment

Rural Futures

Digital Design

Urban Regeneration

Urban Design

43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD Tel: 020 7383 5784 Fax: 020 7383 4798 london@landuse.co.uk 14 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RH Tel: 0117 929 1997 Fax: 0117 929 1998 bristol@landuse.co.uk

37 Otago Street Glasgow G12 8JJ Tel: 0141 334 9595 Fax: 0141 334 7789 glasgow@landuse.co.uk 28 Stafford Street Edinburgh EH3 7BD Tel: 0131 202 1616 edinburgh@landuse.co.uk

Document Control Version Status: Version Details: Prepared

by: Checked by:

Approved by:

Ver: Date: Principal 3.0 27 June

2011 Final report Robert

Deane Louise Tricklebank

Robert Deane

i

CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ii 

Executive summary ......................................................................................... iii 

1.  Introduction .................................................................................................1 Purpose of this study .................................................................................................................................... 1 The Project Area ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate change and adaptation principles................................................................................................ 3 Aims and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 7 

2.  Methodology ................................................................................................8 

3.  The Project Area.......................................................................................11 Reasons for the selection of the project area ......................................................................................11 Characteristics of the area ........................................................................................................................12 

4.  Climate change and other pressures on biodiversity and land use in the project area .........................................................................................23 The Climate ..................................................................................................................................................23 Sea level .........................................................................................................................................................26 Atmospheric Pollution................................................................................................................................27 Public recreation..........................................................................................................................................27 Agricultural land use ...................................................................................................................................29 Wider Economic and social drivers of change......................................................................................30 The policy and regulatory environment .................................................................................................31 The overall trajectory for the area in the absence of adaptation measures..................................32 

5.  Modelling potential adaptation strategies ..............................................36 Polyscape .......................................................................................................................................................36 Communicating outputs using ‘flyover’ simulations.............................................................................38 Sources of data.............................................................................................................................................38 

6.  Land Use Scenarios to deliver biodiversity and other services............42 Selection of scenarios.................................................................................................................................42 The Biodiversity Adaptation Scenario ....................................................................................................43 The Agricultural productivity scenario...................................................................................................57 The reducing surface run-off scenario....................................................................................................62 The carbon storage scenario ....................................................................................................................69 Combinations of the biodiveristy scenario with other services .......................................................75 The land cover characteristics of different opportunity zones.........................................................81 

7.  Planning for adaptation in the project area ...........................................84 Taking account of the impacts of climate change.................................................................................84 Applying the CBCC principles to the priorities, opportunities and impacts .................................87 

8.  Applying the lessons through policy......................................................104 Partnership working to achieve integrated objectives ......................................................................104 Communicating objectives and engaging with land managers .........................................................106 Delivering adaptive landscapes in practice...........................................................................................108 Key messages from this study for policy..............................................................................................115 

Bibliography...................................................................................................117 

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. This study has been conducted by a team from Land Use Consultants (Robert Deane), the

University of Bangor (Tim Pagella) and Victoria University in Wellington (Dr Beth Jackson), working with the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and the Cambrian Mountains Initiative (Huwel Manley and Steven Bradley). The project was managed for Defra by Dr Helen Pontier.

2. The project received valuable advice and contributions of evidence from a range of staff at CCW (including Hillary Miller, Rob McCall, Barbara Jones, Jim Latham, Pete Jones and Sue Byrne), the Welsh Assembly Government (Dai Harris) and the Environment Agency Wales (including Simon Neale). A number of farmers participating in the Cambrian Mountains Initiative also provided comments on the methodology and outputs of the study.

3. The project has been steered by a Project Group consisting of Richard Findon, Giles Golshetti, Helen Pontier, Leon Smith and Juliet Viney from Defra, Clive Walmsley and Jim Latham from the Countryside Council for Wales, Peter Brotherton and Michael Morecroft from Natural England and Ken O'Callaghan from the Living With Environmental Change Directorate.

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project provides a case study that examines how to enhance adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in the context of the delivery of other key ecosystem services. It identifies practical measures to achieve this at a landscape scale in a transitional landscape from lowland to upland. The work has been conducted by a team from Land Use Consultants, the University of Bangor and Victoria University in Wellington, working with the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW). It has been undertaken under the wing of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative which is a partnership programme funded by the Welsh Assembly Government, constituent local authorities and CCW, and supported by the Prince’s Charities in Wales and a range of other public bodies.

The project was commissioned by Defra to:

a) Demonstrate the application of theoretical models and climate change adaptation principles for biodiversity to enable the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in the Project Area; and

b) Assess the practicality and value of proposed landscape scale adaptation measures in the Project Area on the basis of practical experience that has included discussions with the farming community on suitability of alternative approaches.

The Project Area

The Project Area is located on the north-western edge of the Cambrian Mountains in Wales and covers 38,000 ha. The area can be divided into four different land use zones: The upland plateau (dominated by relatively large expanses of unenclosed upland heathland or conifer plantations); A transitional zone (which includes the ffridd); Lowland farmland (predominantly permanent grassland bounded by hedgerows); and The coastal zone (including the Cors Fochno complex of wetland sites south of the Dyfi Estuary).

Climate change adaptation principles and ecosystem services

The project has sought to apply the guidance published by the UK Biodiversity Partnership on the measures needed to promote positive adaptation of biodiversity to climate change (Conserving Biodiversity in a Changing Climate: Guidance on building capacity to adapt)1. This guidance sets out six principles as follows:

1. Conserve existing biodiversity; 2. Reduce sources of harm not linked to climate; 3. Develop ecologically resilient and varied landscapes; 4. Establish ecological networks through habitat; protection, restoration and creation; 5. Make sound decisions based on analysis; 6. Integrate adaptation and mitigation measures into conservation management, planning & practice.

The concept of ecosystem services has been recognised in this study as an important aspect of biodiversity adaptation. Three ecosystem services, in addition to biodiversity, were selected as the basis for the modelling of four land use scenarios: These scenarios addressed: Biodiversity adaptation; Agricultural productivity: Reduction in surface water run-off; and Carbon storage.

Modelling potential land use outcomes from these scenarios

The Polyscape model, which has been developed by Bangor University, combines spatial data with expert judgement to create user-defined ‘rules’ which highlight different priorities for the use and management of land. In this study it was used to generate colour coded maps showing priorities for maintaining and enhancing existing land use and opportunities for changing land use, to deliver 1 Defra (2007a)

iv

each of the four scenarios. Further colour-coded maps were developed to show trade-offs between scenarios. An innovative aspect of this project has been the incorporation of these maps into three dimensional representations of the landscape which users can interact with.

These maps, and the assumptions that underpinned them, were used to inform debate with a sample of farmers and with other stakeholders, and to draw lessons about how interventions to enhance biodiversity adaptation can be planned and implemented.

Planning for biodiversity adaptation at a landscape scale – applying the CBCC principles

This study has shown how the CBCC Principles, which establish the spatial priorities for biodiversity adaptation, can be used to model positive land use change for biodiversity at a landscape scale. The following steps are needed to incorporate the Principles in spatial planning:

• Define priority habitats and conservation objectives (mainly CBCC Principle 1, but also Principles 3 and 4). The location of protected sites, as well as national and regional statements of nature conservation objectives are the most useful sources of evidence.

• Map all habitats and identify the core sites of the habitats of most significance (all Principles). Good quality Phase 1 data, is needed. Soils data provides valuable context, particularly in relation to the potential for habitat recreation. Limitations of data availability and resolution may need to be taken into account.

• Analyse distribution of habitats to map networks (Principle 4). The BEETLE tool developed by Forest Research provides of means of identifying habitat networks, and the gaps that should be filled to allow the movement of species.

• Establish the climate and non-climate threats to biodiversity (Principle 2). This also helps understand the synergies and conflicts between biodiversity conservation and other services provided by the land, which will be essential in planning delivery (Principles 5 and 6).

• Develop ‘rules’ to apply the CBCC principles to individual parcels of land, establishing the priorities for conserving and enhancing existing land cover types and management, or for changing land cover or management.

• Develop strategic approaches at a landscape scale, as the basis for targeted intervention on individual land holdings (Principles 5 and 6). This should involve engagement with landowners and managers and with the organisations who will be involved in delivering the interventions.

Integrated land use planning that recognises the multiple benefits from land

This study suggests that planning for biodiversity adaptation (or indeed other policy objectives) should not be pursued in isolation. An area such as the Cambrian Mountains is valued for the many different benefits that it provides, including food and energy production, provision of fresh water and mitigation of flooding, access to an inspiring landscape, a habitat for rare and evocative species and a home to rural communities. Policy interventions to enhance biodiversity adaptation need to take account of, and where possible work with, these other natural benefits.

To do this requires a number of steps.

• The benefits provided by land should be defined. This is provided by the framework of ecosystem services2, from which those most relevant to the area can be selected.

2 Defra (2007b)

v

• Current delivery of the services should be assessed and where possible mapped. This requires access to geographical data, which is considered further below.

• The drivers of current and future change to these services should be identified, again identifying spatial trends where possible.

• The objectives for maintaining and enhancing the selected services should be established. The CCBC Principles provide a basis for doing this for biodiversity adaptation, although local objectives (which may be in published biodiversity action plans or held as local knowledge) also need to be taken into account.

• Scenarios for delivering these objectives need to be expressed spatially, ideally at a resolution that is detailed enough to identify interventions at the scale of individual land parcels and blocks of habitat.

• Trade-offs between alternative land use scenarios should be presented and debated with stakeholders.

• Implementation of the agreed interventions in land use and management should involve co-ordination between organisations and also within organisations ensuring that ‘top down’ objective setting is matched by ‘bottom up’ experience.

Effective engagement with land managers and other stakeholders

In rural areas such as the Cambrian Mountains it is essential to involve farmers, and take account of the agricultural productivity of land, in decisions that will affect their land use and management. The constraints and opportunities presented by individual farmers are not always easy to predict, with social and cultural issues being as significant as economic ones.

Interactive spatial modelling tools such as Polyscape provide a means of bringing evidence from monitoring and research into discussions about practical interventions with landowners and other stakeholders. The assumptions underlying the models need to be clear to users, suggesting that over-complex models will be counter-productive. Using three dimensional visualisation software such as Google Earth as a means of illustrating the broad landscape impacts of scenarios can bring discussions with stakeholders to life, helping to engage them with the issues and the trade-offs that may need to be made to deliver effective interventions.

vi

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This is the final report for Defra, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and the Cambrian Mountains Initiative and partners. It describes a Case Study that examines how to increase the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change and improve the delivery of other key ecosystem services through practical measures at a landscape scale in a transitional landscape from lowland to upland. It is based on a Project Area on the north-western edge of the Cambrian Mountains in Wales and has been undertaken under the wing of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY 1.2. This report has been commissioned by Defra to:

a) Demonstrate the application of theoretical models and climate change adaptation principles for biodiversity to enable the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in the Project Area; and

b) Assess the practicality and value of proposed landscape scale adaptation measures in the Project Area on the basis of practical experience that has included discussions with the farming community on suitability of alternative approaches.

1.3. It seeks to contribute to guidance for policy makers, planners and land managers (primarily farmers) to help them to plan, create, maintain and adaptively manage landscapes that will enable biodiversity to adapt to climate change. Key lessons are drawn out in separate Best Practice Guidance and a Policy Guidance Note that also identify evidence gaps and further research requirements.

1.4. The work has gained valuable insights from the activities of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative, a partnership programme funded by the Welsh Assembly Government, constituent local authorities and CCW and supported by the Prince’s Charities in Wales and a range of other public bodies.

The team that has undertaken the Case Study 1.5. The research draws on evidence and analysis from a number of sources, including data,

research and analysis by CCW, the results of ongoing work by the Cambrian Mountains Initiative on carbon emissions, and new modelling work for this Case Study on opportunities for land use change to deliver adaptation of biodiversity to climate change and other important public benefits or ecosystem services.

1.6. Specifically, this research has been conducted by a consortium including the Countryside Council for Wales (through access to data and expert opinion), the Cambrian Mountains Initiative (engagement with farmers), Bangor University (development of land use change models) and Land Use Consultants (Defra’s appointed contractor reporting on the work).

1.7. Although presented as a case study of the experience gained by the Cambrian Mountains Initiative, it should be emphasised that this report presents much new analysis which has been subject to peer review during the study but will benefit from further reviews in the light of experience.

2

THE PROJECT AREA 1.8. The Leri, Ceullan, Clararch & Clettwr and Rheidol catchments were chosen as the Project

Area because of the range of land uses that they encompass, from the mountains of Pumlumon high on the Cambrian Mountains Plateau to the lowlands of the Dovey Estuary (technically spreading beyond the boundaries of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative). The area is 38,000 ha in size, split relatively equally between the Leri, Ceulan, Clarach & Clettwr and the Rheidol catchments. It encompasses 10% of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative area. There are no large towns, but Aberystwyth is just on its western boundary while the largest settlements are Bow Street, Borth and Penrhyn-coch. This Project Area is described in more detail in Chapter 3 as context to this Case Study.

Figure 1.1. Location map for the Project Area

Cambrian Mountains Initiative 1.9. The Cambrian Mountains Initiative is a working collaboration between communities and

the public, private and voluntary sectors3 to achieve a sustainable future for the Cambrian Mountains. The Initiative is working closely with a group of farmers to build a secure future for their businesses in ways that deliver a range of functions and services from this high quality landscape. The Initiative provides an ideal opportunity to compare how different land use outcomes would provide resilience to the impacts of climate change on biodiversity.

1.10. In building a sustainable future for the Cambrian Mountains, the Initiative is pursuing an integrated programme of action - developing the value of the Cambrian Mountains brand, connecting local producers to the consumer market place, promoting the visibility of the

3 Involved bodies include the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Prince’s Charities, Tourism Partnership Mid-Wales, CADW, Forestry Commission, Environment Agency and the local authorities of Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Powys.

3

Cambrian Mountains as a tourist destination, caring for the natural and built environments, and developing markets for the provision of ecosystem services. Together, it is hoped that these activities will help support the social and cultural vibrancy of the area and help retain young people in local communities.

1.11. The produce and ecosystem services of the area are two key sources of economic value to sustaining the communities of the Cambrian Mountains. Tourism represents the third undervalued source of economic sustainability and the work of The Prince's Regeneration Trust and the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment has begun to identify ways in which the area’s cultural heritage can be better incorporated into the ‘sense of place’ of the Cambrian Mountains – a key factor in developing both the tourism and food produce offer of the Cambrian brand.

1.12. The Initiative is being progressed through four working groups as follows: 1. Ecosystem Goods and Services (CCW/WAG lead) 2. Product Marketing and Branding (Prince’s Charities Lead) 3. Tourism/visitor development (Mid-Wales Tourism Lead) 4. Sustainable Communities (Local Authorities Lead)

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ADAPTATION PRINCIPLES 1.13. The over-arching issue that this case study has sought to address is the adaptation of

biodiversity to climate change. Climate change presents one of the most serious challenges facing society4. The impacts of rising temperatures and sea levels, changing patterns of precipitation and extreme weather events will affect all aspects of human society5. It is through the direct impacts on habitats and the distribution of species that many of these impacts will be most obviously felt.

1.14. Climate change will drive change across all sectors of society and the natural environment and there is recognition at the international level that action needs to be taken in a planned and integrated way to prepare for, and adapt to, its impacts6. Ensuring that action is taken to prepare for the impacts on biodiversity is particularly important because of the time it will take for biodiversity to respond to adaptive measures and because of the role that biodiversity has in sustaining ecosystems and the natural resources that human society relies on.

1.15. At the national level guidance has been prepared to help organisations plan proactively. The UK Biodiversity Partnership has provided guidance on the measures needed to promote positive adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in Conserving Biodiversity in a Changing Climate: Guidance on building capacity to adapt 7. This guidance has been further developed into principles for policy development and delivery for the England Biodiversity Strategy in England Biodiversity Strategy: Climate Change Adaptation Principles 8. These combined principles are used as the basis for later analysis in this report (Chapter 7) and are outlined further below. Most recently, Defra’s report Natural Environment: Adapting to Climate Change9 (a supplement to its Climate Change Plan) and Lawton Review for Defra

4 TSO (2000) 5 Stern, N (2006) 6 IPCC (2007a) 7 Defra (2007a) 8 Smithers et al (2008) 9 Defra (2010)

4

Making Space for Nature10 (also considered further below) have again focussed attention on the need to ensure that current and future policies towards rural land use and natural resources are sufficient to address the challenges that will arise as a result of climate change. The former document seeks to stimulate debate about how society should approach adaptation to climate change in the natural environment. It puts forward a framework for action that emphasises that adaptation action needs to be sustainable, flexible and evidence-based, that responses to climate impacts should be prioritised and that adaptation measures need to be effective, efficient, and equitable.

1.16. Notwithstanding the growing body of guidance there are few practical examples in the UK that have used this body of guidance to develop specific practical responses to biodiversity adaptation to climate change at a landscape scale. There are, however, a wide range of landscape scale initiatives for biodiversity that have been identified by Natural England that are likely to increasingly embed climate change adaptation principles into their ongoing development. This report is one of two case studies commissioned by Defra to review the experiences of applying the climate change principles at a practical level in specific landscapes.

Climate Change Adaptation Principles 1.17. In the 2007 report Conserving Biodiversity in a Changing Climate: Guidance on building capacity

to adapt, the UK Biodiversity Partnership set out six guiding principles on how to reduce the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and how to adapt existing plans and projects in the light of climate change11. These guiding principles, which are based on existing conservation practice, focus on the need to increase the resilience of biodiversity in individual wildlife sites as well as across whole landscapes. The six principles (referred to in this report as the CBCC Principles), which can be broken down into a number of further actions, are as follows:

1. Conserve existing biodiversity 2. Reduce sources of harm not linked to climate 3. Develop ecologically resilient and varied landscapes 4. Establish ecological networks through habitat protection, restoration and creation 5. Make sound decisions based on analysis 6. Integrate adaptation and mitigation measures into conservation management, planning

and practice.

1.18. Building on the 2007 UK Biodiversity Partnership report, the England Biodiversity Strategy Group drew up five principles that seek to ensure biodiversity is embedded in the adaptation efforts of all sectors of public policy in England Biodiversity Strategy: Climate Change Adaptation Principles12. These are shown in Box 1.1

10 Lawton et al (2010). 11 Hopkins et al (2007) 12 Smithers et al (2008)

5

Box 1.1 The England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation Principles • Take practical action now – to conserve existing biodiversity and high quality habitats,

reducing non-climate related sources of harm and making use of legislation and international agreements.

• Maintain and increase ecological resilience – through conservation of the variability of habitats and species, the maintenance of networks, creation of buffer zones and control of invasive species.

• Accommodate change – by making space for the natural development of rivers and coasts, establishing networks, developing the capacity of institutions to cope with change and responding to changing policy priorities.

• Integrate actions across partners and sectors – including integrating adaptation and mitigation measures in policy and across relevant economic sectors, strengthening partnership working and raising awareness of the benefits of the natural environment to society.

• Develop knowledge and plan strategically – by undertaking vulnerability assessments of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, piloting and monitoring new approaches, identifying potential win-win solutions and ensuring cross-sectoral knowledge transfer.

Making Space for Nature 1.19. In January 2010, Sir John Lawton FRS was invited by the Government to conduct a review

of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. His group reported in September 201013. Although the report and its recommendations is focussed on England, the analysis and conclusions are equally valid in the project area.

1.20. The report notes that, despite the important contribution that protected sites have made to conserving nature, wildlife habitats have become increasing fragmented and isolated. It concludes that future action should take place at a landscape scale to develop and conserve resilient and coherent ecological networks. The report recognises that there are key choices to be made about which actions should be prioritised in order to create effective ecological networks. It suggests that in practical terms there is a hierarchy of actions, and the benefits accruing from them, (as shown in Figure 1.2) which moves from the protection and enhancement of existing sites to the management of the intervening spaces. Issues such as the type of habitat, the biophysical characteristics of the area under consideration, the ownership and management of the land, and the potential conservation gains achieved will influence the choices made in each step in the hierarchy.

Figure 1.2. An interpretation of the actions suggested in Making Space for Nature (Lawton et al. 2010)

1.21. The Lawton Report also notes that rebuilding the network of sites in which wildlife can flourish and adapt to climate change is not a task for government alone: “It will require effective and positive engagement with the landowners and land managers. And it will need improved collaboration between local authorities, local communities, statutory agencies, the

13 Lawton et al (2010)

Increase connectivity by physical corridors or stepping stones

Better management of existing sites

Increase the size of existing sites

Create new wildlife areas

6

voluntary and private sectors, farmers, other land-managers and individual citizens”14. This engagement is likely to be required at each step in the hierarchy of actions in Figure 1.1, and will require tools and processes suited to communicating biodiversity objectives and the CBCC Principles set out above.

The Ecosystem Services approach 1.22. Sitting alongside guidance on the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change, is a strong

policy emphasis on recognising the ecosystem services provided by natural systems to, and valued by, society, including both living ecosystems and natural resource cycles. The ecosystem services approach, which forms a major plank of Defra’s work15 focuses attention on the benefits received by society and the multiplicity of functions and services that the natural environment provides, as a framework for developing and delivering integrated policy. The importance of ecosystem services has been recognised in this study as an important aspect of biodiversity adaptation, with the modelling looking at the delivery of three ecosystem services of particular importance in this Project Area, namely: agricultural productivity; a reduction of flooding risk by reducing surface run-off of water and the storage of carbon.

1.23. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) developed a widely accepted framework that groups ecosystem services into the four categories shown in Figure 1.3. The MA has been adopted by the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to which the UK is a signatory and for which the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) was published in 1994 as part of the UK response.

Figure 1.3: The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework16s Provisioning services Regulating services Cultural services

The products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fibre,

fuel and water.

The benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes

including carbon capture, air quality regulation, water

regulation.

The non-material benefits that people obtain through spiritual

enrichment, reflection, relaxation and aesthetic experiences.

Supporting services Services such as nutrient cycling, oxygen production and soil formation. These underpin the ‘provision’ of all

the other service categories.

1.24. An audit of the UK’s ecosystems, the National Ecosystems Assessment (NEA), is currently taking place as part of the Living with Environment Change (LWEC) initiative. This is using the MA framework of services and will provide a high level picture of the current state and trends in the UK’s ecosystems (habitats) and ecosystem services and will look to the future (2050) to evaluate change under plausible scenarios and consider a range of response options.

1.25. It should be noted that healthy biodiversity in its widest sense is a prerequisite for the successful delivery of nearly all of the individual ecosystem services and, for this reason, it does not appear as a separate service in the MA. However, in many recent studies, people’s need for, and appreciation of, bio-diverse environments is also often considered as a cultural service in its own right, enabling the policy responses needed to deliver biodiversity to be considered alongside those necessary for other services.

1.26. In Wales, CCW has adopted the ecosystem services approach, defined through an understanding of the way that ‘green infrastructure’ in all parts of Wales (not restricted to

14 Ibid. Executive summary. Page V. 15 Defra (2007b) 16 MEA (2005)

7

urban and peri-urban situations) 17 is capable of delivering a wide range of services. This provides a unifying way of thinking about CCW's remit, enabling integrated planning of biodiversity, landscape and recreation, along with other public benefits. It provides a way of explaining the full benefits of land use planning, provides a tool for mapping stakeholder’s perspectives and a strategic approach to environmental valuation. It can be applied at national and local levels, in policy development and in projects on the ground.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 1.27. The aims of this study were:

• To produce a case study that demonstrates the application of theoretical models and climate change adaptation principles in the landscape and assesses the practicality and value of proposed landscape scale adaptation measures on the basis of practical experience.

• To provide guidance for policy makers, planners and land managers to help them to plan, create, maintain and adaptively manage landscapes that will enable biodiversity to adapt to climate change.

• To provide a short Best Practice Guidance and short Policy Guidance Note based on the case study (published separately to this main report).

17 CCW (2009)

8

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Based on the contract requirements, the study has used a spatial modelling tool, operating at a landscape scale and based on current land use patterns, to suggest where greatest opportunities exist for increasing the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change and the opportunities either separately or in concert to deliver the three ecosystem services: agricultural productivity, reduced run-off of surface water and soil storage.

2.2. It has analysed the likely impacts of climate change on the key habitats present in the Project Area, alongside impacts arising from other key drivers of change acting on the landscape. It has worked with local experts, including farmers and environmental specialists, to test the outcomes of this work. In doing so, it has sought to identify key lessons on how to adapt landscapes to better anticipate the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and other benefits.

2.3. The research has been conducted through six stages, as set out below. In summary, the study developed four theoretical land use scenarios for the Project Area, based on spatial data describing the Area, a review of research and on expert opinion. The CBCC Principles (para. 1.17) were also used to define one of the scenarios which covered biodiversity adaptation. The outputs of these scenarios, in terms of the suggested priorities for land use change, were modelled using Bangor University’s Polyscape tool and these were tested with farmers and other stakeholders. The implications of these scenario outputs for biodiversity adaptation were tested against the CBCC Principles and the resulting conclusions for policy were discussed with policy makers and practitioners.

Stage 1. Project management 2.4. This stage established the overall framework for the Case Study, ensuring that all relevant

data was drawn on, that the Case Study was working to deliver a clear vision and that there were well-established lines of reporting and a plan for the role out of the Case Study.

Stage 2. Scenario Development (see Chapters 5 and 6) 2.5. This part of the research applied a model, based around four land use scenarios, that test

the landscape scale delivery of biodiversity adaptation to climate change in line with the principles established by the UK Biodiversity Partnership (para. 1.16) and in ways that maximise the delivery of the three key ecosystem services (agricultural productivity, reduced water run-off, and carbon storage). Thus each scenario looked at each of these drivers in turn. The modelling was undertaken by Bangor University using its GIS-based Polyscape tool.

2.6. The scenarios draw on analysis of new data and expert opinion (for instance to identify the location of undesignated sites of high biodiversity value and establish the land use change needed to protect and enhance biodiversity). This work included a review of model results by specialists to ensure that the modelled proposals reflected the best for biodiversity adaptation based on local knowledge (described in Chapter 6). Expert opinion has also been used to reflect on the impact of each of the outcomes on the provision of key ecosystem services (Chapter 7).

2.7. The Polyscape model has been developed by the School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography at Bangor University18 and is a GIS-based decision support tool

18 Dr Fergus Sinclair and Tim Pagella

9

that gives spatial expression to different land use and management options, based on user-defined ‘rules’ that describe how different forms of land use and management are likely to aid biodiversity and help the delivery of other ecosystem functions and services. Polyscape relies on existing data describing land use and other environmental metrics.

2.8. Given the biodiversity emphasis of this Case Study, the primary source of land use data used in Polyscape has been the new Phase 1 data prepared for CCW from satellite imagery during 2009. These data have a spatial resolution of 25m2 and distinguish between 33 vegetation types which have been simplified to 20 types for the purposes of this study.

2.9. More information about Polyscape and the data sources used in the study are provided in Chapter 5.

Stage 3. Carbon footprinting survey (forming part of Chapter 6) 2.10. This part of the study relied on data provided by work commissioned by CCW as part of

the Cambrian Mountains Initiative. The work involved a carbon audit of 23 sample farms within the Project Area identifying the carbon footprint of these farms, the potential effects of management changes, and identifying key opportunities on each holding for emission reductions.

Stage 4. Testing outputs with farmers (Chapter 7) 2.11. The land use outcomes identified under Stage 2 were discussed with a sample of farmers to

assess their willingness to follow through identified adaptation measures on their holdings, identifying which proposals were likely to be most popular / successful and the extent to which they would help reduce the carbon emissions identified under Stage 3.

2.12. To assist farmers in interpreting the study outputs, visual representations of the four land use outcomes have been developed and used to debate their practical land management implications. These representations take the form of flyover models of the change options developed through Polyscape and draped over aerial images of the area taken from Google Earth using Esri Arc Map. This allows different scenario outcomes to be switched on and off and for the user to navigate around the landscape following the proposed changes in different areas.

Stage 5. Analysis of delivery mechanisms (Chapter 8) 2.13. The land use and management policy measures and programmes that are available, or are

planned, in the Project Area were briefly examined to assess the potential success of the identified proposals to enhance biodiversity adaptation and ecosystem service delivery in the face of climate change.

Stage 6. Communication with wider stakeholder group on the main conclusions and lessons learnt (Chapter 8)

2.14. An important aspect of this study was examination of effective ways of engaging the results of the study with the individuals and groups who have most influence over the management of land and other natural resources in the Project Area. This included considering with stakeholders how well the identified land use outcomes for biodiversity satisfy the principles for climate change adaptation set out in paragraph 1.16, and the extent to which these are addressed through existing policy and programmes in the project area. These issues were discussed at a number of workshops during the study and are considered in the final chapter of the report.

10

Project outputs 2.15. The written outputs of this research are this main report and executive summary, a Best

Practice Guidance and a short Policy Note.

2.16. At the outset of this study, in addition to the land use modelling under Polyscape (developed under Stage 2), consideration was given to the use of individual species models that could indicate how individual species might react to the effects of climate change. However, following discussions with the Steering Group, and taking account of the findings of research19, it was decided to drop this aspect of the study, it being felt more important to focus on the potential landscape scale adaptation of whole habitats to climate change through appropriate land use and management changes, as such measures would naturally underpin the adaptation of individual species, accepting that there will always be individual winners and losers.

19 Walmsley et al (2007)

11

3. THE PROJECT AREA

3.1. This Chapter describes the Project Area used in this case study. It explains why the area was chosen and then sets out the characteristics of the area under the headings of geology, land form and water resources; land cover and management; biodiversity and habitat connectivity; nature conservation and designations; cultural heritage and landscape character; and finally population density.

REASONS FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA 3.2. The Project Area is defined by the catchments of the five rivers that rise in the Cambrian

Mountains and flow into Cardigan Bay between the Dovey Estuary and Aberystwyth. These rivers are the Leri, Ceullan, Clararch, Clettwr and Rheidol.

3.3. The area was chosen for a number of reasons.

• The project could draw on the work already underway by the Cambrian Mountains Initiative working with farmers and communities to build a secure future in a high quality and fragile landscape.

• With a size of some 43,000 ha and an elevation from sea level to over 750 metres, the area provides a good location to consider the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change and the delivery of a range of ecosystem services – with climatic gradients, topographical variation, habitat heterogeneity and microclimate variation within a relatively confined area.

• The area provides a discrete geographical and social case study area that is large enough to consider patterns at a landscape scale, but small enough for data handling to be manageable.

• The existence of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative, supported by the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), enabled a partnership approach to be taken throughout the study (a requirement of the contract with Defra) and ensured that Defra’s funding was matched by contributions from the Initiative and CCW.

12

Figure 3.1. Overview of the Project Area on the edge of the Cambrian Mountains

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA

Geology, landform and water resources 3.4. Topographically, the area is dominated by the Cambrian Mountains massif, the highest

point of which, Pumlumon, lies midway on the eastern boundary of the Project Area. The rocks of the Cambrian Mountains were laid down 500-400 million years ago, and consist of marine sedimentary rocks, which were deformed by earth movements, resulting in the folding of the rocks, which can be clearly appreciated on the ground in such locations as Pumlumon. The Mountains have been subject to glacial erosion forming cwms and wide U-shaped valleys.

3.5. Geologically, the bedrock is resistant Silurian grit, consisting of sandstones and interbedded argillaceous rock, the former dominating in the south-western part of the project area and the latter dominating in the north east. The rocks on the southern edge of the Project Area contain mineral deposits in the form of lead, zinc, copper and silver which have been mined for many centuries.

3.6. Two of the major rivers of England’s West Midlands region, the Severn and Wye, rise on the eastern side of Pumlumon and the largest of the rivers in the Project Area, the Rheidol, rises on the western side. The Rheidol cuts through the upland plateau of the Cambrians,

13

running south to the spectacular gorge at Devil’s Bridge, before turning west where it flows into Cardigan Bay at Aberystwyth. The other major rivers in the study area, the Leri, Clarach and Clettwr, rise on the western side of the plateau, also flowing west into Cardigan Bay.

3.7. High rainfall and the large glaciated valleys have resulted in the construction of major reservoirs such as Nat-y-moch and Dinas reservoirs built in the late 1950s as part of the Rheidol hydro-electric scheme.

3.8. River water quality, as measured by the Environment Agency to comply with the EU Water Framework Directive, varies. Figure 3.2 shows that the ecological potential of the Rheidol and Upper Leri Rivers is classified as good, the status of the River Mynach (a tributary of the upper Rheidol) is classified as poor and other rivers are classified as moderate. The chief reason for the poor quality of the Mynach is the high heavy metal content arising from mine spoils.

Figure 3.2. Ecological status of surface waters in the Project Area

Source: Environment Agency (2009). River Basin Management Plan (Western Wales). A Current State of Waters. HMWB stands for Heavily Modified Water Bodies as opposed to Artificial Water Bodies (of which there are none in the area).

Land Cover and Management 3.9. The Project Area can be divided, most simply, into four different land use zones. Starting

at the headwaters of the rivers and moving westwards to the sea, these are as follows;

• The upland plateau. Above an altitude of around 250m, land use is dominated by relatively large expanses of unenclosed upland heathland or conifer plantations. Acid grassland occurs in areas, particularly where agricultural improvement has reduced the cover of dwarf shrubs such as heather and bilberry and blanket bog occurs on peat soils with a high water table.

14

• A transitional zone. This area is intermediate between the uplands and lowlands and includes the ffridd which is a land use type not usually recognised outside Wales. In farming terms, the ffridd comprises land occurring on the fringes of the uplands below the limit of enclosure which has often been subject to periods of agricultural improvement and at other times has been allowed to naturally revert to a semi-natural state. Where the main river valleys bisect this transitional zone, the valley bottoms contain riparian habitats and agriculturally improved grassland while the valley sides often include relatively high levels of semi-natural broadleaved woodland.

• Lowland farmland. This area encompasses most of the western half of the Project Area and is characterised by relatively small fields of predominantly permanent grassland bounded by hedgerows. Analysis of the Assembly Government’s small area agricultural survey data shows that temporary ley grassland and arable account for only a small proportion of total agricultural land use in the Project Area (6% and 1% respectively) compared to permanent pasture (65%) much of which is improved, and rough grazing (28%).

• The coastal zone. This area includes the Cors Fochno complex of wetland sites including lowland raised bog and saltmarsh, which lies on the southern edge of the Dyfi Estuary. It is also characterised by a narrow band of sand dunes and acid grassland along the coastline of Cardigan Bay.

3.10. Table 3.1 shows the extent of the main habitat types across the whole Project Area and these areas are mapped in Figure 3.3. These emphasise the dominance of improved grassland (predominantly permanent grassland in the lowlands), followed by coniferous woodland (predominantly large blocks of plantation forestry on the upland plateau), unimproved acid grassland (occurring in relatively small patches throughout the area and wet grassland.

Table 3.1. Extent of key land cover categories based on Phase 1 habitats Land cover type Area (ha) Proportion of area Improved grassland 10,045 23% Coniferous woodland 5,140 12% Unimproved acid grassland 4,796 11% Wet grassland 4,617 11% Semi-improved acid grassland 3,979 9% Standing water 2,908 7% Dry dwarf shrub heath 2,341 5% Scrub 1,337 3% Broadleaved woodland 1,281 3% Built-up areas 1,199 3% Hedgerow 1,053 2% Arable 871 2% Lowland raised mire 780 2% Felled woodland 736 2% Other habitats 703 2% Source: CCW Phase 1 data (2009)

15

Figure 3.3. Simplified habitat map of the Project Area

Source: CCW Phase 1 data (2009)

3.11. Land management is dominated by grazing livestock farming (predominantly sheep and beef cattle) and by forestry. The WAG small area agricultural survey for 200920 shows that there were around 257 agricultural holdings in the Project Area, of which 139 (54%) are full-time holdings and 160 (62%) employ staff. Figure 3.4 shows that almost all agricultural holdings contain agriculturally managed grassland and over three quarters keep sheep. Beef cattle are kept by a third of holdings and dairy cattle by only 11%. Arable crops are grown by 13% of holdings, mainly to provide feed for cattle (maize silage for dairy cows being the main crop). As noted above, improved grassland and arable crops occur in the lowland farmland zone. Agricultural land use in the transitional zone (ffridd) and upland plateau is based on extensive grazing, predominantly by sheep, of rough grassland and semi-natural habitats such as dwarf shrub heath and blanket bog.

20 http://wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/headlines/agriculture2010/?lang=en

16

Figure 3.4. Summary of activity on farm holdings in the Project Area (2009)

96%

77%

33% 11% 13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Grassland Sheep Beef cattle Dairy cattle Arable crops

Prop

ortion

 of holdings 

(N = 257)

Types of agricultural activity

Source: WAG Agricultural Survey 2009. Combined data for small areas CERE01, CERE02 and CERE03.

3.12. A significant proportion of the agricultural land in the Project Area is under agri-environment scheme agreement. In 1986 the Cambrian Mountains were designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and the ESA scheme has since been superseded by the Tir Gofal Scheme which is in turn shortly to be replaced by the Glastir Scheme. A very high proportion of the upland areas of the Project Area (exceeding 50%) are under agreement in Tir Gofal (accounting for 26% of the whole Project Area).

3.13. The management of grazing on common land, where rights to graze are held by specific landowners (usually from holdings on adjoining land), is often a significant issue requiring systems of governance and management, particularly when it comes to allocating agri-environment scheme payments. However, there is relatively little common land in the Project Area compared to the much larger areas found further east and south in the Cambrian Mountains. The issue of common land management is therefore not considered further in this report.

3.14. Coniferous woodland is the second largest land use category in the Project Area. The large majority of this is under management by Forestry Commission Wales (FCW) in their Coed Y Mynydd District (total area under management of 5,593 ha), including large conifer blocks such as Fynach Fawr north of Nant Y Mock Reservoir. Historically, timber production has been the main management objective of these areas but as the Commission’s Forest Design Plans come due for review, a broader range of objectives are being considered including biodiversity, landscape character and recreation.

Biodiversity and habitat connectivity 3.15. Work by CCW has identified six biogeographical site groups in the uplands of Wales.

These groups have been used to identify conservation objectives for future biodiversity management21.

3.16. The upland parts of the Project Area lie on the south-western edge of one of these six biogeographical regions: the North-Central Moorlands, which support predominantly upland habitat types. This region covers the large area of moor south and east of Snowdonia, including the Arans, Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt, Berwyn and down to Trannon. It is typically covered by ombrogenous peat with Calluna – Eriophorum bog and Scirpus – Eriophorum mire at lower altitudes. On drier ground, blanket mire is replaced by dwarf shrub heath and acid grasslands are abundant. Management priorities have been identified by CCW as the conservation of blanket bog and dwarf shrub heath.

21

Jones (2007)

17

3.17. The conservation objectives for the key upland habitats of relevance to this case study are (Table 3.2):

Table 3.2: Conservation objectives for the key upland habitats of relevance

Habitat Objectives Blanket bog (e.g. Elenydd SAC)

Restoration of 95% of the blanket bog within SACs by 2010 and 95% in SSSIs by 2015 (damaged by past drainage, overgrazing and burning). The longer term objective is to restore this habitat wherever possible although where it is too degraded to merit restoration then to establish wet heath, scrub or woodland.

Upland heath Within statutory sites to restore many areas currently under acidic grassland to heath.

Native ‘western’ woodland

Because of the limited extent of upland woodland in Wales, restoration and expansion of oak and ash woodland is a priority long-term conservation objective, through the relinking of fragmented woodlands and the expansion of woodland uphill. The linking of woodland/scrub and heath is also an objective, encouraging a more natural dynamic of growth and succession within and between habitats.

Source: Jones (2007)

3.18. These conservation objectives can be related directly to the first two of the CCBC principles (para 1.16), showing how the objectives can be used to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to adapting the habitats to the risks posed by climate change.

3.19. Firstly, the conservation objectives emphasise the importance of conserving existing biodiversity (CBCC Principle 1). Some 13.5% of the Project Area is covered by a statutory nature conservation designation (Table 3.3) of which some 8% is covered by international designations (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites) (Figure 3.5). Broadly these designated areas can be split into four groups as follows.

• At sea level the large Dyfi SSSI grades from mudflats and salt marsh in the intertidal zone of the Dyfi Estuary to raised peat mire and areas of lowland heath and wet grassland in the Cors Fchno (Borth Bog) complex, which is also designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. The Dyfi Estuary also includes sand dunes along the Cardigan Bay coast at Ynyslas.

• In the lower Rheidol catchment there are a number of riparian and lowland grassland SSSIs, such as the Rheidol Shingles and Backwaters and Afon Rheidol Ger Capel Bangor SSSIs, that are notified for the distinctive species rich communities that have developed on the metal-rich substrates produced from mining.

• At intermediate altitudes, there are a number of semi-natural woodland SSSIs, many of them found on steep valley sides such as the Cwm Llyfnant and Coedydd a Cheunant Rheidol SSSIs.

• On the plateau tops the large upland SSSIs such as Pumlumon, Llynoedd Ieuan and Elenydd SSSIs (the latter lying mainly outside the project area) contain complexes of upland heath, acid grassland, blanket bog and mire.

18

Table 3.3. Areas covered by nature conservation designations within the Project Area

Designation Area (ha) % of area Dyfi Biosphere Reserve 2,957 7.8% National Nature Reserves: Dyfi and Coed Rheidol 1,051 2.8% Ramsar Site: Dyfi 915 2.4% Special Areas of Conservation (SACs): Coedydd Cwm Einion, Cors Fochno, Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau, Elenydd and Coedydd a Cheunant Rheidol

1,431 3.8%

Special Protection Areas (SPAs): Aber Dyfi and Elenydd –Mallaen 762 2.0% Sites of Special Scientific Interest (see Figure 3.5) 5,113 13.4%

Figure 3.5. Location of key land use designations within the Project Area

19

3.20. Secondly, the conservation objectives (Table 3.2) address the non-climate sources of harm facing the habitats (the second CBCC principle). The objectives are, in part, seeking to redress the changes caused by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) sheep headage payments of the 1980s and 1990s. These payments resulted in significant over-grazing and a near monoculture of sheep on the open upland moors (as opposed to a mix of cattle and sheep). The combined effects of this regime were to greatly increase the areas of acidic grassland at the expense of blanket bog and heath mosaics which in some areas now form isolated habitat islands rather than an interlinking habitat network.

Cultural heritage and landscape character 3.21. The Cambrian Mountains have a very rich and well preserved cultural heritage providing a

rare example of a surviving largely intact prehistoric landscape, with cultural associations that reflect all periods of history (Table 3.4). These are an important cultural ecosystem service (para. 1.22).

3.22. In the Project Area particular interest is provided by the area’s long association with mining. This is recognised in the identification of much of the southern part of the Project Area by CADW as a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest (Historic Landscape Area in Figure 3.5). This upland area of Ceredigion contains rich and diverse evidence of land use from the prehistoric period to the recent past. The area includes prehistoric to recent mining remains and settlements, medieval settlements, drovers routes, and historic literary and artistic associations, and the setting for Thomas Johnes’s Hafod Estate and designed gardens.

Table 3.4. Areas covered by historic environment designations

Historic Environment Designations Area (ha) % of area Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest (Upland Ceredigion) 17,879 48.0% Registered Park or Garden 56 0.2% Scheduled Ancient Monuments 59 0.2%

3.23. Combining these different aspects of geology, land use, habitats and culture reveals the unique character of the landscape of the Cambrian Mountains. The Cambrian Mountains were amongst the areas of England and Wales identified in the Hobhouse Report (1947) as potential ‘Conservation Areas’. In 1965 the National Parks Commission (NPC) identified the Cambrian Mountains for designation as a National Park. In 1972 the Countryside Commission (NPC's successor) made a National Park (Designation) Order for confirmation by the Secretary of State for Wales for the Cambrian Mountains. Although this order was never confirmed the quality of the landscape has never been in dispute.

3.24. The Project Area embraces the broad landscape types of the Cambrian Mountains22 including:

• The Upland Plateaux that form the eastern half of the Project Area – a plateau landscape of high and irregular peaks and knobs rising to 700 metres, as in the area of Pumlumon, superimposed on an expansive undulating plateau – wild windswept and remote. In some areas, as at Natycagl this gives way to shallow rolling plateau with extensive coniferous forest and intervening areas of rough and improved grassland.

• Broad U-shaped Valleys with wide river corridors and confluences that dissect the upland plateaux and fringe the upland area as in Cwm Ceulan, providing the main access

22 Land Use Consultants (1990)

20

routes into and across the mountains. Enclosed farmland and settlements follow these river corridors, while the once heavily wooded valley sides still retain areas of deciduous woodland but have been affected by the dumping of mining spoils, clearance of woodland for pasture and replacement by conifer plantations.

• Narrow Valleys that carve the plateaux and their fringes, ranging from narrow wooded ravines and gorges, as at Devil’s Bridge, to U-shaped valleys with dammed reservoirs across the valley floor, as at Nant-y-moch. Dense semi-natural woodland, moorland and conifer plantations hug the valley sides with inbye pasture on shallower slopes and valley bottoms. Many of these valleys offer intimate enclosed landscapes that contract with the rugged open moorland.

• The Plateaux Fringes of lower grazed plateaux of enclosed farmland and scarp slopes reaching up to the higher plateaux of the central Cambrian massif that form the transition from the uplands to the lowlands.

• The Lowland Coastal Plain forming the western fringe to the Project Area, with a predominantly lowland coastal landscape with developed areas, rolling lowlands dominated by enclosed improved pasture and surrounding hedgerows.

3.25. These broad landscape types are given more detailed expression by the Aspect Area Classification provided by LANDMAP, illustrated in Figure 3.7 and Table 3.5.

21

Figure 3.6: Landscape Character Types (Aspect Area Classification) taken from LANDMAP for the Project Area

22

Table 3.5: Landscape Character Types (Aspect Area Classification) taken from LANDMAP for the Project Area

Landscape Character Types (LANDMAP) Area (ha) % Development, Built Land, Urban 276 0.7% Lowland, Coastal, Cliffs & Cliff Tops 65 0.2% Lowland, Coastal, Dunes & Dune Slack 100 0.3% Lowland, Coastal, Intertidal 85 0.2% Lowland, Coastal, Other Costal Wild Land 241 0.6% Lowland, Flat Lowland/Levels, Flat Open Lowland Farmland 2,076 5.5% Lowland, Lowland Valleys, Mosaic Lowland Valleys 996 2.6% Lowland, Lowland Valleys, Open Lowland Valleys 1,316 3.5% Lowland, Rolling Lowland, Mosaic Rolling Lowland 1,625 4.3% Lowland, Rolling Lowland, Open Rolling Lowland 3,100 8.2% Upland, Exposed Upland/Plateau, Barren/Rocky Upland 1,540 4.1% Upland, Exposed Upland/Plateau, Upland Grazing 635 1.7% Upland, Exposed Upland/Plateau, Upland Moorland 11,781 31.0% Upland, Exposed Upland/Plateau, Wooded Upland & Plateaux 4,085 10.7% Upland, Hills, Lower Plateau & Scarp Slopes, Hill & Lower Plateau Grazing 5,171 13.6% Upland, Hills, Lower Plateau & Scarp Slopes, Hillside & Scarp Slopes Moorland 366 1.0% Upland, Hills, Lower Plateau & Scarp Slopes, Wooded Hillside & Scarp Slopes 273 0.7% Upland, Upland Valleys, Open Upland Valleys 1,476 3.9% Upland, Upland Valleys, Open/Wooded Mosaic Upland Valleys 1,094 2.9% Upland, Upland Valleys, Wooded Upland Valleys 1,537 4.0% Water, Costal Waters, Estuary 4 0.01% Water, Inland Water (Including Associated Edge), Lake 208 0.6%

Population density 3.26. In terms of population density, there is a marked difference between the more populated

south west coastal lowlands and the sparsely populated open upland moorland in the north east of the Project Area, reflecting the land uses of the area and the ease of communication. Certain built-up areas on the coastal plain have relatively high numbers of people per hectare (ppha) – such as the eastern part of Aberystwyth (41.03 ppha), Llanbadarn Fawr (31.63 ppha), Penparcau (83.78), Bow Street (38.11 ppha) and Borth (26.01 ppha). By contrast, to the east and north east on the upland plateau the density is much lower, with densities in the region of 0.03-0.05 ppha, some of the lowest population densities in Wales where the national average is 1.4 people per hectare. The socio-economic characteristics of these populations is described separately in the report Sustainable Rural Development: A Potential Pilot for the Cambrian Mountains: Phase 1 Report Land Use Consultants, 2007.

Table 3.6. Population in the project area 2001

Aberystwyth (just outside the area) 15,935 Other settlements of 1,500 people or more 1,539 Outside these settlements 5,478

23

4. CLIMATE CHANGE AND OTHER PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY AND LAND USE IN THE PROJECT AREA

4.1. This Chapter examines the key drivers of change that are currently acting on land use and management in the Project Area and anticipates how these will change in the future. Its main focus is climate change, drawing on the projections of change made by the UK Climate Impacts Programme in its most recent projections (the UK Climate Projections 2009 - UKCP0923). It is also important to consider other significant drivers of change which may represent a major challenge to efforts by land managers and policy makers to adapt to the longer term impacts of climate change.

4.2. A full review of the many international and national factors influencing the land-based economy is beyond the scope of this report. The Foresight Land Use Futures report24 reviews these drivers for change under a range of headings including economic growth and changing global economic conditions, demographic change, climate change, and the policy and regulatory environment. This Chapter takes account of these wider international and national pressures, drawing attention to the specific impacts that are likely to be felt within the Project Area.

4.3. The following drivers of change are considered:

• The Climate

• Atmospheric pollution

• Public recreation

• Agricultural land use

• Wider economic and social drivers of change

4.4. The final section of this Chapter concludes by examining the cumulative pressures facing the Project Area and suggests the overall trajectory in the absence of adaptation measures.

THE CLIMATE

Recent trends in the climate 4.5. The Project Area has a relatively mild maritime climate with high levels of orographic

rainfall falling on the western slopes of the Cambrian Mountains. Along the coastal boundary, the average annual rainfall is less than 100cm, whereas the far eastern upland reaches of the area have an average of over 250cm. Average temperatures follow a similar west/east pattern with an average annual temperature of 10.3° C along the coast, and only 6.8° C in the upland north east of the area25.

4.6. Over the period between 1961 and 2006, there has been a significant increase in the amount of rainfall falling during the winter months, with the data reported by the Met Office at a resolution of 5km2 showing increases of 25-50% in the south west of the area,

23 Jenkins et al (2009) 24 Foresight Land Use Futures Project (2010) 25 Met Office data, 1999, showing average temperature and precipitation across Wales between the years of 1961–90.

24

rising to increases of 50-100% in the upland north east26. In contrast, rainfall levels during the summer months have changed much less (generally by less than 10%). Over the same period there has been an increase in the average annual temperature of 0.6 - 1.0oC, with a greater increase in winter of 1.4 - 2.2oC. The rising temperatures in winter have led to a significant reduction in the number of days of frost on the Cambrian plateau, with 40 to 50 fewer days a year being recorded over the period 1961 to 2006.

4.7. There is no data available from the Project Area on the impact that the rise in temperatures and rainfall experienced since 1961 have had on habitats and species. Trends over what is a relatively short timescale are often difficult to detect, particularly when there is not good baseline data on species distributions at the start of the period, and when a range of other factors affecting habitats have been at play, such as variations in the number and type of grazing livestock and the use of agricultural inputs.

Projections of change 4.8. The latest projections from the UK Climate Impacts Programme, released in July 2009 as

UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP0927) suggest that, under the medium emissions scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)28, the following impacts are likely to be felt across Wales over the period to the 2050s. For each of the following metrics of the climate, the statements give the central estimate of change (50% probability) followed by a range from the amount that it is projected to be very unlikely to be less than (67% probability) to the amount that it is very unlikely to be more than (33% probability). It should be noted that UKCP09 does not include quantified projections for changes to windspeed which limits the extent to the impacts of storm events can be measured.

• Winter mean temperatures are likely to increase by 2.0ºC (probability range of +1.1ºC to +3.1ºC).

• Summer mean temperatures are likely to increase by 2.5ºC (probability range of +1.2ºC to +4.1ºC). The mean daily maximum temperature is likely to increase by 3.4ºC (probability range of +1.3ºC to +6.1ºC).

• Mean precipitation over the year as a whole is not projected to change significantly (probability range of a 5% fall to a 5% rise). However, this masks a growing differentiation in seasonal patterns of precipitation. Winter mean precipitation is likely to increase by 14% (probability range of +2% to +30%) while summer mean precipitation is like to fall by 17% (probability range of -36% to +6%).

• In general the intensity of weather events is projected to increase, with greater extremes in precipitation and temperature (such as summer storms).

4.9. These projections cover the average change expected over Wales as a whole. Making finer grained projections that distinguish the changes likely in the Project Area, or within different parts of the Project Area is difficult. The mapped projections from the UKCP09 have a resolution of 25km2 which does not enable fine-grained spatial differentiation (the maps suggest that the Project Area as a whole is likely to experience changes similar to those of Wales as a whole).

26 Met Office data reported by the UK Climate Impacts Programme UKCP09 Observed Trends 1961-2006 27 Jenkins et al (2009) 28 IPCC (2000)

25

4.10. However, it may be possible to draw lessons from the finer-grained monitoring of changes that have taken place over the period 1961 to 2006.

Impacts on biodiversity 4.11. Research for Defra in England29, the results of which also apply to this project area,

highlighted five direct impacts on biodiversity arising from climate change:

• Changes in phenology (i.e. altered breeding or flowering times), which may lead to loss of synchrony between species

• Changes in species distribution (including arrival of non-native species and potentially loss of species for which suitable climate conditions disappear).

• Changes in community composition

• Changes in ecosystem function

• Loss of physical space due to sea level rise and increased storminess

4.12. This research also identified that seven of the 32 priority habitats listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan are at high risk from the direct impacts of climate change, based on good to moderate evidence. Of these, four habitats are present in the project area. These are montane habitats, standing waters, floodplain and grazing marsh, and saltmarsh.

4.13. The MONARCH project30 which sought to determine the scale of climate change impacts upon species in Britain and Ireland has shown that Snowdonia, to the north of the Project Area, is among the four areas of the British Isles where the bioclimate is likely to change most by 2050 relative to the present climate.

4.14. A result of the rise in winter temperatures over the period since 1961 has been a significant reduction in the number of days of frost on the Cambrian plateau. Periods of sub-zero temperatures are an important factor controlling the distribution and behaviour of many upland species. The projected further increases in winter temperature may therefore have a disproportionate impact on biodiversity in areas where this results in fewer days of frost.

4.15. The reduction in summer rainfall is likely to have a significant impact on wetland habitats particularly those such as blanket bog and lowland raised bog which rely on rainfall rather than groundwater. Both of these habitats are of high value for nature conservation in the Project Area and are vital to the delivery of important ecosystem services such as water regulation, the supply of fresh water and the regulation of water quality.

4.16. At the same time, it is likely that increased intensity of rainfall on higher ground and steeper slopes, particularly in winter when vegetation cover is thinner, will increase the risk of soil erosion and the generation of flood run-off from saturated soils, leading to follow-on impacts from higher river flood waters and inundation of flood plains in lower catchments.

4.17. A key threat to the biodiversity of upland areas such as the Cambrian Mountains is that species on the edge of their range, such as arctic-alpine and montane communities, are restricted in their ability to colonise new areas. Species that are sufficiently mobile may be able to translocate to more northerly uplands (in the case of the Cambrian Plateau to

29 Mitchell et al (2007) 30 Walmsley et al (2007)

26

Snowdonia). But the distances involved are relatively large and probably insurmountable for less mobile species such as plants and many insects31.

4.18. Species extending their range within the Project Area may pose a threat to others in the form of increased competition or as pathogens. The MONARCH modelling for Snowdonia indicates that bracken and western gorse Ulex gallii may be able to spread altitudinally as a result of climate change and heather could spread to out-compete and dominate areas of montane heath32. Non-native species such as the shrub Rhododendron ponticum is already present in many ancient woodland sites in the Project Area and is likely to extend its range ‘up slope’. Similarly, the plant diseases Phytophthora ramorum and P. kernoviae, already pose a risk to many tree species, particularly in forestry plantations, and are likely to increase in severity33. In short the effects of climate change on the biodiversity of the Project Area are likely to include:

• Lowland raised and blanket bog under threat from declining summer rainfall and increasing summer temperatures

• A reduction in the number of days of frost in the uplands altering microclimates and reducing the suitability of these areas for specialist plants and animals already on the edge of their range

• Low summer river flows affecting riparian habitats, lowland wetland and water quality, which may also be affected by increased soil erosion in the uplands leading to increased river sedimentation

• Semi-natural woodland – some threats to species from increased prevalence of pests and severe storms (but not as severe as East Wales)

• Semi-natural sites in the lowlands under threat because of their small size and isolation from other semi-natural habitats

SEA LEVEL 4.19. The low lying nature of the coastline south of the Dyfi estuary (including Cors Fochno

which is of international importance for nature conservation – para 3.19) means that sea level, determined both by relative changes in mean sea level compared to the land surface (isostatic change) and also by air pressure affecting the height of tides, is an important issue for the management of this internationally important wildlife area. Monitoring of atmospheric pressure by the Met Office shows an average annual increase over the period 1961 to 2006 of 0.3% across Wales as a whole, with seasonal variation between a reduction of 1.3% in the autumn and an increase of 2.1% in the winter.

4.20. Looking to the future, the UKCP09 projections suggest that under the IPCC medium emissions scenario and using the central (50%) probability of change, mean sea level in Cardiff Bay is likely to rise by 21.8cm by 2050, compared to the mean sea level in 1990. The projected increasing frequency of storm events will also increase the rate of coastal erosion, with flood defences subject to greater threat34.

31 Mitchell et al (2007) 32 Jones B (2007) 33 See online Forestry Commission briefing for Wales at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-8A2DF3 34 Foresight Land Use Futures Project (2010)

27

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION 4.21. Upland habitats are typically nutrient-poor due to the predominance of base-poor rocks,

slow mineralisation of soil nitrogen and high levels of rainfall that leaches nutrients. They are thus sensitive to atmospheric pollution which can have the following impacts35:

• Eutrophication involves the enrichment of soils and water with nutrients, particularly nitrogen, which favours species better adapted to higher nutrient levels compared to the existing communities. Eutrophication leads to successional change, often favouring grasses over forbs.

• Acidification results from increased levels of concentrations of sulphur and nitrogen in rain. The resulting lower pH (increased acidity) of soils mobilises heavy metals which can have toxic effects and also reduces levels of other chemicals necessary for growth, such as bicarbonates. Acidification favours species that are adapted to lower pH (having the most significant impacts on soils that are relatively base-rich) and in extreme circumstances (for instance on soils with high concentrations of heavy metals) can have toxic effects, stunting plant growth.

Recent trends 4.22. Industrialisation, and particularly the burning of fossil fuels, has increased the

concentrations of sulphur and atmospheric nitrogen in rain over the last two centuries. Although the predominant south westerly airflow over West Wales means that the Project Area receives relatively clean Atlantic air, the large areas of conifer plantations, have exacerbated the acidification of the upland soils and freshwater. Surveys by CCW have shown that the majority of upland lakes in Wales have suffered from acidification36.

4.23. Air-pollution legislation in the last few decades has reduced sulphur emissions, and monitoring suggests that some benchmark sites are showing signs of recovery from acidification37 but nitrogen deposition remains relatively unchanged.

Projections of change 4.24. The trend in the reduction acidification seems likely to continue, particularly with the

introduction of ‘clean coal’ technology in power stations and a switch to renewable energy sources. However, the deposition of atmospheric nitrogen, which has a wide range of sources, leading to eutrophication, is anticipated to continue.

PUBLIC RECREATION 4.25. Recreation provides an important economic driver in the area, helping to sustain tourism

businesses in rural communities. It can also have significant impacts on the natural environment as follows:

• Disturbance and loss of tranquillity arising from increased levels of access by people and their dogs and vehicles to habitats and landscapes which have previously had low levels of access

• Erosion of soils and poaching of vegetation, particularly on off-road tracks by vehicles and by people on the most heavily used paths

35 NEGTAP (2001) 36 Allott et al (1994) 37 Data from the UK Acid Waters Monitoring Network reported in Monteith et al (2005)

28

• Increased traffic associated with recreation can also be a source of eutrophication (para. 4.21) from the deposition of nitrogen onto soils and water.

• Increased income to land managing (e.g. farming and forestry) businesses can provide revenue that may be used by land managers for habitat management.

Recent trends 4.26. Compared to other upland areas in Wales, such as the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia,

the Cambrian Mountains have a low public profile and are relatively little visited. In 2006 it was estimated that in the order of 870,000 visitors came annually to the Cambrian Mountains (the whole of the upland area, of which the Project Area covers 10%). Two thirds of these visitors stayed for at least one night and a third were day visitors38. Most of these visits were focussed on the small settlements that lie around the edge of the upland plateau, but there has been growing interest in off-road driving in 4x4 vehicles on restricted byways across the mountains39. Concern has been raised about the negative impacts of this activity on the tranquillity of the Cambrians40, with concerns about significant localised problems of soil erosion and disturbance to wildlife.

4.27. The coastal parts of the Project Area include the small seaside resorts of Borth and Ynyslas. The dune complexes behind the coast have been used to accommodate caravan parks and car parking. The lowland inland part of the area is generally less visited with the exception of the Devils Bridge, a spectacular gorge on the River Rheidol. In 2006 this destination received around 38,800 visitors.

4.28. Throughout the area, tourist visits tend to be strongly seasonal with the majority of visitors coming in the traditional holiday periods.

Projections of change 4.29. The growth in domestic tourism may increase along with the popularity of ‘staycations’ as a

result of a combination of factors including the recession, currency exchange rates and growing awareness of climate change and desire to reduce air travel. Visits are likely to become more evenly spread throughout the year, with more taking place in the off-season months. 41

4.30. Other significant influences and trends on tourism is the ageing population which is increasingly active, in better health and with an increased amount of disposable income.

This aging population is expected to travel and seek out new experiences more, including an interest in the natural environment, culture and history. Amongst younger people there is likely to be continued growth in active ‘adventure’ pursuits, focussed particularly in ‘wild’ and high quality landscapes.42

4.31. These factors suggest that the impact of tourism and recreation on biodiversity of the Project Area will be varied. Although numbers of visitors are likely to increase, the extended tourism season will spread their impacts over the year. People are likely to seek out areas of high environmental quality, providing an increased justification (and potentially income) for favourable management of these areas, but this increased interest will increase

38 LUC (2007) 39 exeGesIS SDM Ltd (2008) 40 Cambrian Mountain Society (2008) 41 Achieving our Potential, Tourism Strategy for Wales (2006) Visit Wales 42 Ibid.

29

the level of intrusion and damage to relatively undisturbed habitats, particularly where it involves active pursuits such 4x4 driving.

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE 4.32. Agriculture, principally in the form of livestock farming, is the primary land use in the

Project Area (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.4). Agriculture forms a mainstay in the rural economy and is both an essential component of the conservation of biodiversity (through the extensive grazing of grassland and heathland habitats) and also a potential threat (such as from overgrazing and pollution).

Recent trends 4.33. The following analysis is drawn from the Assembly Government’s June Agricultural Survey

using the data for the agricultural small areas Ceredigion 1, 2 and 3 which fit most closely with the Project Area.

4.34. During the period 2002 to 2009 there was a decline in the overall area that is recorded as farmed, in the order of 6% to 12%. However, much of this reduction took place in 2005 and it is considered likely that this was due to the sale of a few large upland estates to holdings based outside the area43.

4.35. Over the same period there was a decline of 11% in the number of full-time holdings. This matches the same trend taking place across the UK, and reflects the increasing size of most full-time commercial farm businesses which are purchasing or renting small units. In the Project Area the number of part-time holdings remained static which varies from the trend seen in Wales and England as a whole where the number of ‘lifestyle’ or ‘hobby’ farms has been increasing.

4.36. There has been significant annual variation in the area of ley grassland and crops but the larger overall trend has been a reduction by 30% in the area of rough grassland on farms. This is matched by a fall of 27% in the number of breeding ewes (with most of this fall taking place since 2005). The reduction in the area of rough grazing and ewe numbers are both greater than the declines that have taken place across Wales as a whole. In contrast, the number of beef cows (which are much less significant than sheep as grazing livestock) has remained relatively static in the Project Area, although there are indications that numbers have fallen slightly since 2007 (compared to a larger fall for Wales as a whole).

4.37. The overall impression is that upland moorland areas are now being farmed more extensively with reduced sheep numbers, with some inaccessible areas no longer being grazed. However, it is important to recognise that, historically, stocking numbers have been as low, and lower, than those now being experienced (for instance during the 1930s and 40s). What is perhaps most significant is that, on an increasing number of farms, the breeds of livestock now being kept are less suitable to graze the rough and agriculturally unimproved vegetation.

Projections of change 4.38. Key factors in the future role of agricultural land use and management will be CAP reform

and the broader impacts of exchange rates affecting the competitiveness of Welsh agricultural commodities, cost of inputs and climate change.

43 Huwel Manley, CCW. Pers. comm.

30

4.39. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been a key driver of the land use and management decisions by farmers since its introduction to the UK in the early 1970s. Its influence has declined somewhat since reforms of the CAP in 2004 that ‘decoupled’ payments to farmers from their production of livestock and crops. However, payments under the Single Payment Scheme, support for hill farmers (Tir Mynydd) and agri-environment schemes (the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme, Tir Gofal, and now Glastir) continue to provide a high proportion of the income of farmers in the region’s uplands, without which many businesses would not be viable.

4.40. Hill farm support payments and agri-environment schemes have been particularly significant in the upland parts of the Project Area. A significant change will occur in 2013 when the targeted element (TE) of Glastir becomes available to farmers whose agreements under Tir Gofal are ending. As its name implies the TE will be closely targeted to areas of Wales and to individual holdings where it will have the greatest benefits across its six objectives of carbon/soil management, water quality, water quantity, biodiversity, landscape / historic environment and public access. The Assembly Government is currently establishing the targeting criteria which will be completed in 2011.

4.41. The current EU framework of the CAP, including the Single Payment Scheme and Rural Development Programme for Wales (RDPW) runs until 2013. Debate has started at an EU and national level about whether the overall budget allocated to the CAP should be maintained and whether the balance between core payments to maintain farmers businesses (the Single Payment Scheme under Pillar I of the CAP) and payments (including agri-environment scheme payments) for providing specific public benefits (under Pillar II) should change. Any overall reduction in the level of support received by farmers in the Project Area is likely to have a direct impact on the levels and types of grazing livestock and the contribution of farming businesses to the local economy and communities. If payments fall significantly there is the possibility of significant land abandonment in the uplands.

4.42. On the other hand, under climate change, there may be an increase in the productivity of the uplands which could provide a spur to more intensive farming and the potential spread of improved grasslands44. Where the balance will fall between land abandonment on the one hand and agricultural improvement facilitated by climate change is not clear.

WIDER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 4.43. The Foresight Land Use Futures45 report provides a helpful overview of the international

and national economic and social drivers that are likely to influence land use and management across the UK in coming decades. The principal drivers of change will be:

• A resumption in economic growth

• Rising population and, in western countries, an ageing demographic profile

• Changing societal preferences and attitudes

4.44. The Foresight report suggests that, after recovery from the current downturn, underlying economic growth across the UK as a whole will resume in the range 1.5–2.5% annually. The Foresight report quotes forecasts of population increases in the UK (from the Office

44 Mitchell et al (2007) 45 Foresight Land Use Futures Project (2010)

31

for National Statistics) of an additional 9 million people by 2031 and 15 million by 2051. Demand for land and the services it provides are likely to continue as a result.

4.45. Coupled with rising global demand for food, prices for international traded agricultural commodities (such as the light lamb produced in the Project Area) are likely to increase substantially. Furthermore, a larger and more affluent domestic market is likely to increase market demand for value-added and ‘identity preserved’ products from land (including lamb, beef and dairy products, timber and wood products).

4.46. Demographic change within the farming workforce will also continue to influence the way land is managed. The average age of farmers across the UK has been, and is likely to continue, increasing46. However, as farms are passed onto the next generation, many of the traditional skills which have less economic rationale than previously (such as the keeping of hardy breeds of livestock on open moorland) risk being lost.

4.47. Amongst the younger generation of farmers, and incomers to farming, there is likely to be a greater expectation that farming should generate an income comparable with other similar professions. The most economically marginal land, such as the relatively small landholdings in the transitional ffridd area, are likely to continue to be subject to fluctuations in land use and tenure, resulting in generally unstable patterns of land use and management47.

THE POLICY AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 4.48. Public policy will continue to evolve in response to climate change and the other drivers

described above. Key areas of policy, where changes will have most impact on land use and management in the project area are as follows:

• Agricultural policy, particularly further reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy which are expected to take effect from 2013

• The delivery of agri-environment schemes through the Wales Rural Development Programme (particularly the Assembly Government’s Glastir and Better Woodlands for Wales schemes)

• Land use planning and development control through the Wales Spatial Plan and Local Planning Authority Plans

• Biodiversity conservation policy, arising from implementation on the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU Habitats Directive, delivered through programmes such as the Wales Biodiversity Action Plan

• Landscape policy, including the implementation of the European Landscape Convention through CCW’s work on Green Infrastructure

• Energy policy through the Assembly Government’s Low Carbon Energy Policy Statement

• Pollution control and improvements to water quality through the River Basin Management Plans for Western Wales and the River Severn, implementing the EU Water Framework Directive.

46 Defra (2010) 47 A conclusion reached from workshops held with farmers during the study.

32

4.49. The future of the CAP, and role of farm subsidies and rural development payments, will play a key part in shaping the decisions of individual farmers in the project area, combined with the effects of climate change and its implications for agricultural land use. It seems most likely that public subsidies and payments to landowners from the CAP will become more conditional on the delivery of identifiable public benefits, but that there will be a broadening of the definition of these benefits (around a greater understanding of ecosystem services). In the Project Area this may mean increased incentives for the protection and enhancement of ecosystem resources such as peat soils and lowland raised bogs (recognising the carbon and water they store and the biodiversity they conserve). Regulatory controls and the threat of prosecutions will also be used to reduce point source pollution incidents.

4.50. Measures to mitigate climate change through reductions in carbon emissions and the production of renewable energy policy will become increasingly important to both businesses and homeowners through measures such as Feed in Tariffs, the Renewable Heat Incentive and the Green Deal. Policies to mitigate climate change are likely to have the following impacts on land use and management in the Project Area:

• Recognition of the important role played by peat soils as a store of organic carbon will increase incentives to conserve them

• Biomass production from woodland and forestry will play a significant part in their management.

• Anaerobic digestion of effluent from farmed livestock to produce biogas is likely to prove an alternative to disposal of the effluent to land.

• Energy from wind may also have significant impacts on the landscape in the upland areas with highest wind speeds.

4.51. Overall, there will be increased appreciation of the functions and benefits that ecosystems deliver and the value that ecosystem services bring to society48 49. This is likely to result in land use policy that recognises the multi-functional nature of landscapes and rewards the delivery of ecosystems goods and services through payments to land managers.

THE OVERALL TRAJECTORY FOR THE AREA IN THE ABSENCE OF ADAPTATION MEASURES

4.52. This final section of this Chapter seeks to draw together the various pressures outlined above, suggesting how, in the absence of adaptation measures taken individually by land owners or collectively through public policy, the landscape of the Project Area is likely to change over coming decades.

4.53. The spatial pattern of change will vary significantly. This section therefore divides the Project Area into: the upland plateau, the transitional ffridd zone, lowland farmland and the coastal zone, as described in paragraph 3.8.

48 National Ecosystems Assessment. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/ 49 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEEB). http://www.teebweb.org/

33

The upland plateau

Table 4.1. Summary of changes on the upland plateau

Driver Effect Impact on biodiversity Climate change

Rising temperatures and fewer days of frost

Moorland heath habitat is less suitable for sub-alpine species

Climate change

Higher winter rainfall will increase the risk of soil erosion where soils are already unstable

Increased threat to eroded peat soils and associated heathland/blanket bog habitat. Declining water quality

Climate change

Lower summer rainfall will lower the water table in blanket and raised bogs during the summer months

Threat to hydrological integrity of blanket bog and drying out of this habitat

Climate change

Increased productivity in the uplands Potentially leading to pressure to agriculturally improve areas of rough grazing

Climate change

Large conifer plantations will face increasing threat from invasive pests and diseases and storms will increase the risk of wind throw on exposed sites

Opportunities for succession and habitat creation / restoration in areas under past conifer blocks

CAP reform Declining CAP payments will cause further falls in sheep and cattle numbers

Possibly leading to more extensive grazing or even land abandonment (providing opportunities for ‘rewilding’)

Agricultural markets

Increasing emphasis on finishing of lambs for value-added markets

Livestock are less suitable for grazing semi-natural heathland habitats

Agri-environment payments

Agri-environment payments will be targeted to designated sites

Semi-natural habitats outside designated sites receive sub-optimal levels of grazing

Deposition of atmospheric nitrogen

Nutrient enrichment of base-poor soils

Successional change in nutrient poor habitats such as blanket bog and acid grassland.

Tourism and recreation

Increased interest in, and active enjoyment of, high quality environments and tranquil landscapes

Increased disturbance and localised damage, but potential for new income from visitor spend to mitigate negative impacts.

The transitional zone between the uplands and lowlands, including the ffridd

Table 4.2. Summary of changes on the transitional zone

Driver Effect Impact on biodiversity Climate change

Higher winter rainfall will increase levels of soil erosion on steeper valley sides

Lower water quality and potential removal of in-stream habitats under winter storm flows

Climate change

Lower summer rainfall will reduce river flows in summer

Reducing abundance of aquatic habitats and adversely affecting wetland habitats

Climate change

Increased growth of bracken in unimproved and semi-improved grassland

Leading to loss of other habitats and potentially resulting in a monoculture of bracken

Climate change

Large conifer plantations will face increasing threat from invasive pests and diseases and storms will increase the risk of wind throw on exposed sites

Opportunities for succession and habitat creation / restoration in areas under past conifer blocks

34

Climate change

Invasion of Rhododendron ponticum into woodlands and edges of rough grassland

A reduction in the species diversity of semi-natural woodland

CAP reform Declining CAP payments will cause further falls in sheep and cattle numbers

Potentially leading to areas of land abandonment and the succession development of vegetation

Demographic change

Ageing farm workforce and uncertain plans for succession within farming families – Decline of labour and skills

Lower levels of environmental management and potential land abandonment and the succession development of vegetation

Agricultural markets

Low profitability of farming on marginal land

Succession of unimproved and semi-improved grassland to rough grassland and scrub

Deposition of atmospheric nitrogen

Nutrient enrichment of base-poor soils

Successional change in nutrient poor habitats such as blanket bog and acid grassland.

Tourism and recreation

Increased pressure at important tourist attractions such as Devil’s Bridge

Localised erosion of semi-natural habitats but likely to be in relatively limited areas

Lowland farmland

Table 4.3. Summary of changes on lowland farmland

Driver Effect Impact on biodiversity Climate change

Warmer winters and summers increase the range of crops that can be grown

Switch from permanent grassland to ley grassland and arable crops reducing areas of semi-natural habitat.

Climate change

Enabling increased agricultural intensification

Increased fragmentation of isolated semi-natural sites, particularly those that are not designated, as a result of increased farm production

Agri-environment payments

Agri-environment payments will be targeted to designated sites

Semi-natural habitats outside designated sites left unmanaged but:

Agricultural markets

Increased demand for ‘locality foods’ of known provenance and produced to high environmental standards

Creation and management of on farm habitats to meet environmental standards

Demographic change

More productive lowland farms potentially offer commercial opportunities for farm entrants

Potential habitat creation as a younger generation of farmers promote multi-purpose land use

Tourism and recreation

Farm holidays close to the coast offer an additional income stream and encourage more environmentally farming practices as part of the ‘farm offer;

Potential habitat creation to meet visitor expectations

The coastal zone

Table 4.4. Summary of changes on the coastal zone

Driver Effect Impact on biodiversity Climate change

Sea level rise and storm events Erosion of salt marsh and dune systems and saline inundation of freshwater habitats

35

Climate change and storm events

Sea level rise and storm events Inundation of coastal towns necessitating enhanced coastal defences or a policy of coastal realignment and the potential creation of new areas of salt marsh

Climate change

Lower summer rainfall will reduce water table in freshwater wetlands

Loss of lowland wetland habitats including important raised bog habitats

Tourism and recreation

Increased recreational throughout the year as a result of increased holidaying at home

Increased coastal erosion, potentially damaging fragile coastal habitats including remnant sand dunes

36

5. MODELLING POTENTIAL ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

5.1. This Chapter introduces the Polyscape model that was used to visualise and compare the spatial impact of land use scenarios developed during the study. It describes the sources of data that were used in the model and explains how expert opinion was used to establish the assumptions and ‘rules’ that were implicit in the model. The scenarios themselves, and the outputs from the model, are described in the following Chapter.

POLYSCAPE 5.2. Polyscape is an approach which uses Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for

integrating the knowledge of local and technical experts with readily available spatial environmental data to explore the opportunities for modifying the delivery of biodiversity and other ecosystem services at a landscape scale. The tool is under development jointly by the School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography at Bangor University and Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. It is based on the manipulation of digital spatial data in the ESRI Arc Map GIS software.

5.3. The tool was designed principally as a negotiation tool for exploring potential modifications to ecosystem service delivery. The process of developing outputs from Polyscape is designed to be an iterative and participatory process. Currently most decision-making about land use change takes place at field and farm scales (predominantly by farmers to meet their livelihood needs). The inclusion in these decisions of externally driven environmental agendas (associated with a range of different government agencies and interest groups) requires better integration between these different stakeholders and the views of farmers.

5.4. Previous work to develop the Polyscape tool was undertaken as part of the Flood Risk Management Research Consortium (FRMRC), a catchment scale study at Pontbren in East Wales. This focussed on the role of land use interventions, particularly tree planting, in arable landscapes to reduce flooding impacts by increasing water infiltration and storage. It involved development of spatial layers covering agricultural productivity and hydrology which were further developed in this study along with other important layers central to this study.

5.5. Specifically Polyscape facilitates: 1. the visualisation of spatially explicit policy implementation 2. the integration of policy implementation across sectors (for instance between the

water, biodiversity, agriculture and forestry sectors) 3. participation (and knowledge transfer) with key stakeholder groups.

5.6. It is important to emphasise that Polyscape, and the mapped outputs that have been developed in this study, provide a platform for debate but do not, on their own, claim to produce ‘The Answer’. This needs to be borne in mind when looking at the maps, which should be regarded as providing provisional indications of constrains and opportunities to stimulate discussion over land use interventions.

The ‘rules’ that underpin Polyscape outputs 5.7. Polyscape uses algorithms (‘rules’ based on numerical values) to explore the impacts of land

cover change on the delivery of different ecosystem services. For this study Polyscape has

37

been developed significantly further. Sets of algorithms have been prepared so that the model now covers: flood risk, erosion, biodiversity conservation, habitat connectivity, carbon sequestration and agricultural productivity. For each, algorithms are applied to individual parcels of land (potentially taking account of the characteristics of other parcels) to determine the suitability of that parcel for changes of land cover or management so as to optimise the delivery of the individual service. In this way a value is allocated to each parcel which can be shown in colour maps (see below). For each parcel the colour may vary depending on the service being considered.

5.8. To enable application in a broad range of landscapes, Polyscape was designed to make use of readily available spatial data. The basic algorithms can be applied using national scale (i.e. widely available) specifically digital data on physical characteristics such as elevation, land use and soils data. Enhanced output is possible where higher resolution data are available, for instance by using LIDAR, detailed land use or soil surveys. Deficiencies in these data can be reduced by incorporating local stakeholder knowledge which, in turn, increases stakeholder participation in the negotiation process.

The maps of Polyscape outputs 5.9. The values allocated to each parcel of land by the algorithms are used to generate colour

coded impact maps allowing flexibility and quick visualisation of the impact of different decisions50. These maps use a five colour ‘traffic light’ system51. For the individual service layers areas of the map in red indicate high existing value for the ecosystem service in question. Areas in maroon have some existing value and orange indicates neutral value. Green indicates high opportunity for change, with lighter green indicating the highest level of opportunity.

Comparing the outputs from different ecosystem services 5.10. Polyscape includes algorithms to trade the individual layers against each other in a number

of ways. These include an additive option (which treats all services equally), a weighted additive (which allows the addition of weightings for individual services), a conservative option (which only identifies areas where positive synergies exist) and a Boolean option (which enables users to select a combination of additive and conservative option for each service).

5.11. All trade off output in this project have been done using the additive option. The trade-off maps offer a means for recognising the value of existing landscape features and targeting and prioritising opportunities for landscape change – in particular identifying where small changes can have the greatest positive or negative impacts on biodiversity and a range of ecosystem services (by being explicit about where trade-offs and synergies between these services occur within the landscape).

5.12. It is possible to produce two way, three way or even four way trade-off layers in Polyscape. In the trade-off maps a bright green colour indicates that at least two services (including biodiversity) have potentially high opportunities for interventions and all other services are neutral (orange) indicating a potential win-win situation, dark green shows where it is positive for one service and neutral for others. Maroon and red layers indicate that the land use is less available for interventions (or that changes will require higher incentives).

50 See Jackson et al, 2010 and Pagella et al, 2010 51 The default settings use red, orange and green – although these can be modified for colour blind stakeholders

38

COMMUNICATING OUTPUTS USING ‘FLYOVER’ SIMULATIONS

5.13. An innovative aspect of this project has been the incorporation of the mapped outputs from the Polyscape model into moving three dimensional representations of the landscape which users can interact with. Specifically this drapes the output layers and trade-off layers of Polyscape over the 3D representations of the landscape, allowing farmers, and other stakeholders, to see exactly how the proposals would impact spatially on their farm.

5.14. During the project two different software packages were compared for their flexibility, ease of use and reliability for this purpose. These were Visual Nature Studio, produced by 3D Nature LLC, and Google Earth from Google Inc. Both offer advantages in different areas, with the Visual Nature Studio providing more realistic rendering in three dimensions at a fine scale, and Google Earth being more portable (allowing a small KML file to be emailed) and more flexible in use (allowing ‘live’ navigation across the site). Google Earth was chosen as the preferred method for this project. A separate disc is available of this output from the study.

SOURCES OF DATA 5.15. For this project six principal data sources were utilised (Table 5.1). The objective was to

use readily available and reliable data that describe the physical parameters that determine the delivery of biodiversity and other ecosystem services.

Table 5.1: Key datasets used in the development of the Polyscape outputs

Dataset used Type Notes

CCW 1980s Phase 1 Land use Data drawn from field survey undertaken during the early 1980s

CCW 2009 Phase 1 Land use Data drawn from remote sensing undertaken in 2009. 5m resolution

National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI) Soilscapes Soil 1Km resolution

Ordinance Survey Land PROFILE Digital Terrain Model (DTM) 10m resolution

EA’s Water framework Directive and Flood risk maps Flood risk Resolution varies (DTM and

LIDAR)

Core and Focal Habitat Networks Habitat networks

Using the results obtained by CCW using Forest Research’s BEETLE tool52. Original work used 20m resolution.

5.16. The basic layers in Polyscape require land use data, soil data, and a digital terrain model (DTM). The initial implementation of Polyscape in Wales (in the FRMRC study at Pontbren – para 5.4) utilised CCW’s 1980s Phase 1 dataset and the National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI) Soilscapes datasets. The 1980s Phase 1 datasets are now increasingly out of date and at the outset of this study were in the process of being updated for CCW using data derived from remote sensing. A key aim of this study was to identify priority habitat types within the Project Area (see Chapter 6) and the quality of the land use data was a critical factor. An early iteration of the Phase 1 data derived from remote sensing (generated in 2009 with a resolution of 5m2) was therefore utilised in this study.

52 BEETLE (Biological and Environmental Evaluation Tools for Landscape Ecology) is a GIS-based spatial modelling tool developed by Forest Research. http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/infd-69pla5

39

5.17. The DTM used in this study was the Ordinance Survey 10m Digital Terrain Model (Landform PROFILE) – which is a readily available DTM for the UK. The initial aim was to also utilise LIDAR53 datasets in addition to the OS DTM but this was not forthcoming in the time available for map production.

5.18. The Core and Focal Habitat Networks that have been prepared for Wales using the BEETLE software algorithms produced by Forest Research for CCW and FCW54 were used to identify areas with greatest functional connectivity for species, based on the distribution of suitable habitat patches. Separate network maps have been prepared for broadleaved woodland, unimproved grassland (all types combined), calcareous grassland, marshy grassland, heathland, and fens and bogs. For each of these habitat types, core networks apply to species that require a lot of their habitat and disperse poorly and focal networks apply to species that require less habitat and disperse reasonably well. Together, these give an indication of the range of variation of networks for typical species, and a guide to overall ecological connectivity within the Project Area.

5.19. The network maps provide guides to help understand how the landscape functions for biodiversity, and as such can be used in a variety of ways (such assessing the importance of individual habitat patches, defining the limits of individual sites and management units and, as in this study, prioritising site protection versus habitat expansion at a landscape scale). However, it is important to emphasise that these network maps use spatial models that have been developed to estimate the movement of typical species, rather than on observations of real species. Critically, the weighting factors that are applied to determine the location of networks in relation to habitat patch size, quality and isolation, depend on value judgements on the likely behaviour of theoretical focal species. These value judgements have been developed by Forest Research with the assistance of an expert group.

5.20. It is important to appreciate that the network maps are approximations of current connectivity and should not be used uncritically. They are only as good as the information used in the model, some of which may be inaccurate or have changed. In addition, the network maps should not be directly used to prescribe habitat expansion – for example it is not necessarily the case that all land encompassed within a woodland network should be planted with trees. The same, or better, outcome for wood species might be achieved by establishing a matrix of habitats in which woodlands are an important component.

Flood risk layers 5.21. The Environment Agency’s catchment maps prepared for the River Basin Management

Plans were used to delineate catchments and identify headwaters. The Agency’s Flood Map was used to identify areas at risk of flooding under current climate conditions, distinguishing between areas at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Data on flood risk areas arising under projections of rising sea level and changing rainfall patterns were not available to this study.

Carbon Layers 5.22. References for data used to create the carbon layers are described further below and in

Chapter 6

53 LIDAR stands for Light Detection And Ranging 54 Latham et al (2008)

40

Local knowledge (expert and land owner) 5.23. Interviews were held with CCW staff, involving three short seminars at which the evolving

results of the Polyscape model were presented and debated, and with farmers within the catchment.

5.24. Interviews with CCW staff were critical to the development of the initial Priority Habitat maps (described in Chapter 6). The timescale and resources available for interviewing farmers was limited which allowed only a small number of interviews to take place. These proved very useful and it would have been good to have more rigorous and wide scale feedback from farmers.

Limitations of data 5.25. The 2009 Phase 1 dataset derived from remote sensing was new and, when it was used for

this study, was not ground-truthed. CCW specialists identified some significant inconsistencies between Phase 1 datasets. These needed to be explored in greater detail. Some key land use types (particularly the hedgerows) were difficult to capture at 5m2 resolution, requiring careful interpretation of the spatial data.

5.26. It is important to note that this has real implications for measuring the size of the tree resource (as opposed to woodland resource) in Wales – particularly given that a single standard tree (in the right place) can make a significant contribution to farm sequestration. The percentage of carbon sequestration from isolated trees on farms ranged from 0 to 33% of the total farm sequestration; accounting for 1,522 kg/ha at the top end of this range.

5.27. The biodiversity scenario (described in Chapter 6) draws on data from the 2009 Phase 1 survey, the 1980s Phase 1 data and CCW’s lowland grassland habitat networks. With hindsight it would have been better to develop one land use dataset and not attempt to incorporate elements of other maps into the biodiversity layer – particularly as other Polyscape layers use the 2009 Phase 1 data as it is. As a result there are some inconsistencies with the output from the Polyscape trade-off layers, although these are not considered to alter the main conclusions reached by the study.

5.28. So to clarify: The priority habitat layer is based largely on the remote sensed Phase 1 data. It incorporates data from the original Phase 1 on peat areas, and incorporates the Phase 2 data on lowland unimproved grassland. The other layers in Polyscape that incorporate land use (flood risk and carbon) use unmodified land use data. This difference in landuse between the layers means that some polygons don’t match up evenly in the trade off layers – making interpretation difficult if the underlying land use data is used to interpret the results of the Polyscape analysis.

5.29. Both the NSRI Soilscapes datasets and the 10m Digital Terrain Model (DTM) are at low enough resolutions to have missed important elements of the landscape. Interviews with farmers identified inconsistencies with the soil data at the farm scale (as would be expected) and the DTM was of limited use for identifying hydrological pathways, particularly in relation to the location of moorland grips (drainage channels dug through peat soils).

5.30. Carbon opportunity calculations are based on the IPCC tier 1 protocols; separating carbon into above ground biomass, below ground biomass, deadwood, litter, and soil carbon. The default algorithms calculate levels at pseudo-steady state; considering carbon levels when the land use/management regime has been in place long enough for the system to come into equilibrium. The development of a Polyscape layer to identify the areas of land that are

41

valuable for the maintenance or improvement of carbon stocks involved the use and developed of new analysis based on latest research evidence and guidance. The methodology set out under the PAS 2050 protocol55, using the IPCC first tier data, was adopted, with these standard rates of carbon accumulation and loss applied to soils and landuse data for the Project Area. Applying this methodology and these data to land use at a fine scale was innovative and the outputs produced should be regarded as a first attempt to address complex issues. In future work, it is hoped that replacing the IPCC first tier data with rates of carbon flux that have been developed for Welsh conditions will improve the accuracy of the conclusions on the relationship between land use and carbon storage.

5.31. The outputs from Polyscape in this study provide an innovative and graphic way of illustrating the land use changes that may be needed to enable biodiversity to adapt to climate change as discussed further in the next Chapter. The proviso given in paragraph 5.6 that the maps should be regarded as provisional and intended to provide a platform for debate between different interests, should be borne in mind.

55 BSI (2008)

42

6. LAND USE SCENARIOS TO DELIVER BIODIVERSITY AND OTHER SERVICES

6.1. This Chapter describes the use of spatial modelling, using the Polyscape approach, to identify opportunities and priorities for land use under four different scenarios.

6.2. The Chapter starts with an explanation of how the four different land use scenarios were selected, based on the delivery of biodiversity and three other ecosystem services. It then describes the development and outputs of each of the scenarios, before examining the spatial synergies and conflicts between these and unresolved issues that have emerged from these scenarios.

SELECTION OF SCENARIOS 6.3. The conservation and adaptation of biodiversity in the face of climate change lies at the

heart of this study. However, the study has also sought to take account of other key public benefits that can be gained from the natural environment, defined as ecosystem services (paragraphs 1.20 – 1.24). The ecosystem services approach is one of the focuses of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative (para. 1.10) and has been adopted by Defra and CCW as a central tool in the development and delivery of land use policy56.

6.4. Guided by a stakeholder group including staff from CCW, the Cambrian Mountains Initiative and Welsh Assembly Government, and based closely on the ongoing work of the Cambrian Mountains Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Working Group, three ecosystem services were selected, in addition to biodiversity, as the basis for the modelling of land use scenarios:

• Biodiversity adaptation

• Agricultural productivity

• Mitigating flood risk by reducing surface run-off

• The storage of carbon

6.5. The decision on which scenarios to choose reflected the knowledge of stakeholders of the key functions and benefits provided in the Project Area and secondly on an understanding of how existing data could be used to model the delivery of the services at a landscape scale.

On this basis, the land use scenarios that have been examined through this study are:

1. The Biodiversity adaptation scenario: This identifies those areas of land within the Project Area that are of greatest importance for planning the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change.

2. The agricultural productivity scenario: This identifies those areas of land within the Project Area that are most important for agricultural (food) production and those areas which are relatively unconstrained by agricultural productivity and are therefore easier to negotiate for alternative land uses (the delivery of the other scenarios).

56 See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/using/index.htm and CCW (2009). Council Minutes 19 October 2009. CCW M 09 05. Minute: 81.1.

43

3. The reduction in surface water run-off scenario: This examines the management of land to reduce flood risk from precipitation. It seeks to identify those areas where interventions to reduce the overland flow of water and the associated sediment delivery could reduce the risk of downstream flooding.

4. The carbon storage scenario: This seeks to map areas with stores of organic carbon (based on the methodology specified in Tier 1 of the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories) in order to prioritise efforts to conserve this resource and prevent its oxidation back into the atmosphere.

6.6. A number of other services and scenarios were considered by the project team and the stakeholder group but ultimately rejected. These included the following:

• The regulation of water quality : This was considered an important ecosystem service for which good data is available57. However, it was rejected for this study because in certain catchments (such as the Rheidol, see para. 3.7 and Figure 3.2), the issues are not associated with the agricultural management of land but with the influence of heavy metal leachates from past mining activity. In these areas, it was felt that there would be less synergy with the land use interventions needed for biodiversity than for the other ecosystem services considered above. Clearly though, bioremediation could play an important role in improving water quality in these areas.

• The provision of recreation: This is a major source of economic wealth to the communities of the area (para. 4.33). The quality of the natural environment is perhaps ‘the’ key attraction for visitors to the area. Some forms of recreation (such as off-road 4x4 driving (para. 4.34) are capable of damaging this environmental quality. However, the influence of land use on this is less clear cut, requiring an understanding of the public’s preference for different forms of land use in different landscapes. This information is currently not available58.

• The provision of biomass for energy from woodland, agro-forestry and agricultural crops and by-products: This is emerging as a significant objective for land use policy across the UK59. The stakeholder group considered including this as one of the scenarios but concluded that there was not currently sufficient evidence to determine how this could be modelled spatially (i.e. which forms of biomass would be most suitable in different landscapes and how biomass crops would be influenced by the distance to processing plants). It was felt that the agricultural productivity scenario would help identify those areas of farmland that were likely to have the highest capability to grow biomass crops.

THE BIODIVERSITY ADAPTATION SCENARIO 6.7. This is the central scenario for the study, against which the others are compared. It seeks

to identify the areas of land where high existing biodiversity value should be protected and conserved, and the areas of land where appropriate changes in land use or management are capable of aiding the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change. Not only does this

57 The data measure the ecological and chemical status of water bodies and groundwater, as monitored by the Environment Agency to comply with the Water Framework Directive. 58 But research commissioned by Natural England is gathering valuable evidence on this. See Natural England (2009). Capturing the Cultural Services and Experiential Qualities of Landscape. Contract undertaken by Research Box, with Land Use Consultants and others. 59 In Wales this is set out in the Assembly Government’s Energy Policy Statement – A Low Carbon Revolution, published in March 2010.

44

scenario reflect the importance of conserving and enhancing biodiversity for its own sake but it also recognises that healthy biodiversity in its widest sense is a prerequisite for the successful delivery of nearly all other ecosystem services.

Approach followed 6.8. The development of this scenario involved the following steps:

1. Understand how CBCC Principles can be expressed spatially in the Project Area 2. Identify and map key habitat types from Phase 1 data 3. Develop ‘rules’ to apply the appropriate CBCC Principles to each habitat layer, for

inclusion in the Polyscape model 4. Combine Polyscape outputs for each habitat layer to create a single biodiversity

adaptation layer.

The use of the CBCC Principles to generate this scenario 6.9. The ‘rules’ that were used to develop the Polyscape outputs for this scenario were guided

strongly by the Conserving Biodiversity in a Changing Climate (CBCC) Principles, developed by the UK Biodiversity Partnership (para. 1.16). The four principles that were most relevant in this process were:

• Principle 1. Conserving existing biodiversity, which is split between (a) Conserving Protected Areas and other high quality habitats; and (b) Conserving the general range and ecological variability of habitats and species.

• Principle 2. Reducing sources of harm not linked to climate change.

• Principle 3. Developing ecologically resilient and varied landscapes.

• Principle 4. Establishing ecological networks through habitat protection, restoration and creation.

6.10. As will be described in the following sections, experience with the development of the Polyscape model showed that Principles 1, 3 and 4 were most easily applied in the model on the basis of analysis of existing and potential land cover. Principle 2 was more difficult to apply based simply on assessments of land cover, frequently requiring analysis of land management which was not included in the Polyscape model developed by this study. The lessons learned from this process are described more fully in the following Chapter.

Mapping protected areas within the Project Area (Principle 1a) 6.11. The first task in the development of the scenario, consistent with Principle 1(a), was to

map the designated nature conservation sites within the Project Area. As described in Chapter 3 (para. 3.17 and Table 3.3) 29 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) fall entirely or partly within the Project Area and occupy 13.4% of the land area. In addition, nearly two-thirds of the SSSI area is of international importance, designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and / or Special Protection Areas (SPAs). These individual SSSIs encompass a range of different habitats (para. 3.17) from the coastal habitats of mudflats and saltmarsh on the Dyfi Estuary to upland heath and blanket bog on Pumlumon.

6.12. During the study, a decision was needed on how to incorporate the designation status within the Polyscape model. The SSSI status could be taken to mean that all these sites should be classified as unsuitable for land cover change, with priority given to maintaining

45

current land use and continuing suitable forms of management, such as extensive grazing regimes by beef cattle and sheep. In practice, CCW specialists advised that there are opportunities for land use change on some SSSIs, particularly on the large upland sites where acid grassland bordering upland heath or overlying deep peat soils should be considered as suitable for a change in habitat type – either to upland heath or blanket bog.

6.13. In addition, the SSSI designation on its own is no guide to the adaptation needs of the habitats and species occurring within the sites. Instead, the habitat type within SSSIs was judged a better indicator of the conservation priorities that should be pursued. For this reason, it was decided not to automatically ‘screen out’ all land within SSSIs from inclusion within the Polyscape model of land use change. However, SSSIs are maintained as a layer in the model, such that they can be applied to the interpretation of the scenario outputs.

Mapping priority habitats within the Project Area (Principle 1a) 6.14. Addressing Principle 1(a) also required mapping ‘other high quality habitats’. These were

identified using the Priority Habitats listed under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and cross-referenced with the Phase 1 datasets (2009). Table 6.1 lists the BAP Priority Habitats that are present in the Project Area. It is significant that the 2009 Phase 1 dataset shows significantly fewer habitat categories then the original 1980s Phase 1 data (summarised in Appendix 1).

Table 6.1: Types of priority habitat potentially present in the project area

Priority Habitat types present

Present in Phase 1 Classification?

Other relevant datasets

Inclusion in model

Arable field margins J1.1 (Boundary) - No Bog (Raised and Blanket) E1.6.1 and E1.6.2 - Yes Hedgerows J2.1 (new) - Yes Lowland mixed deciduous woodland, upland oakwood, upland mixed ash

Restricted to A1.1 NIWT Yes

Wet woodland NO - A subset of A1.1 and A2.1

NSRI Soilscapes Approx?

Lowland Heath - Yes Upland Heath D1.1, D6

- Yes Coastal Saltmarsh H2.6 - Yes Lowland unimproved grassland

B1.1 Phase 2 Yes

River systems Remote sensed data patchy

EA DRN data Yes

Other Heavy Peat soils NSRI Soilscape (1013a, 1013b, 1024a)

Yes

Development of the Priority Habitat layer in Polyscape (Principles 1- 4) 6.15. In developing a map of the Priority Habitats the aim was to take account of the CBCC

Principles 1- 4 (para. 6.10) , providing an indication of the spatial priorities for biodiversity conservation and creation on each parcel of land in line with the requirements of the Principles. The steps undertaken were as follows:

1. For each Priority Habitat, decide how to incorporate elements into the map. This was an iterative process involving dialogue with CCW specialists to agree the relevant ‘rules’.

46

2. Determine the relationship between Priority Habitats and Phase 1 datasets. This was complicated by variations between the two Phase 1 datasets (see for instance Table 6.2). In addition, some of the habitat categories in the Phase 1 dataset were too broad to allow identification of different BAP Priority Habitats. For instance, all three BAP priority woodland types found in the Project Area were classified as a single woodland category in the Phase 1 data.

This variation in Phase 1 datasets also affected subsequent comparisons with other scenarios. For example, the flood risk layers (of scenario 3) and the carbon layers (of scenario 4) use the 2009 Phase 1 datasets exclusively – whereas the Priority Habitat layer was a composite of three land use datasets (Phase 1 (2009), Phase 1 (1980s) and Phase 2). Ideally these would have been rationalised into a common dataset but this was not possible as part of this study because of time and costs. As a consequence, there are some associated inconsistencies in outputs that have had to be taken into account.

3. Decide on a Polyscape value based on the CBCC Principles. This was the critical step in ensuring that the Polyscape model followed the UK Biodiversity Group’s guidance:

a. CBCC Principle 1. Parcels of land identified as having high existing conservation value, based on the presence of BAP Priority Habitats, were coloured either red for high priority or maroon for moderate priority depending on their local value – see below for more details.

b. CBCC Principles 2 and 4. Parcels of land with relatively low current conservation value based on the Phase 1 classification, but where land use change would provide significant opportunities to enhance this value by developing ecologically resilient and varied landscapes or establishing ecological networks coloured light green (representing a high opportunity for intervention to buffer or expand adjacent habitat of value).

c. Parcels of land with low levels of biodiversity value and few opportunities for enhancing this value were coloured dark green. While these areas might provide opportunities to contribute to CBCC Principles 2 and 4, their current land use and their position in the landscape meant that they were not considered a high priority for change following the CBCC guidance.

d. Areas of neutral or unknown value were coloured amber. These are discussed in detail below as amber areas are, in effect, question marks for management.

6.16. The way in which this process was applied to each of the Priority Habitats in the Project Area is described below.

Arable field margins

6.17. Arable land constitutes a small proportion within the Project Area (2% of the land area - Table 3.1). Discussions with CCW about local management practices suggested that environmental management of the margins of this arable land was limited. As a result, arable field margins were not included as a key habitat in the Polyscape output for the Biodiversity scenario.

47

Bog (raised and blanket)

6.18. Bog was identified by CCW ecologists as of particular importance as a habitat within the Project Area.

6.19. There are some important discrepancies between the original Phase 1 data and the 2009 Phase 1 dataset (Table 6.1). Although the area of bog in the Project Area as a whole was higher in the 2009 dataset than in the 1980s dataset, there were areas, particularly in the south east of the Project Area, where CCW specialists believed that significant areas of bog were omitted from the 2009 dataset. The recommendation of the CCW ecologists was to utilise the 1980s Phase 1 datasets as this had been extensively ground truthed in the local area. As a result, all bog identified by the 1980s Phase 1 data was identified as a key habitat of high existing value, being coloured red.

Table 6.2: Differences in area classified as bog between the two datasets

Source Area (ha) 2009 Phase 1 (remoted sensed) 1,412 1980s Phase 1 (field survey) 987

6.20. The National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI) data also revealed that there were other heavy peat soils present in the Project Area which were not present as bogs (Figure 6.2). In these instances any inappropriate land use over peat soils was identified as having a high opportunity for change. In the initial iteration inappropriate land use was defined as commercial forestry or improved grassland.

All existing bog habitats were identified as a key habitat of high existing value, being coloured red. All inappropriate land use over peat soils were identified as high priority for change within the Project Area (coloured bright green – Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.1: Variation in bog habitat between the 1980s and 2009 Phase 1 datasets

48

Figure 6.2. Areas of peat soils not overlain with blanket bog

Hedgerows

6.21. This study followed the definition of a hedgerow given in Bickmore, 2002, as any boundary line of trees or shrubs over 20m long and less than 5m wide, where any gaps between the trees or shrub species are less that 20m wide.

6.22. Hedgerows were not recorded in the 1980s Phase 1 dataset. The relatively fine 5m2 spatial resolution in the 2009 dataset allows many hedgerows to be distinguished (although this is relatively crude and occasionally incomplete). All the areas classified in the 2009 Phase 1 data as hedgerows were included in the Polyscape Biodiversity layer, although it is recognised that this does not provide a complete picture of the extent of hedgerows.

6.23. The 2009 Phase 1 data indicates that hedgerows account for approximately 1,053 ha within the Project Area, being concentrated in the lowland farmed zone where they are often the most significant areas of semi-natural habitat, dividing fields of species poor improved grassland. As a result, hedgerows were considered to provide an important contribution, forming part of a broader ecological network in lowland farmland (CBCC Principle 4).

All hedgerows were coloured red, indicating that priority should be given to their conservation and management (Figure 6.3).

Lowland mixed deciduous woodland, upland oakwood and upland mixed ash

6.24. There are potentially three types of priority woodland habitat within the Project Area. The broad classifications used in both the 1980s and 2009 Phase 1 classifications do not enable further disaggregation currently. For the base line work all the woodland Priority Habitat categories were lumped together. This means that some poor quality or low value woodlands could currently be allocated a high value as priority habitat within Polyscape.

49

This could be improved by cross-checking with other datasets or by using local stakeholders’ knowledge.

All deciduous woodland was classified as a key habitat of high existing value within the Project Area and coloured red, indicating that priority should be given to their conservation and management.

Conifer woodland

6.25. CCW ecologists gave little clear steer on how to prioritise conifer woodland within the Project Area. It should be recognised that Forestry Commission Wales staff were not involved in these discussions (although invitations were issued) and the rules developed did not therefore take account of their expertise. For the initial iteration conifer woodland was treated as neutral (unless the plantations overlay a Plantation on an Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) or deep peat soils – where they were then classified as high priority for change).

Conifer woodland was considered of neutral value for biodiversity (and coloured amber) unless it overlies peat soil or PAWS sites when it classified as providing a high opportunity for land use change to benefit biodiversity (and coloured green).

6.26. Both the areas classified as deciduous woodland and conifer woodland decreased with the new 2009 Phase 1dataset (see Table 6.3 and Figure 6.3). For the broadleaf woodland much of what was originally classified as woodland (A1.1) was re-classified in the 2009 dataset as scrub (A2.1).

Table 6.3: Area of woodland

Woodland Habitat Data source Area (ha) Phase 1 (2009) 1,281.0 Deciduous Phase 1 (1980s) 1,452.0 Phase 1 (2009) 5,140.2 Conifer Phase 1 (1980s) 5,508.3

Scrub

6.27. The relative biodiversity value of scrub was not discussed during the stakeholder meetings so was treated as of unknown value and coloured amber (unless it was potentially wet woodland – see below).

Wet woodland

6.28. Wet woodland is a subset of both the deciduous woodland (i.e. land use classified as A1.1) and scrub (A1.2). There are no existing maps available detailing where wet woodlands are within the Project Area (or in Wales more generally).

6.29. An initial wet woodland layer was developed which identified all broadleaf woodland or scrub that overlaid poorly drained or wet soils in the Project Area (using the NSRI Soilscapes data). This was provisionally identified as wet woodland and treated as high priority. Given the resolution of the Soilscapes data and lack of species composition data for the scrub/woodland land use data, it is accepted that these areas should be treated with a degree of caution.

All wet woodland was identified as a key habitat of high existing value and was coloured red, indicating that priority should be given to its conservation and management.

50

Figure 6.3: Polyscape classifications for broadleaf and coniferous woodland and hedgerows

Heathland

6.30. The 2009 Phase 1 data maps the extent of healthland based on the dominance of Heather and Billberry (type A1.1) and on the occurrence of wet heath complex (type D6). Based on discussion with CCW specialists, an important distinction was made between upland heath (which tends to occur in large blocks) and lowland heath (occurring in much smaller parcels), which is not revealed from the Phase 1 data. CCW’s upland boundary was therefore used to separate the heathland areas in the 2009 Phase 1 dataset.

As a result, all lowland heath sites (irrespective of size) to be considered as valuable existing habitat given priority for conservation and coloured as red.

6.31. The more extensive areas of heathland within the upland zone were treated in two ways. On the advice of CCW specialists, areas of heathland that were adjacent to acid grassland were considered the most important because of the opportunities they provided for colonisation of heathland vegetation to this grassland (see below).

51

Areas of heathland in the upland zone that were adjacent to acid grassland coloured red. Other areas of heathland in the upland zone were considered of slightly lower conservation valueand coloured maroon (Figure 6.4).

6.32. A further recommendation from CCW was that areas of improved grassland should be brought under extensive management where they lie adjacent to upland heath.

All improved grassland sites adjacent to upland heath were marked as a priority for change and coloured green (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.4: Heathland

Lowland unimproved grassland

6.33. This habitat was not clearly identified in the 2009 Phase 1 data and so CCW’s Phase 2 maps were used as these have been extensively ground truthed. CCW identified lowland unimproved grassland as a key habitat of high existing value.

All lowland unimproved grassland was coloured red, indicating that priority should be given to its conservation and management.

52

Improved grassland

6.34. Improved grassland is not a BAP Priority Habitat. It generally has low value for biodiversity and tends to be impermeable to many species. Nevertheless it offers considerable opportunity for change.

All improved grassland was classified as having moderate opportunity for change in terms of its’ biodiversity value (in which case it was coloured dark green) unless it was adjacent (and constituted a threat) to a priority habitat where it was valued as having a high opportunity for change (and coloured bright green).

Figure 6.5. Grassland

River habitat 6.35. River habitat was identified by CCW ecologists as a key habitat of high existing value. As

identified in the UK BAP Habitat Descriptions (2008):

“This habitat type includes a very wide range of types, encompassing all natural and near-natural running waters in the UK (i.e. with features and processes that resemble those in 'natural' systems).These range from torrential mountain streams to meandering lowland rivers. Numerous

53

factors influence the ecological characteristics of a watercourse, for example, geology, topography, substrate, gradient, flow rate, altitude, channel profile, climate, catchment features (soil, land use, vegetation etc). Human activities add to this complexity. In addition most river systems change greatly in character as they flow from source to sea or lake. Although various classifications and typologies for rivers exist, none is considered adequate for identifying a discrete but comprehensive series of specific priority types against the criteria. Consequently a broad ‘rivers’ priority habitat has been adopted by the UK BAP (UK BAP Habitat Descriptions, 2008)

6.36. These systems are ecologically complex and management objectives were unclear. In deciding what to consider as important habitats within the Polyscape ‘rules’ a number of key criteria were identified, namely:

• Riparian areas beside rivers are potentially valuable habitat sites and have natural ‘connectivity’. A buffer of 10m was added to the main rivers to recognise the biodiversity value of this riparian area. These strips were coloured maroon.

It should be noted that the 10m buffer was judged a more suitable buffer than the 3m currently suggested for Glastir (which probably incorporates implicitly the farming value of land adjacent to rivers). For buffer strips to be effective for water quality a width of more than 3m is required60. In reality the size of the buffer would be likely to vary in relation to surrounding habitat and location along the watercourse.

• Headwater areas are very important habitat. These can be difficult to define (and thus identify). Maps used for the Water Framework Directive identify a number of headwaters in the Project Area. These areas were treated as important habitat within the Polyscape ‘rules’. They were coloured red.

• Historically some of the river catchments in the south of the project area were polluted due to the past history of lead mining. The legacy of this pollution was present within many of the waterways – and many rivers did not support fish life. This was difficult to map and consider in terms of its impact on the classification of important habitat. As a consequence all watercourses were identified as important habitat irrespective of their current water quality. All water courses were coloured red (see Figure 6.6).

60 As evidenced by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s BMP 80: Riparian buffer strip (wet) 2 which gives a minimum width of 5-10m.

54

Figure 6.6: Areas given biodiversity priority associated with water

Coastal saltmarsh

6.37. There are areas of important coastal saltmarsh within the Dyfi Estuary. These are all within protected sites but are at real risk of sea level rise.

Saltmarsh is identified as a key habitat of high existing value and therefore coloured red, indicating that priority should be given to its conservation and management.

55

Figure 6.7: Salt marsh on the southern edge of the Dyfi Estuary

Final output for the biodiversity scenario 6.38. The combination of the spatial priorities applied to the different habitats is shown in

Figure 6.8. As noted in the previous chapter (paras. 5.6 and 5.31) this map should be regarded as a provisional assessment, limited by the constraints of the data and the judgements used to create the rules. In particular, it should be noted that the expertise of staff from Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales were not available to the group that generated the rules.

6.39. This combined map highlights the baseline priority given to the conservation of existing habitats (coloured red) to the large blocks of BAP Priority Habitat on the edge of the Dyfi Estuary and Cors Fochno, on the upland plateau (upland heathland and blanket bog) and on many of the valley sides (semi-natural woodland). In contrast, the areas of unimproved grassland, lowland heathland and river corridors (also given a high priority for conservation and coloured red) are much smaller and less prominent on the map, forming smaller islands in the more intensively farmed lowland zone.

6.40. A key area identified as providing the most opportunities for positive land use change (shown as bright green) are the areas of peat soils not currently vegetated with blanket bog, the conifer woodland and scrub on ancient woodland sites, and acid grassland next to heathland (all these occurring mostly in the upland zone) and areas of improved grassland that lie next to priority habitats (mostly in the lowland zone).

6.41. Areas identified as providing moderate opportunity for positive land use change are the extensive areas of improved grassland in the lowland zone. It is important to realise that these areas of improved grassland can have value for other ecosystem services – see below.

56

Figure 6.8. The overall output of the biodiversity scenario identifying opportunity for land use change to reduce impacts of climate change on biodiversity

6.42. A comment provided by specialists following the production of this map is that, while it correctly interprets the rules developed through consultation, the fact that the rules have been applied in the same way across the entire Project Area means that it does not take account it of local circumstances. An example given was that the areas of salt marsh along the Dyfi Estuary could, because of coastal squeeze arising from sea level rise, be considered as suitable for planned land use change. This demonstrates that the map in Figure 6.8 should be considered as the basis for further discussion and localised fine-tuning, not as the end point in the process.

57

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY SCENARIO 6.43. Agriculture, in the form of livestock farming, is the main land use, and economic driver,

across most of the Project Area, from the enclosed pasture in the lowlands to the open moorlands on the mountain plateau. It is important to understand that most of the decisions about future land use and management, including responses to climate change, will be made by farmers, each acting individually on the basis of a range of economic and personal criteria. An understanding and acknowledgement of the priorities that farmers are likely to have for their land, including the areas that have most potential for agricultural productivity, and those that they might be willing to transfer to other uses, is a critical element for decision making. The ways in which farmers’ own personal and business objectives can be matched with climate change adaptation principles to optimise beneficial outcomes is considered in Chapter 8.

6.44. There has been growing recognition that the rising global population, resource depletion and climate change will make domestic food production more strategically important than it has been in recent decades61. The draft Sustainable Food Strategy launched (for consultation) by the Assembly Government mid-way through 201062, sets out a vision in which, by 2020, there has been “a significant improvement in the reputation of, and value attached to Welsh food”. The draft strategy suggests that this can be achieved by better connecting Welsh food production with culture and consumers (through market development and branding), increasing the environmental sustainability of food production and processing and by improved integration along the food chain.

6.45. Notwithstanding the role of most hill farms in the Project Area as producers of breeding sheep rather than lambs for human consumption, the role of agriculture in the Project Area as a provider of food was identified by stakeholders (and particularly the WAG representative) as a significant public benefit. This scenario therefore sought to identify the areas of land with the greatest intrinsic value for agricultural production (these areas were coloured red as in the other scenarios).

6.46. The primary focus of this project on the adaptation needs of biodiversity meant that, for those areas which were deemed to have low intrinsic value for agricultural production, the opportunities for land use change to other uses (such as biodiversity adaptation) were highlighted. Indications from talking to local farmers were that opportunities for changing land use to support greater agricultural productivity on land with lower intrinsic value were limited. This issue is covered further in Chapter 8.

Approach followed 6.47. The development of this scenario involved the following steps:

1. Confirm that the assumptions about agricultural productivity developed in previous work at Pontbren apply in the Project Area.

2. Apply these ‘rules’ spatially, using available data, to the Project Area, for inclusion in the Polyscape model.

3. Test these rules with groups of farmers in the Project Area and refine rules. 4. Combine Polyscape outputs to create a single agricultural productivity layer.

61 Foresight Land Use Futures Project (2010) 62 WAG (2010)

58

‘Rules’ of the scenario 6.48. The rules of this scenario were based on criteria developed collectively with livestock

farmers in the Pontbren area of Mid Wales (see Pagella et al in preparation). Given the similarities between that area and the Project Area, the same principles were applied. The maps incorporate data on soil fertility, topography and drainage. Land that was either too steep, poorly drained or with low fertility (or combinations of the above) were considered by farmers as being of low agricultural value. Slope thresholds are adjustable by the user and the default setting used for this scenario used a first cut off set at 5o (for flatter more productive land) with the second cut off set at 15o (considered too steep for farming).

Testing the initial results with farmers 6.49. As with any model the output is dependent upon the quality of the input data – the low

resolution soil data and a 10m DTM used in this study meant that there were likely to be areas that were not ‘correct’. The Polyscape approach acknowledges this and provides for field testing with farmers. Extensive testing across all farmers in the Project Area was not possible but the results from a small scale set of scoping interviews with a selection of farmers indicated that the initial output largely reflected farmer priorities.

6.50. During the interviews the farmers were shown the Polyscape output of the agricultural layer. Figures 6.9 shows an aerial photograph of one of the farms visited as part of the study and the corresponding Polyscape agricultural layer. It shows that much of the land on that parcel was of low value for farming and potentially available for other interventions. This agreed with the farmer’s general assessment of the land. The area circled in purple belonged to a neighbouring farm – and the interviewee indicated that the soil improved dramatically at that point – something Polyscape (and the soil maps) did not pick up. The land opposite the holding (outlined in red), although of a similar value, was being run much more extensively. Polyscape identified land adjacent to the stream as important (as watering fields). The farmer maintained an area of riparian woodland adjacent to the stream. He agreed that there were opportunities to increase tree cover (if required) on areas identified as sites of opportunity.

Figure 6.9: One of the farm parcels on the Penllan farms

Key: The insert represent agricultural production output for the holding. Red indicates high

existing value. Areas in orange indicate neutral value. Green indicates high opportunity for change.

6.51. As a result of these discussions, three issues were identified with the agricultural productivity outputs from Polyscape.

59

1. Low productivity in the uplands

6.52. In this part of Wales, national scale data treats whole catchments as relatively low fertility soil – this does not reflect local perception of variations in soil fertility and the clear distinction between the more fertile lowland soils and the less fertile upland soils. To reflect this, Polyscape needed to distinguish between these areas by downgrading soil fertility in the uplands.

6.53. Polyscape has the option to run without the fertility data. Figure 6.10A represents this output and shows much of the uplands as orange (indicating that the land is not very marginal in terms of slope and drainage) whereas, from a farming perspective, it was all low value (i.e. the uplands should all be shades of green). When national scale soil fertility data was incorporated into the agricultural layer (Figure 6.10B) the output became much more homogenous in terms of its agricultural opportunity, as the fertility component dominated, implying that both in the uplands and the lowlands there was limited opportunity for agricultural productivity. One possible solution for the Project Area would be to acknowledge lack of fertility selectively in the upland parts of the catchment. Selection of areas where the lowest fertility soils were present in the Project Area could be used to downgrade the Polyscape categories in the upland zone to reflect more accurately their value to the farming community (such that where maps were coloured maroon they would become orange, orange becomes dark green, dark green becomes light green, etc). This is the approach that was taken in this scenario, producing the agricultural productivity map shown in Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.10. Comparison of agricultural productivity scenario without (A) and with (B) inclusion of soil fertility

A: Shows agricultural layer with just slope and water logging (no fertility).

B –Includes soil fertility. With respect to national soil fertility all the soils are low fertility and there is loss of definition to the west of the catchment.

Key: Red areas indicate high existing value for the food production. Areas in maroon have some existing value and orange indicates neutral value. Green indicates high opportunity for change – with lighter green indicating the highest level of opportunity.

2. Aspect.

6.54. Polyscape does not currently incorporate aspect. The farmers who were consulted during the trialling of the agricultural outputs identified the south facing fields as higher value for

60

agriculture due to higher productivity in the spring (balanced by potential burn-off during the summer). A refinement to the agricultural productivity rules could therefore identify parts of fields with southerly aspects as one step better than indicated – e.g. orange becomes maroon and so on.

Aspect was not incorporated in the output produced for the Project Area.

3. The Transition Zone.

6.55. Upland areas have low productivity heavily associated with the soils present there. These areas require high inputs to make them valuable to the farm enterprise. Conversely the lowlands are naturally more fertile and tend to be intensively managed. In terms of current agricultural management both these areas are in equilibrium. Between these two zones lies a transition zone which conforms closely with the ffridd habitat. This area does not have the naturally fertile soils (but can be worked). Interviews with farmers indicated there may also be issues in terms of qualification for full agri-environmental benefits and tenure; with land in this zone being more likely to be rented to young farmers – who may be more likely to farm more vigorously in response to market forces.

6.56. This agricultural transition zone is complex to define as it is partially defined by topography but also includes other socio-economic factors. These areas are likely to be critical for influencing the delivery of many ecosystem services as there are more opportunities both spatially and socially. Currently it is represented arbitrarily in Polyscape using a 1km buffer around CCW’s upland boundary.

A basic and tentative agricultural transition zone was identified and mapped, but was felt not to be sufficiently accurate to be included in this scenario. However, this zone could be significantly refined in future maps.

6.57. The output from the agricultural scenario is shown at Figure 6.11. This identifies only one area as having a high priority for agricultural production (the coastal strip of fertile soils north of Borth). It is significant that parts of this area on the northern tip are also identified as having a high priority for biodiversity conservation.

6.58. Areas with a moderate priority (coloured maroon) for agricultural production occur throughout the lowland parts of the Project Area, particularly on the more freely draining land found in the wider river valleys. Areas with soils liable to waterlogging and the steeper valley and scarp slopes have limited value for agricultural production and may have opportunities to be diverted to other land uses able to deliver other services and benefits, including those associated with biodiversity adaptation to climate change.

6.59. The large majority of the area within the upland zone is shown as having a low priority for agricultural production, signalling that these areas may be more appropriately managed to meet other objectives, such as the delivery of other important benefits such as carbon storage and biodiversity adaptation. This might include the conversion of areas of semi-improved grassland to other more valuable habitat (to deliver other benefits, albeit with continuing agricultural management).

61

Figure 6.11. The outputs of the agricultural productivity scenario

6.60. Further analysis, not included in this study, could be undertaken to explore opportunities to enhance agricultural production within the constraints established. This would involve interrogating Figure 6.11 against existing land use data – particularly to identify where areas coloured maroon or red are associated with land use outside agriculture (i.e. urban areas). This map shows areas of opportunity to make changes that might benefit other ecosystem services or biodiversity whilst having minimal impact on agricultural production.

62

THE REDUCING SURFACE RUN-OFF SCENARIO 6.61. Flooding from rivers and groundwater is a growing issue across the UK as a whole and

affects parts of the project area such as Aberystwyth where significant areas of the City Centre and other areas such as the Glanyrafon Industrial Estate are considered at high risk of flooding from the River Rheidol63. Flood risk is likely to be exacerbated by the increasingly stormy weather and higher winter rainfall projected under the climate change scenarios.

6.62. While increased flooding as a result of sea level rise and increased storminess has been identified as a significant risk to parts of the coast of the project area (para 4.17), it is not included as part of this scenario because the relationship of tidal flooding with land use, and the ability of land use change to mitigate the risks, is very different. As explained further below, this scenario examines the potential role of land use in reducing surface run-off from land, rather than the use of land in flood protection which can be difficult to model spatially.

Approach followed 6.63. The development of this scenario involved the following steps:

1. Identify areas at risk of flooding in the Project Area from EAW Flood Map 2. Understand the complexity of hydrological responses to rainfall, and establish the

limitations of what can be modelled based on available data. 3. Use soils and land use data to model different levels of interception and run-off. 4. Take account of other factors such as presence of hedgerows and field drains. 5. Apply these ‘rules’to create a single Polyscape layer for surface run-off.

Identifying areas at risk of flooding 6.64. The Environment Agency Wales’ Flood Map, which has modelled the areas at different

risks of flooding from rivers, groundwater and the sea, shows that all the rivers in the project area are subject to some degree of flood risk (Figure 6.12) Flooding from rivers is the result of a range of factors, including the amount and spatial distribution of precipitation, the ability of soils and vegetation to intercept and infiltrate precipitation into the groundwater, the patterns of drainage and river networks, and also the availability of areas suitable for flood water storage.

63 These areas are classified in TAN15 Zone C2 meaning that they are undefended and are at high risk of flooding. Source: Ceredigion County Council (2009). Aberystwyth Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Prepared by WS Atkins.

63

Figure 6.12. Areas at risk of flooding

Source: EAW Flood Map

6.65. Changing land use or management can play a role in reducing flood risk by reducing the amount of water and slowing the delivery of water from headwater areas and the providing temporary storage on the flood plains. The likelihood of these approaches having an impact will largely depend on the type and extent of interventions deployed in the project area. In ‘flashy’ catchments it might be expected that this would require co-ordinated management across the whole headwater area aimed at slowing the movement of water downstream.

6.66. Modelling hydrological responses at a catchment scale is often extremely complex. If the objective is to reduce peak flows of flood water at certain points in the catchment (for instance where rivers enter built up areas), the characteristics of each part of the catchment supplying this point need to be considered separately so that the combined impact of peak flows can be calculated and interventions taken to encourage peaks to arrive at different times (i.e. to desynchronise these peaks). This requires a detailed understanding of catchment characteristics (typical rainfall patterns, slope, soils and vegetation). This level of understanding was not available to this study and the assessment is therefore a necessarily simplistic one.

6.67. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that research in recent years has examined the evidence for changes in land use and management being capable of reducing flood risk at the scale of whole catchments64. This research has concluded that, while changes in land use and management can have localised effects (as suggested in the Pontren work referenced below), it is unlikely that they can have sufficient impact on flood peaks following heavy rainfall or snow melt events to reduce large scale flooding across river

64 See for instance: Defra (2008)

64

systems as a whole. It is therefore important that the role of land use in reducing flood risk is not ‘overclaimed’.

6.68. In upland catchments, peat soils are a key reservoir of rainwater and snowmelt with the capacity (until the soil becomes saturated) to slow down the release of water into rivers and reduce peak flows. In many upland areas, the historical drainage of many peat soils (by the digging of ditches or ‘grips’) has reduced this capacity. Research has identified that blocking these grips can help restore this function65. Consultation in the project area suggests that moorland drainage was less extensive in this part of the Cambrian Mountains than in many other uplands in Wales or England. No data on the presence of moorland drainage were available to the study (although LIDAR data have the potential to provide this). There may therefore be less opportunity to undertake this form of peat soil restoration than in other areas. However, other activities to improve the condition of peat soils in the project areas, such as reducing stocking levels, may apply.

Flood mitigation layer in Polyscape

6.69. The flood mitigation layer in Polyscape was designed to explore opportunities for reducing surface run off through introduction of soft engineering approaches (mainly trees in the initial iteration). The specific types of intervention being considered include the introduction of linear tree features (i.e. hedgerows, shelterbelts or small blocks of woodland - other potential options include the creation of ponds or wetlands which would also provide increased storage potential). Trees also assist in reducing flood risk by increasing interception of precipitation on foliage from which it may be evaporated.

6.70. To do this information on storage and permeability regions was derived from soil and land use data (in this case using both CCW’s 1980s Phase 1 dataset and the 2009 remote sensed dataset). Land units were grouped within the landscape according to the similarity of their hydraulic properties and spatially explicit topographical routing. In Polyscape upland areas of the landscape that have either high storage and/or high infiltration capacity (i.e. areas of upland peat) potentially have the capacity to mitigate floods by acting as a sink for fast moving overland flow and near-surface subsurface flow.

6.71. All land use or soil types that provided some level of mitigation were treated as having high existing values (indicating that land use change that reduced the storage capacity would be inappropriate – although land use change that increased storage would still be an option). Areas where Polyscape identifies that a large amount of unmitigated flow has accumulated were treated as priority areas for flood risk interventions.

The basic algorithm corrects flow accumulation by removing any flow that accumulates on these “sink” areas from the flow accumulation data. These areas are considered to be of low priority for flood risk as some level of mitigation already exists.

6.72. It is important to note that the size of this effect for many land use types (including hedgerows) has not yet been quantified through research. Modelling results indicated that planting tree material over a relatively small area of the Pontbren catchment had resulted in a significant reduction of flood peaks at a sub-catchment scale (the monitored extent of the Pontbren catchment is approximately 10km2); a reduction in peak flows of between 6 to 18% from the baseline condition66.

65 For a summary of this research see Evans et al (2005) 66 Jackson et al (2008)

65

6.73. The infiltration capacity of riparian tree planting and buffer strips are lower due to their proximity to the river network (although these features will provide other benefits, particularly for control of sediment delivery, which is important for reducing flood risk but also affects water quality and biodiversity).

The effect of hedgerows

6.74. Hedgerows may play an important role in intercepting overland flow. The hedgerows serve to dampen out the level of flow accumulation within the headwater areas. Polyscape is able to identify areas where interventions are likely to have a positive effect on slowing the movement of water through a landscape. However, as mentioned above in relation to our current level of understanding, care must be taken in interpreting the size of the impact of hedgerows – particularly in areas where a large amount of flow accumulates (and is potentially ‘mitigated’ by a hedgerow in Polyscape).

The effects of drains

6.75. Subsurface drainage found on improved agricultural land is likely to contribute significantly to flood risk. A proportion of rainwater is channelled through the field drainage system (their explicit function) often directly into water channels. Subsurface drainage will account for a significant quantity of the water delivery into the river network.

6.76. Polyscape does not incorporate information on drains largely because it is unavailable (during the study it was identified that the paper files previously held by the Agricultural Department in Wales showing where land drainage had been granted aided in the 1980s had recently been destroyed). Farmers often have field maps for more recent drainage but this information is not readily accessible. There is also the challenges associated with mapping the many tile drained fields which could be over 100 years old.

6.77. One can get an approximate impression of the extent of land drainage in the catchment by overlaying the area of improved grassland in the catchment with the soil types that are waterlogged (Figure 6.13).

66

Figure 6.13: Polyscape hydrology map overlaid with improved grassland maps as an indicator of the extent of underground drainage

Polyscape output 6.78. Initially two hydrology maps were produced. The first using CCW’s 1980s Phase 1 land

cover data (see Figure 6.14 for an example from the headwaters of the Clarach) and the second using CCW’s 2009 remote sensed Phase 1 dataset (Figure 6.15). The maps show that there are more areas of unmitigated flow to the western edge of the project area, particularly using the original Phase 1 dataset. Due to their position relative to the rain contour these are unlikely to contribute significantly to decreasing the flood peak. Land use interventions are more likely to be effective if targeted initially in the headwater areas. The EAW’s River Basin Management Plan datasets identify seven distinct headwater areas in the project area (the two headwaters above the Clarach and the Leri and the five headwater areas in the Rheidol: Melindwr, Castell, Mynach, Hengion and Lechwedd Mawr – see Figure 6.12).

6.79. Figure 6.14 shows that much of the opportunity for reducing surface run-off lies to the west of the catchment. The composition of the upland areas means that much of it is currently acting as a sink. In Figure 6.15 the opportunities for interventions decrease as the resolution of the data increases (and critically the incorporation of hedgerows). It is critical to note that Polyscape does not attempt to quantify this effect – it acknowledges that the flow has been intercepted at this point. It is highly likely, given the greater number of trees, that a wood will have a greater impact on slowing water than a hedgerow but there has been almost no research on this to date so care must be taken in interpreting the differences between these two figures.

67

Figure 6.14: Polyscape output for the Clarach Headwaters using original Phase 1 land cover maps

Figure 6.15: Polyscape output for the Clarach Headwaters using Remote sensed Phase 1 land cover maps

6.80. The overall output of this scenario, based on the 2009 Phase 1 land use data, is shown in Figure 6.16. This identifies that the areas coloured in red, where existing land use should be maintained (and enhanced through improved management) to minimise the generation of flood run-off are concentrated in the uplands (including the peat soils, but not exclusively so since the most of the upland vegetation types on relatively flat soils are judged to have capacity for infiltration and storage of water). The areas of land with most opportunity for land use change to reduce unregulated overland flow (shown green on the map) are in relatively small parcels of land in the transition and lowland zones. These are particularly concentrated on the steeper valley sides.

68

Figure 6.16. The outputs of the reduced surface run-off scenario

Key: High priority for interventions because of high flow (grassland with > 500 m2 contribution, are light green); Moderate Flow 100 – 500 m2; are dark green; Negligible flow, with <100 m2 contribution (orange); Already has trees or other flow sinks (red).

6.81. Interpretation of this map needs to take account of the earlier comments about the importance of accurate hydrological modeling of different parts of catchments (paragraph 6.63), which has not been possible in this study. It may be that more detailed analysis of the hydrological response times of different parts of the Project Area in relation to peak river flows in areas such as Aberystwyth, would add new priorities for intervention, particularly in upland catchments.

69

THE CARBON STORAGE SCENARIO 6.82. The emissions of green house gases, including CO2, are major drivers of climate change.

These emissions are derived from a wide variety of human and natural processes, including the burning of fossil fuels and enteric processes in ruminant livestock. The relationship between land use and management and carbon emissions is complex and has being explored in a parallel study for the Cambrian Mountains Initiative’s Ecosystems Working Group. The carbon footprinting study undertaken by Bangor University measured the emissions of greenhouse gases from a sample of farms across the Cambrian Mountain67.

6.83. The parallel research measured carbon emissions on an ‘activity’ and ‘business’ basis rather than on the basis of land use. It was originally intended that the research would provide an indication of typical levels of greenhouse gas emissions for the different types of land use on farms that could be applied to this project. However it became clear that the wide variation in emissions between farms that had the same broad land use (but significantly different stocking levels and management practices) would not allow this transfer of data.

6.84. This project therefore needed to develop its own data based on other evidence of typical levels of carbon stored in soils and vegetation that could be applied with reasonable reliability to land use in the project area. The scientific understanding of the flux of carbon under different forms of land use is at an early stage. As noted with the Cambrian Mountains Initiative carbon foot printing study, relatively subtle changes in management and other parameters that are not easily related to current land cover or soil type (such as drainage and the multi-annual stability of management) are important factors.

Approach followed 6.85. The development of this scenario involved the following steps (see below for an

explanation of acronyms and sources):

1. Identify the data sources needed to apply the PAS 2050 protocol to the Project Area. 2. Adopt the data assumptions used in the IPCC Tier 1 Guidelines for national

greenhouse gas inventories. 3. Define simple thresholds on the levels of stored carbon to create different Polyscape

scores. 4. Use these data to map different zones based on levels of accumulated carbon across

the Project Area. 5. Identify potential sources of more locally specific (UK or Wales) data in place of IPCC

Tier 1 figures. 6. Use the revised data to prepare second Polyscape map for carbon storage layer.

‘Rules’ of the scenario 6.86. Based on the most reliable current evidence available to the project, this carbon storage

scenario is an attempt to map the priorities for maintaining, and the potential opportunities for increasing, carbon storage in the project area. The data layer and map that have been been produced are based on applying the methodology set out in the PAS 2050 protocol68, which in turn uses the data assumptions contained in the IPCC tier 1 Guidelines69, and is a composite made up from 5 layers (see below). For most of the Phase 1 land use types

67 Taylor et al (2010) 68 BSI (2008) 69 IPCC (2006)

70

there is little detailed or reliable data for any of these layers so this output is very crude approximations at best (see below for sources of data). Nevertheless, these assumption stills serve as a useful indication, and identifies the need for significantly better data.

6.87. The five data components recommended by the IPCC Tier 1 Protocol for carbon footprinting, and used by this project to estimate levels of carbon for each land use type, are:

• Above ground Biomass

• Below ground Biomass

• Litter

• Soil carbon

• Deadwood

6.88. The default algorithms calculate levels at pseudo-steady state; considering carbon levels when the land use/management regime has been in place long enough for the system to come into equilibrium. If detailed information on changes in land use and management (e.g. stocking levels, fertiliser application, etc) are provided, fluxes for individual years can also be calculated.

• High existing value of carbon held >500 tonnes/ha (red)

• High opportunity for change <80 tonnes/ha (light Green)

6.89. A further option (if sufficient soil information is possessed) allows identification of where the current regime is likely to be significantly reducing or augmenting levels of carbon resulting from previous regimes. For example, many woodland areas or rough grazing areas would be considered as of moderate to high value according to the initial “pseudo-steady-state” calculation, indicating preservation is desirable. However, if these areas are overlaying particularly organic soil such as peat, a reduction of stored carbon (and associated net CO2 emission) will be occurring and interventions to prevent this /revert land use might be appropriate.

• Orange indicates a steady state, green areas are where the trend is towards a reduction in carbon and red areas are where carbon is actively being stored.

6.90. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 6.17.

71

Figure 6.17. Initial output for the carbon storage scenario

Sources of data

6.91. Welsh, or at least UK specific data, were available for many quantifications of carbon and were used where possible. Underlying data for the maps shown here came from a review of a variety of existing research sources70. It should be noted that estimates of well-studied vegetation and/or soil carbon stocks varied significantly from source to source and therefore must be considered as having considerable uncertainty. In other cases, data did not appear to be available and had to be estimated from ‘similar’ vegetation/soil types.

6.92. Where no ‘similar’ carbon quantifications could be found in the UK literature, numbers from the IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006) were used. These were further supplemented with data from other research71 where the IPCC inventories were not available (e.g. saltmarsh information). These severe data deficiencies (combined with deficiencies in the land use and soil data that the carbon quantifications are

70 Adger & Subak (1996), Adger et al (1992), Cruickshank et al (1998), Patenaude et al (2004), Patenaude et al (2003), FRA (2005), FRA (2010), Smart et al (2009), Smith et al (2000), 71 Cacador et al (2002) and Conkling et al (2002)

72

applied to) must not be ignored when interpreting the carbon opportunity maps presented here. However, they do at least provide an indicative snapshot of carbon opportunities and existing provision in the Cambrian Mountains landscape.

6.93. In developing the output, Polyscape allows the user to input threshold values for identifying opportunities for additional sequestration and/or areas for preservation. There are no existing guidelines for this in the UK so the thresholds were based on the range of the data available in the catchment (500kg/ha being considered a high value, and less than 80 kg/ha suggesting an opportunity for enhanced sequestration and storage).

6.94. The amount of potential carbon sequestration (and CO2 emissions) will vary with land use but is also influenced by the underlying geology and climatic influences (temperature, rainfall etc). This data was largely unavailable for the Project Area.

6.95. Default carbon valuation classifications are therefore dataset-specific and an option also allows the default to be regionally specific (for example, nutrient-poor soils might still be considered of high value in a ‘low’ fertility region). This ‘regional’ estimate of thresholds is calculated by looking at the means and standard deviation of carbon stock in the region of interest. This allows either an ‘absolute’ valuation according to national or international standards to be made, or a ‘relative’ valuation according to the mean and ranges of carbon sequestration in the area of interest. As always, the user is able to vary these default classification ranges as appropriate.

6.96. This issue highlights the need for a data collation and literature review exercise in Wales and more broadly in the UK to allow algorithms such as these to generate more reliable maps.

6.97. A further option (if sufficient soil information is possessed) allows identification of where the current regime is likely to be significantly reducing or augmenting levels of carbon resulting from previous regimes. For example, many woodland areas or rough grazing areas would be considered as of moderate to high value according to the initial “pseudo-steady-state” calculation, indicating preservation is desirable. However, if these areas are overlaying particularly organic soil such as peat, a reduction of stored carbon (and associated net CO2 emission) will be occurring and interventions to prevent this /revert land use might be more appropriate (Figure 6.18). Note that in this map orange indicates a steady state, green areas are where the trend is towards a reduction in carbon and red areas are where carbon is actively being stored. This does allow areas to be targeted within the landscape – but with all the associated caveats about the reliability of the datasets used in the initial calculations.

Figure 6.18. Areas of steady state carbon in the catchment (Orange) and areas that are actively storing (Red) or potentially losing carbon (Green)

73

6.98. Closer analysis of this revised layer reveals a number of interesting relationships with land

use (Figure 6.19), as follows:

• The existing data suggests that the salt marsh holds a moderate level of carbon but this is at risk from sea level rise. It is currently unknown whether this is in a steady state.

• Highest levels of current storage are in peat and organo-mineral soils and in broadleaf woodland. Spatially this is a high proportion of the catchment. However the woodland areas are sequestering carbon whereas the conifer blocks overlying peat soils are tending to leach carbon out of the system

• There are some key areas where clear opportunities for sequestration exist: (a) on areas of semi-improved acid grassland, and (b) on some isolated areas of upland improved grassland. Note that the land use adjacent to Borth Bog was not highlighted as problematic in terms of carbon – whereas other areas of improved grassland were highlighted (4).

74

• There are some areas of the Project Area where areas of high carbon storage are not formally protected within an SSSI (but this differs depending upon which version of the land use data is used)

Figure 6.19: Detail on the Polyscape carbon layer – the hatching indicates areas of improved grassland, and SSSIs are outlined in yellow

6.99. Finally, it should be noted that this spatially explicit approach is novel in the UK. Although

reliability of the output was hampered by lack of locally relevant data to populate the attribute tables (an issue common to carbon foot-printing), it is suggested that this work indicates a powerful way forward for future carbon proofing of landscapes.

75

COMBINATIONS OF THE BIODIVERISTY SCENARIO WITH OTHER SERVICES

6.100. The Polyscape approach allows direct comparison between the outputs produced for each of the scenarios (paragraphs 5.10 to 5.12). Care needs to be taken in interpreting these combined maps, but they provide a useful guide around which assumptions can be tested and objectives for land use planning can be debated.

6.101. In the following section, the biodiversity scenario is compared separately with each of the other three service scenarios. In doing so, the outputs of each of the scenarios (in pairs) are treated equally and the values for each parcel of land are summed, as they were to create the scenario outputs from the rules within them. The values for biodiversity therefore receive equal treatment as those for the other services. Because of this, it is important that the combined maps are not taken to indicate the ideal priorities for biodiversity, but it does show where action to conserve and enhance biodiversity would be constrained or supported with reference to benefits gained from the other services.

The way in which layers in separate scenarios are combined 6.102. Combining, or trading-off, the layers involves giving each of the zones in the Polyscape

outputs a numerical score (A. in Figure 6.20), allowing them to be compared with each other and a single layer created. Several different ways can be used to combine these layers (para. 5.10). This study has used a simple additive approach, where the different zones in the Polyscape outputs are given equal weight and the numbers derived by adding the layers in each number are used to create the combined layer (B. in Fig. 6.20). Alternative approaches include giving priority to Polyscape scores for conserving existing landuses with high levels of existing delivery (C. in Figure 6.20) or for emphasising opportunities to change land uses to improved delivery (D. in Fig. 6.20). Further methods can be developed which give priority to

6.103. When used as a debating tool with stakeholders, it is important that the viewers understand how the interactions between layers have led to particular patterns in the combined layers. This can be challenging for combined layers built up of three or more individual layers. For this reason, this study used the simplest ‘additive’ approach (B in Fig. 6.20) which it was felt was most easily understood and communicated to non-technical stakeholders.

Figure 6.20. Illustrations of combination methods

B. Additive approach used in this study

D. Alternative ‘opportunistic’ approach (not used)

A. Application of numerical scores to Polyscape outputs

C. Alternative ‘conservative’ approach (not used)

76

6.104. In the maps of combined layers that follow, a bright green colour indicates that at least two services (including biodiversity) have potentially high opportunities for interventions and all other services are neutral (orange) indicating a potential win-win situation. Dark green shows where it is positive for one service and neutral for others. Maroon and red layers indicate that the land use is less available for interventions (or that changes will require higher incentives).

Biodiversity combined with agricultural productivity 6.105. The combined outputs of these two scenarios are shown in Figure 6.21. Not surprisingly

this shows that areas that are a priority for maintaining existing land use to deliver both high biodiversity value and high agricultural productivity (coloured red) are relatively few. For most habitats, high levels of agricultural productivity tend to be in conflict with the maintenance of semi-natural habitats free from management activities such as soil cultivation and inputs of pesticides and inorganic fertilisers.

6.106. More interestingly, there are significant areas showing moderate levels of priority for conserving existing biodiversity and maintaining agricultural activity, coloured maroon (suggesting a level of win-win being achieved from existing land use). These areas include the large block of wet grassland and raised bog on Cors Fochno, corridors of land which extend up the floor of many of the river valleys (including the upper Rheidol into the heart of the upland area in the south of the Project Area), and also some areas on the top of the upland plateau (where it is the high priority allocated to biodiversity and the low priority to agricultural productivity that produce this combined score).

6.107. There are significant areas of combined opportunity, coloured bright green (areas unconstrained for agriculture – where agricultural productivity is a low priority - where land use change would offer significant benefits to biodiversity). These are particularly significant along the sides of the valleys in the transitional (ffridd) zone in the centre of the Project Area where land that is currently managed as improved grassland beside priority habitats, such as broadleaved woodland, could be converted to woodland or extensively managed permanent pasture. Areas of high combined opportunity in the uplands are predominantly areas of acid grassland over peat soils or adjoining heathland that could be reverted to wet grassland or heath.

6.108. The large majority of the upland zone and significant areas of the transition and lowland zones are shown as areas of moderate opportunity, coloured dark green. In these areas opportunities to enhance biodiversity are relatively unconstrained by agricultural productivity. In the lowlands these occur on the poorer, less freely draining soils, although it is accepted that these areas have higher intrinsic productivity than most of the uplands. These areas suggest that, at least in the uplands, there are large areas in which positive change in land management can be introduced that would be broadly compatible with the continuation of agricultural land use.

77

Figure 6.21. Biodiversity combined with agricultural productivity

Biodiversity combined with reducing surface run-off

6.109. Like the previous combination, there are few areas where high priority for conserving existing biodiversity combines with high priority for maintaining current high levels of water infiltration and storage (shown as red in Figure 6.22). It is significant that the high priority given to water storage in the upland area (shown red in Figure 6.16) has been ‘downgraded’ by the lower importance given to much of the existing land use for biodiversity (shown amber in Figure 6.8).

6.110. There are more areas which are scored as having moderate levels of combined priority, coloured in maroon, (indicating at least high priority for one of the scenarios), but these are generally in small parcels and widely dispersed, although there are higher concentrations beside many of the rivers. The large blocks of maroon coloured land, on the edge of the Dyfi Estuary and on Cors Fochno are possibly of less interest because, in these areas at the lower end of catchments, there is likely to be less benefits gained for reductions in surface run-off at the at the lower end of the catchment.

6.111. The areas that are shown as having opportunity for land use change to deliver both biodiversity and increased infiltration or storage of water, coloured bright green, occur

78

predominantly in the transition and lowland zones. Of most interest, are the ribbons of land running along the valley sides and lower slopes of the transition zone.

Figure 6.22. Biodiversity combined with reducing surface run-off

Biodiversity combined with carbon storage

6.112. This final of the two-way combinations of scenarios shows that there are very large areas in the upland zone and also on Cors Fochno where habitats of high biodiversity value occur in combination with high existing levels of carbon, coloured red and maroon in Figure 6.23. There is thus strong spatial synergy between the conservation of biodiversity and carbon stores, and not only on the upland blanket bog habitats where this is most obviously the case.

6.113. In the remaining areas, concentrated in the lowlands (excepting Cors Fochno) and transition zone, there are large areas where opportunities to enhance biodiversity by land use change, coloured bright green, occur together with opportunities to enhance soil carbon (showing again the strong synergy between these two scenarios).

79

Figure 6.23. Biodiversity combined with carbon storage

Biodiversity combined with all three other services 6.114. The final comparison in this Chapter shows the combined outcome of all four scenarios.

The results of this comparison must be viewed with particular caution since the reasons behind combined scores can be difficult to interpret (for instance a high opportunity score could be the result of a relatively low score in each of the services). Nevertheless, it provides an interesting basis for further consideration.

6.115. The four-way combined map shown at Figure 6.24 suggests a strong synergy between the conservation of existing biodiversity in key areas such as Cors Fochno, and large parcels of upland heath, particularly on the eastern edge of the Project Area (Pumlumon and the edge of the Elenydd moorlands). There are also significant ribbons of high combined priority for maintaining existing service delivery along several of the river valleys (predominantly the valley floors), particularly the middle reaches of the Rheidol and the Leri.

6.116. Turning to the areas of combined opportunity for enhancing service delivery through land use change, Figure 6.23 shows extensive areas of opportunity across the lowland area (where the relatively high priority for maintaining agricultural productivity is ‘over-ruled’ by

80

high levels of opportunity for biodiversity and the other two services) and on the lower parts of the uplands (for instance along the upper Rheidol valley).

Figure 6.24. Biodiversity combined with all other scenarios

81

THE LAND COVER CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITY ZONES

6.117. The final part of this Chapter analyses the way that the different land cover types (see Table 3.1 and Figure 3.3) are distributed across the different zones of opportunity for intervention, modelled from the scenarios. This section focuses on the outputs of the biodiversity scenario (Figure 6.8) and the combined scenario of biodiversity with the three other services (Figure 6.23).

6.118. Figures 6.25 and 6.26 shows how the key land cover types (listed in declining order of their total area in the Project Area) fall into the different categories. Figure 6.25 shows the the biodiversity scenario, while Figure 6.26 shows the combined scenario (i.e. biodiversity and the other three services). Figures 6.27 and 6.28 present the same data, but analysed by the different opportunity categories, showing how the most common land cover types are represented within them. Again, Figure 6.27 shows the biodiversity scenario, while Figure 6.28 shows the combined scenario.

6.119. These charts reveal the following key findings: • The analysis suggests that improved grassland provides the greatest opportunity for

land use change to improve biodiversity outcomes (Figures 6.25 and 6.27). When the other services are taken into account, a higher proportion is categorised as involving trade-offs between services (particularly between biodiversity and agricultural productivity), but significant areas are still ‘available’ for positive land use change.

• Broadleaved woodland and lowland raised mire (the latter occurring in Cors Fochno) emerge has conservation priorities under both the biodiversity and combined service scenarios. Broadleaved woodland is a particularly important component of the areas where interventions are deemed strongly or moderately undesirable for the combined scenarios (Figure 6.28).

• Dry dwarf shrub heath and hedgerows are both shown as high conservation priorities for biodiversity, but the scope for enhancing other services, particularly water run-off and carbon sequestration, mean that higher proportions of these habitats are categorised as opportunity areas (albeit using interventions that enhance rather than replace their use characteristics) when all the services are taken into account.

• A number of habitats are shown as offering greater opportunities for intervention when all services are considered, compared to only biodiversity. These include semi-improved acid grassland and wet grassland (with benefits for carbon sequestration where they occur over peat soils, and for reducing run-off) and built-up areas and arable (reducing run-off).

82

Figure 6.25. Breakdown of key land cover types into different opportunity zones for the Biodiversity scenario

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lowland raised mireArable

Built‐up areasHedgerow

Broadleaved woodlandScrub

Dry dwarf shrub heathSemi‐improved acid grassland

Unimproved acid grasslandWet grassland

Coniferous woodlandImproved grassland

Percentage of habitat area in each land categoryHigh priority for conservation of existing habitat Moderate priority for conservation of existing habitat

Moderate priority and opportunity Moderate opportunity for land use change

High opportunity for land use change

Figure 6.26. Breakdown of key land cover types into different opportunity zones for the combined (Biodiversity and other three services) scenario

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lowland raised mireArable

Built‐up areasHedgerow

Broadleaved woodlandScrub

Dry dwarf shrub heathSemi‐improved acid grassland

Unimproved acid grasslandWet grassland

Coniferous woodlandImproved grassland

Percentage of habitat area in each land categoryInterventions strongly not desirable or appropriate Interventions moderately not desirable or appropriate

Significant trade‐offs between services, or low impacts Opportunity for intervention for one service, or others neutral

High opportunities for intervention to benefit multiple services

83

Figure 6.27. Breakdown of the four opportunity zones into key land cover types for the Biodiversity scenario

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

High priority for conservation of existing habitat

Moderate priority for conservation of existing habitat

Moderate priority and opportunity

Moderate opportunity for land use change

High opportunity  for land use change

Percentage of habitat area in each land category

Improved grassland Coniferous woodland Wet grassland Unimproved acid grassland

Semi‐improved acid grassland Dry dwarf shrub heath Broadleaved woodland Standing water

Lowland raised mire Hedgerow Other habitats

Figure 6.28. Breakdown of the four opportunity zones into key land cover types for the combined scenario

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Interventions strongly not desirable or appropriate

Interventions moderately not desirable or appropriate

Significant trade‐offs between services, or low impacts

Opportunity for intervention for one service, or others neutral

High opportunities for intervention to benefit multiple services

Percentage of habitat area in each land category

Improved grassland Coniferous woodland Wet grassland Unimproved acid grassland

Semi‐improved acid grassland Dry dwarf shrub heath Broadleaved woodland Standing water

Lowland raised mire Hedgerow Other habitats

6.120. In conclusion, this Chapter has considered the outputs of the Polyscape model as they apply under current circumstances, but without anticipating the likely impacts of climate change and other pressures on the landscape. The following Chapter refocuses on the core issue covered by this project – the need to anticipate and plan for climate change. It considers the extent to which the benefits that could be achieved from the patterns of land use derived in this Chapter need to be adjusted to adapt positively to climate change.

84

7. PLANNING FOR ADAPTATION IN THE PROJECT AREA

7.1. This chapter draws on the outputs of the modelling work arising from the scenarios, as described in the previous chapter. It discusses these outputs in the context of the first four CBCC principles and in doing so, it seeks to address the fifth principal – that of making sound decisions based on analysis (para. 1.16).

7.2. Before embarking on this discussion, it is helpful to review the key impacts of climate change and the key messages arising from the scenarios about how these should be addressed.

TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 7.3. Chapter 4 briefly assessed the pressures on the landscape of the project area that will arise

from climate change and other key drivers. These were summarised under the four main landscape zones in the project area (para. 4.49 et sequ.).

7.4. In Chapter 6, the outputs of the four scenarios were described. While the biodiversity scenario made use of the CBCC Principles to establish the priorities for conserving existing sites and the opportunities for habitat restoration or creation, the modelled outputs of these scenarios were not 'future proofed' to examine the likely impacts of climate change and other drivers. This is done in the following section which splits the project area up into the four broad landscape types described in Chapter 2. Non-climate sources of change are also summarised at the end of the section.

The upland plateau 7.5. The upland plateau is typified by large blocks of semi-natural habitat which are extensively

managed as moorland or conifer forestry. Table 7.1 examines the likely impact of climate change and other drivers72 and on the key messages emerging from the scenarios on this area.

Table 7.1. Impacts on conservation priorities on the upland plateau

Key messages from the scenarios Impacts of drivers High priority to conserve remaining patches of blanket bog for biodiversity (core areas), water storage and carbon storage. High opportunities to re-establish blanket bog (blocking grips and reducing grazing pressure) over peat soils to deliver benefits above.

Lower rainfall and increased temperatures in summer threaten to dry blanket bog. Longer growing season and ongoing atmospheric N deposition likely to increase plant productivity and the suitability of more sheltered bog habitats for wetland shrub species. Sphagnum moss less significant in bog habitats.

Priority to conserve the matrix of upland heath (especially adjacent to acid grassland) for biodiversity. High opportunities to regenerate upland heath on acid grassland adjacent to existing heathland (buffer zone/ biodiversity restoration area).

Rising temperatures and nutrient enrichment from ongoing atmospheric N deposition, coupled with declining traditional grazing practices, likely to increase cover of bracken, gorse and other scrub. Increased pests (e.g. heather beetle) possible due to rising temperatures.

High opportunity to regenerate semi-natural woodland on PAWS

Increased storminess increases chance of wind throw in plantation forestry. Risk of invasive pests causing

72 Drawn from consultation with specialists and from Mitchell et al (2007)

85

(restoration area). large scale tree death in monocultures (creating opportunities for natural regeneration).

A wider opportunity to increase habitat variability, water infiltration and carbon sequestration by ‘rewilding’ parts of the large areas of acid grassland.

Climate change and declining traditional grazing practices could speed up natural succession.

The upland-lowland transition zone including the ffridd 7.6. The area between enclosed lowlands and unenclosed uplands is a transitional zone in both

an ecological and economic sense. River valleys, most running on a west to east axis, contain a range of habitats from improved grassland on the valley floor to semi-enclosed unimproved grassland and rough grazing on the valley sides and lower plateau slopes (the ffridd). Broad leaved woodland occurs on the steeper slopes in relatively narrow belts and some larger blocks. Ridges running off the upland plateau contain larger blocks of acid grassland and some conifer plantations.

Figure 7.2. Impacts on conservation priorities in the transition zone

Key messages from the scenarios Impacts of drivers High priority for conserving the semi-natural woodland that occurs on many of the valley sides. These are important wildlife sites, provide a strong network and are a store of carbon, providing opportunities for soil formation.

Increased storminess increases chance of wind throw in plantation forestry and canopy damage in semi-natural woodland. Higher winter rainfall increases soil erosion, especially on steeper slopes, increasing the value of woodland cover to increase water infiltration.

High opportunity to establish matrix of semi-natural woodland and extensively grazed grassland on steep valley sides currently under improved grassland.

Higher winter rainfall increases soil erosion, especially on steeper slopes, increasing the value of woodland cover and extensive grazing to increase water infiltration.

High opportunity to extend upland heath onto agriculturally improved moorland fringe areas, increasing biodiversity value and soil carbon.

Climate change and declining traditional grazing practices could speed up natural succession.

Opportunity to regenerate semi-natural woodland on PAWS.

Risk of invasive pests causing large scale tree death in monocultures (creating opportunities for natural regeneration).

Lowland farmland 7.7. The lowland farmland zone is dominated by agriculturally improved grassland divided by a

relatively dense network of hedgerows. Other areas of semi-natural habitat, such as unimproved grassland, are small and fragmented in distribution. Semi-natural woodland occurs in some of the river valleys, particular in their upper sections near the ffridd zone.

Figure 7.3. Impacts on conservation priorities on lowland farmland

Key messages from the scenarios Impacts of drivers

High priority to conserve remaining areas of semi-natural grassland for biodiversity

Greater variation in rainfall between drier summers and wetter winters likely to increase seasonal variation in water table, especially close to rivers, causing species change and greater habitat variation.

High priority to conserve and enhance Drivers above also apply here.

86

the dense network of hedgerows Increased storminess increases chance of wind throw. Hedgerows could be at risk of new pests and diseases. Hotter summers and increased storminess will increase the shelter value of hedgerows for farmed livestock.

High priority for conserving wetland and riparian habitats for biodiversity

Lower summer rainfall reduces river flows in summer threatening to dry wetland and riparian habitats, but increased flooding in winter will encourage species change and greater habitat variation, as above.

Opportunity to extensify grassland management, especially on wetter and agriculturally less productive land for biodiversity and carbon storage.

Rising temperatures and longer growing season, coupled with declining traditional grazing practices, could lead to increase of coarser grasses and scrub on sites where grazing pressure is reduced.

High opportunity to establish matrix of semi-natural woodland and extensively grazed grassland on the valley sides currently under improved grassland.

Higher winter rainfall increases soil erosion, especially on steeper slopes, increasing the value of woodland cover and extensive grazing to increase water infiltration.

The coastal zone 7.8. The coastal zone is most significant along the edge of the Dyfi Estuary (where saltmarsh,

unimproved grassland and semi-improved grassland dominate) and includes the large block of lowland raised mire and fen and wet grassland on Cors Fochno. Along the coast of Cardigan Bay, this zone is narrow, consisting of sand dunes and acid grassland.

Figure 7.4. Impacts on conservation priorities in the coastal zone

Key messages from the scenarios Impacts of drivers High priority to conserve the raised mire on Cors Fochno for biodiversity and carbon storage High opportunity to re-establish raised mire on the peat soils currently under improved grassland and arable.

Rising sea level and storms threaten occasional saline incursions forcing change to brakish conditions and species change. Drier summers will reduce water table increasing scrub and drier grassland species.

High priority to conserve the salt marsh habitats on the Dyfi Estuary and sand dune complexes on the Cardigan Bay coast.

Rising sea levels and storms will lead to coastal retreat / squeeze (the former requiring land use change if semi-natural habitats are to be allowed to migrate inland)

Opportunity to buffer semi-natural habitats by extensifying management on adjacent improved grassland

Rising temperatures and nutrient, enrichment from ongoing atmospheric N deposition, coupled with declining traditional grazing practices, likely to increase cover of bracken, gorse and other scrub.

7.9. The implications of these impacts on adaptation objectives in the area are considered more

fully below. However, it is significant that the effects are not necessarily all negative, or at least they are complex and create potentially opportunities for harnessing change in a positive way. For instance, increasing storminess and the occurrence of new pests and diseases may act to increase habitat heterogeneity in the large relatively homogeneous and relatively wildlife poor areas of conifer forestry and acid grassland.

87

Non-climate drivers of change 7.10. In the short to medium term, non-climate drivers are likely to be more significant

influences on land use and management than those caused by climate change73. This means that it is important that action is taken to address the current and short term non-climate challenges, so as to ensure that habitats are in optimum condition to meet the impacts of climate change as they develop.

7.11. As noted, in Chapter 5, key non-climate impacts on biodiversity are likely to be:

• The decline of traditional grazing systems in the uplands and ffridd, with lower use of the hardy breeds of beef cattle and sheep that are best suited to grazing the dwarf shrubs and acid grassland vegetation, potentially leading to coarser vegetation and scrub or bracken encroachment in the least agriculturally productive and accessible areas.

• The deposition of atmospheric nitrogen on base-poor soils, particularly affecting blanket bog and upland heath, resulting in successional change towards more strongly growing grasses, bracken and shrubs.

• Further declines in the size of the agricultural workforce, resulting in less active management of non-cropped habitats on farmland such as farm woodland, hedgerows and stone walls and the ‘ranching’ of livestock with lower levels of management and inputs.

• The continuing risk of agricultural improvement to remaining areas of semi-natural habitat in the lowlands (such as unimproved grassland and wetland), tending to occur at changes of ownership or farm enterprise.

• Increased disturbance and erosion from recreational activities at a small number of key hotspots, such as the Devil’s Bridge and coastal locations.

APPLYING THE CBCC PRINCIPLES TO THE PRIORITIES, OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPACTS

7.12. As noted earlier (para 1.16), the six CBCC principles set out in the guidance produced for the UK Biodiversity Partnership summarise current thinking on how to reduce the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and how to adapt existing plans and projects in the light of climate change. Again, as noted earlier, additional guidance and context has been added to the CBCC principles by the England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Principles or EBS Principles (Box 1.1) and the Lawton Review Making Space for Nature (para. 1.18). This section works through each of the CBCC principles, applying it to the findings of the previous section and, where relevant, draws on the guidance contained in the EBS Principles and Lawton Review.

1. Conserving existing biodiversity 7.13. The first principal focuses on the protection and management of existing wildlife areas,

distinguishing between the areas of highest biodiversity value and the range and variability of habitats across the area as a whole.

73 Mitchell et al (2007)

88

1a) Conserve Protected Areas and other high quality habitats

7.14. It should be noted that there are limitations with the data available to the study in relation to the precise mapping and status of some areas of semi-natural habitat. For instance the location of wet woodland is not clearly mapped (para. 6.27) and there are also significant gaps in the data about the condition of many sites (both undesignated sites and the SSSIs that are not also European protected sites). Nevertheless there was broad agreement with CCW specialist that the designated nature conservation sites and broader network of BAP priority habitats should be the focus of this CBCC principle.

7.15. Protected areas occupy a relatively small proportion of the project area (13.5% for SSSls and 8% for international sites - para 3.17) but BAP priority habitats account for nearly half of the project area (para 3.9). Together, these areas can be considered as the 'core wildlife sites' in the project area.

7.16. As the results of the scenario modelling work have shown, there is strong synergy between the delivery of the biodiversity objectives on these core sites with those of maintaining stores of carbon and with the reduction of surface water run-off, recognising the importance of well-functioning ecosystems in delivering these services.

7.17. The management of core sites: Most of these core sites are under the management control of private landowners, for whom farming is the principal activity (the main exception being Cors Fochno which is in the Dyfi NNR). Conservation of the sites' biodiversity interest should involve continuation of extensive grazing by livestock, with hardy breeds of cattle and sheep best suited to grazing the dwarf shrub heath vegetation. The current agricultural production of these habitats and the potential for their ‘improvement’ is generally low which reduces competition for more intensive forms of farming, but means that ongoing positive management is likely to be reliant on continued public expenditure from agri-environment schemes (covered further in the next chapter).

7.18. Most of the core woodland sites are not under active management (although sites under FCW and other large ownership may be part of the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS)) and investment from woodland schemes has, relative to the agri-environment agreements on the heathland areas, been small. For many owners of small broadleaved woodland, such as farmers, the woodland and its management needs are incidental to their main land management concerns. Encouraging these owners to bring their woodland into some form of favourable management (such as fencing stock out, opening up rides or creating other open spaces within the woodland) will require an understanding of the cultural as well as economic constraints and incentives needed.

7.19. The distribution and sizes of core sites is not even across the project area. In the upland zone, the large blocks of upland heath and acid grassland (including Pumlumon SSSI and the edge of Elenydd SAC and SPA) dominate land use. The coastal zone also contains relatively large core sites, particularly the large Dyfi Biosphere Reserve which encompasses the Dyfi SSSI complex and Dyfi National Nature Reserve (NNR) and includes the Cors Fochno SAC and parts of the Aber Dyfi SPA. In contrast, in both the lowland and transitional zones, the core wildlife sites are much smaller and more fragmented, typically consisting of semi-natural woodland and unimproved grassland, often located along the river valleys, with a denser network of hedgerows (the condition of which is not recorded) in between.

7.20. The size of core wildlife sites is a critical factor in their conservation, affecting both the viability of breeding populations (numbers of individuals and genetic diversity) and the risks from disturbance from adjacent land use ('edge effects')74. The issue of whether a minimum

74 Ries et al (2004)

89

viable size for habitat patches could be established as a target for land use planning was discussed with CCW specialist during the study. There has been no research that conclusively addresses this question. It was noted that the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for lowland heath states that “30 ha in size is the minimum size of a heathland patch considered to be sustainable”75 but the source of this claim is not known. What is clear in the project area is that in the upland zone, the core sites tend to be considerably larger than this, whereas in the transitional and lowland zone, very few are (Cors Fochno representing the only large area). The implications for adaptation of the small size and fragmentation of core sites in the transitional and lowland zone are considered further below in relation to Principle 4 (ecological networks).

7.21. The nature of adjacent land use around core sites also varies across the area. In the uplands, neighbouring land use is in general relatively benign (being coloured either orange or maroon in Figure 6.23, signifying that, while it has some value in its own right, it is not the optimal land use for this location, relatively to the delivery of biodiversity and other services). However, in the transition, lowland and coastal zones, the adjacent land use around core sites is less sympathetic to biodiversity and the delivery of the other services (coloured green in Figure 6.23) and here there is a high opportunity for land use change, particularly to reduce the intensity of grassland management.

7.22. The threats to core sites arising from climate change vary. On the coast, sea level rise will have a relatively slow but highly predictable76 impact. Unless flood defences are raised (which will become increasingly expensive and, for habitats such as saltmarsh, impractical), sea level rise creates an inevitability about land use change and the loss of core sites (starting with salt marsh and sand dunes, and moving in time to raised mire and wet grassland). In order for the core reservoirs of biodiversity to be maintained, adaptation will require the movement of species to create new areas of the habitat as existing areas are lost. The creation of new lowland mire habitats adjoining those areas of Cors Fochno liable to flooding by the sea is therefore a priority, involving the creation of new hydrologically discrete areas (i.e. land in which water levels can be raised independently of adjacent areas).

7.23. Away from the coast, the impacts will be more susceptible to the natural variability of weather patterns. Four key climate impacts will have most direct influence on the core sites.

• Firstly rising average temperature (particularly in winter) and a longer growing season will increase the productivity of soils and vegetation and will see increasing competition from species more suited to these conditions. This is likely to apply most to the sub-alpine upland habitats where the number of days of frost are a limiting factor for species. Adaptation action to address this threat will need to ensure that other non-climatic conditions (such as grazing pressure, water table height and soil disturbance) are carefully maintained to favour the threatened species of conservation importance.

• Secondly, the lower levels of rainfall in summer will threaten to reduce the water table in key wetland habitats such as the upland blanket bog and lowland raised mire. Adaptation action will need to focus on maintaining the hydrological integrity of wetland areas, particularly by blocking drains or grips in the peat soils.

75 http://www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk/outcomes/targets_nationals.asp?C=3&X=%7B830BBA17-BE3F-4C7B-993F-D8625DD5D516%7D 76 'Highly predictable' here refers to the fact that tides are much more predictable than the weather patterns causing climate impacts in other parts of the project area. It is recognised that there is still uncertainty.

90

• Thirdly, higher winter precipitation (with a high proportion falling as rain rather than snow in the uplands), and periods of intense rainfall, will increase surface run-off and increase the risk flooding and soil erosion (particularly on compacted or unvegetated soils), leading to inundation and reductions in river water quality. Adapatation action will need to focus both on reducing flood generation and erosion and on reducing the impacts of flooding when it occurs. Actions to reduce flood generation and erosion should include ensuring vegetation cover is maintained on soils at risk of erosion (such as the exposed faces of peat hags in the uplands) and that soil compaction from grazing livestock (such as occurs in gateways and around feeding areas) is minimised. Actions to reduce the impact of flooding include providing sufficient space for flood water in areas where the negative impacts will be least.

• Finally, the increased frequency of storm events, particularly when they occur in summer months when trees are in leaf, will increase the risk of wind throw for woodland sites, particular dense stands of conifers and thinly rooted species on high ground and exposed slopes. As noted further below, wind throw is not necessarily always a threat to the conservation of woodland sites. However, adaptation action can involve woodland management to create woodland edges that are permeable to wind, reducing the risk of damage, and avoiding clear felling in favour of continuous cover woodland management77.

7.24. A potentially significant, but more unpredictable and indirect, impact arises from the introduction or increase of pests and diseases due to the northward and upslope movement of climate zones. Pests such as heather beetle, Rhododenron ponticum and Himalayan balsam, and diseases such as Phytophera spp. pose potential risks to core habitats in the project area. In general terms, adaptation action involved ensuring that sites are in good condition and face no non-climate threats. Experience with control of pests and diseases in semi-natural habitats (such as the control of Rhododenron in Beddgelert in Gwynedd) shows that this action can be costly, to be effective, needs to be co-ordinated across land holdings.

7.25. A key non-climate threat to the conservation of the core sites will be the reduction in suitable grazing by beef cattle and sheep, or an increase in unsuitable grazing and grassland management practices (para. 4.19). The impact of changing grazing and livestock management practices are likely to vary significantly between landholdings, depending on the priorities and objectives pursued by different farmers, and may be difficult to predict in advance. For instance a decision to introduce less hardy breeds of sheep or cattle to a farm (so as to increase sales of store or finished animals rather than breeding stock) is likely to have a significant impact on the numbers of animals turned out to graze moorland and on the way in which these animals graze rough vegetation. Such a decision may be made for predictable economic reasons, or for less predictable personal reasons (to do with the age, expertise and ambition of the farmer). Being able to intervene to influence these decisions requires a high level of engagement with the farmers involved and an understanding of the ramifications of business changes on habitat management.

7.26. Opportunities for land use change in core sites. In general, conserving protected areas and other high quality habitats involves maintaining current land cover. However, the modelling work suggests that there are opportunities for land use change in some areas, particularly on the areas of acid grassland (which occur within the upland SSSls as well as outside them) where priority should be given to restoring blanket bog vegetation or upland heath. Adaptation action will often involve initial interventions such as blocking drainage

77 See for instance the PC-based modelling tool prepared for the Forestry Commission: Gardiner et al (2004)

91

ditches or grips (the effectiveness of which is subject to ongoing research in England78) and seeding acid grassland with dwarf shrub heath seeds, followed by suitable extensive grazing regimes.

7.27. Key conclusions in relation to the delivery of this principal in the project area are:

• Inadequate or incompatible data. There is inadequate data on the extent of some habitats (particularly wet woodland) and on the condition of many areas (virtually all sites not designated as European sites). Improved knowledge about these sites will make it easier to plan effectively for their conservation.

• Payment for management of habitats that deliver ecosystem services. Most of the core sites are privately owned by farmers for whom the management of the sites is increasingly disconnected from their commercial farming activities, particularly in the lowlands. Unless ways can be found to make these sites more economically relevant, for instance through improved prices for extensively reared hardy breeds of livestock, their management is likely to rely on agri-environment payments.

• An understanding of the cultural and social dimension to land management decisions by farmers and other private landowners is important to delivering improved management on core sites such as small woodlands and grazed moorland.

• How big is big enough? There is currently no guidance on the minimum size of habitat patches suitable for application in the project area. However, it is clear that sites in the transitional and lowland zone are small and fragmented, suggesting a priority for increasing the size of these areas, particularly remaining areas of semi-natural grassland and small wetland areas, usually through restoration from agriculturally improved grassland.

• Hostility/ effects of adjoining land. Whereas in the upland zone, adjacent land use tends to be relatively benign, in the lowlands it is often less sympathetic to biodiversity, requiring actions to reduce the negative effects of relatively intensive grassland management through, for instance, reduced fertiliser inputs and increased areas of rough grassland and wetland.

• Limitations of available space (on coast and altitude). The core sites at the coast face the slow but predictable threat of sea level rise which will inexorably lead to land use change (although flood defences may be used in the short term), requiring the movement of provision of suitable conditions for species in adjacent area.

• Away from the coast, the impacts of climate change are less predictable and may be addressed by enhancing the condition of sites by providing optimum levels and types of grazing, reducing soil erosion and maintaining suitable water levels.

• There are opportunities for land use change on some core sites, particularly on acid grassland where priority should be given to restoring blanket bog vegetation or upland heath.

1b) Conserve range and ecological variability of habitats and species

7.28. This CBCC principle recognises that the uncertainty over the precise impacts of climate change means that it is difficult to predict which places will continue to have a suitable climate for a given species or habitat. Conserving the current range and variability of

78 For instance in the Peak District www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/research-publications and Exmoor www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/index/learning_about/looking_after_landscape/moorlands/mire.htm#monitoring.

92

habitats increases the likelihood that sites will remain suitable for adaptation and colonisation by species.

7.29. Constraints and opportunities for increasing variability. Land use practices in the last 50 years have tended to reduce habitat diversity in many parts of the project area such as acid grassland (including, as noted above, in some protected sites), plantation forestry and improved grassland. In general terms, these areas with low biodiversity are also areas that are poor at providing water infiltration and have low levels of stored carbon. The modelling work identified these as areas of high opportunity for land use change (coloured green in Figure 6.23), although the agricultural productivity of some of the land (particularly on well drained flat soils in the lowlands) is likely to be a constraint.

7.30. In the lowlands and transition zones, field boundary habitats, particularly large mized-species hedgerows in the lowlands and the river valleys in the transition zone, provide importance habitat diversity within these areas.

7.31. Increased variability as a consequence of drivers of change. It is important to note that the drivers of change will tend to increase ecological variability, creating opportunities for colonisation and increased habitat diversity. Whereas this may be seen as a threat to priority habitats in core sites, it may provide opportunities for positive adaptation in the areas with low diversity. Examples are as follows.

• Increases in pests and disease, though a significant threat to core sites in most instances and also a major economic threat to forestry, could introduce welcome opportunities for colonisation of native species into monoculture blocks of plantation forestry.

• Wind throw could have the same effect both in plantation forestry creating space for colonisation by pioneer communities that increase habitat diversity and create spaces that are more permeable to the movement of species (accepting that forestry management will also intervene, such as to replant areas subject to storm damage).

• Increased seasonal variation in water tables (arising from drier summers and wetter winters) could increase habitat diversity in the large blocks of improved pasture (for instance leading to the development of rush pasture) and acid grassland.

• Turning to non-climate drivers, the reduction or withdrawal of agricultural management from the most economically marginal areas could lead to the 're-wilding' of some land, with increases in scrub and coarse grassland. This is most likely to occur on the semi-improved acid grassland in the ffridd zone which may receive a lower priority for continued extensive grazing under agri-environment than in core wildlife sites.

7.32. Management needed to enhance variability. In most cases, management interventions will be needed to ensure that the opportunities for enhancing biodiversity are fully realised. Colonisation will tend to be initially dominated by ruderal species with relatively low conservation value. Suitable management regimes (for instance extensive livestock grazing), supplemented with deliberate introductions (for instance semi-natural woodland species) may be needed to accelerate the process of natural succession.

7.33. It is unlikely that habitat perturbation from the drivers of change will deliver the range and variability that are needed in the large blocks of relatively homogeneous and low value habitats - the acid grassland, plantation forestry and improved grassland. In these areas, adaptation action should focus on re-establishing semi-natural habitats that are poorly represented but are likely to remain within their natural range, taking account of the movement of climate zones.

7.34. Habitat specific opportunities. Two habitats that were identified as being poorly represented throughout the project area, but particularly in the lowlands and ffridd zones,

93

relative to their potential (and historical) distributions, are unimproved neutral grassland and broad leaved woodland. The opportunity areas identified through the modelling process (coloured green in Figure 6.23) provide an indication of the relatively large areas where benefits can be optimised for biodiversity, water infiltration and carbon storage, while least impact on agricultural productivity. However, a finer scale of spatial targeting is required to identify areas most suited to re-establishing these habitats - something that is covered further below (para. 7.41). What is clear is that re-establishing these habitats will normally require changes of land use rather than simply adjustments to the management of existing land cover types (an exception being the incorporation of broad leaved tree and shrub species within plantation forestry).

7.35. Key conclusions in relation to the delivery of this principal in the project area are:

• Targeting interventions to key habitats. Habitats in the project area with the greatest potential for increasing ecological diversity are acid grassland (including in some protected sites), plantation forestry and improved grassland.

• The two habitats most suitable for introducing new variability are semi-natural grassland and woodland, and in the lowlands, large mixed-species hedgerows.

• Synergies and conflicts with other services. Improving the ecologically variability of acid grassland and plantation forestry is generally compatible with the delivery of other services and with economic uses. However, competition from productive agriculture (beef, sheep and dairy farming) is a significant constraint on increasing the variability of improved grassland (requiring higher financial incentives for it to be viable).

• Indirect impacts of climate change. The anticipated changes from climate and other sources will themselves provide a catalyst for increasing variability. Climate induced triggers include windthrow in plantation forestry, pests and diseases and variation in water tables.

• Anticipating these indirect impacts. Suitable management interventions will be needed to take advantage of these triggers such as the planting of specific native tree and shrub species in plantation forestry and use of extensive livestock grazing in grassland.

2. Taking account of non-climate sources of harm 7.36. The CBCC guidelines make clear that threats to biodiversity from 'avoidable' human

sources not connected to climate change will reduce the ability of wildlife to resist or adapt to climate change. These threats were described in Chapter 4 (summarised in Tables 4.1 to 4.4) and include the following:

• declining payments from, and wider reform of, the CAP (potentially leading to further declines in numbers of grazing animals) – although further declines in the number of sheep in some area might be considered a positive change providing cattle numbers did not also fall;

• changing agricultural markets (potentially leading to less suitable forms of grazing for semi-natural habitats, particularly reductions in beef cattle of hardy breeds);

• continuing enrichment of base-poor soils from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen (leading to successional change in nutrient poor habitats such as blanket bog, raised mire and acid grassland); and

• the risk of increased disturbance and localised damage to habitats from the growing popularity of more active forms of tourism and recreation (such as off-road 4x4

94

driving), but accepting that growing public interest in, and active enjoyment of, high quality environments such as the Cambrians brings a valuable source of income that can be used for habitat management.

7.37. The nature of these threats. It is significant, in terms of the scope of this study, that all these threats are concerned with changes in land management and the gradual deterioration of habitats, rather than outright changes in land use types. It is assumed that the large scale loss of semi-natural habitats, particularly of unimproved grassland, that occurred during the middle decades of the twentieth century is not likely to occur in the future. This is because there are relatively few areas of semi-natural habitat left in the more productive lowlands and much of what remains benefits from some form of statutory protection such as SSSIs and the Environmental Impact Regulations for permanent pasture (although enforcing this statutory protection effectively may be difficult) or management agreement under agri-environment schemes. However, this does not mean that changed economic or political circumstances (for instance a renewed drive for increased food production) would not see renewed pressure for land use change and the loss of semi-natural habitat - for instance the ploughing and reseeding of semi-improved grassland in the ffridd. This remains a risk, although not one that is currently deemed likely. It is suggested that the complexity of these socio-economically driven threats needs to be addressed by long term strategic planning that applies consistent policies (through agri-environment schemes and regulation) to support favourable land management regimes.

7.38. Positive drivers. Chapter 4 also identified a number of more positive factors such as growing interest in multi-purpose land use (with the potential for this to be recognised more fully by value-added markets for agricultural products) and the management and creation of habitat by landowners to support tourism and recreation enterprises. It is important that adaptation strategies are able to work with these positive factors, particularly harnessing market opportunities and the self-interest of land owners in ways that increase the resilience of biodiversity to climate change. For instance, product accreditation schemes that reward environmental practice should incorporate' standards that seek to deliver the CBCC principles.

7.39. Key conclusions in relation to the delivery of this principal in the project area are:

• Counter deterioration in management. The current non-climate drivers of change are producing gradual changes in land management rather than outright changes in land use. Measures to counter these will often need to focus on amending existing management practices (although conversion to different land uses may be appropriate where additional benefits are sought).

• There positive forces for change that should be encouraged, including growing markets for environmentally assured products from the land and public demand for high quality environments for recreation and leisure.

3. Developing ecologically resilient and varied landscapes 7.40. This CBCC Principle reinforces the need (indentified and also discussed under Principle I b)

to plan for landscapes that contain a suitable diversity of habitat types, creating space for species to move through landscapes. Ecological resilience, which has already been referred to, describes the ability of a landscape to maintain its functions and characteristics after being disturbed or damaged and this relies heavily on there being a range of different

95

habitats present from which species can recover their populations.79 This principle also introduces the concept of connectivity which is further developed in Principle 4, below.

3a) Conserve and enhance local variation within sites and habitats

7.41. Addressing the variation within sites is a finer-scale example of the same principal advanced above at I b), which addressed variation across landscapes as a whole. The landscape-scale nature of this study and the use of Phase I data which does not distinguish changes in character within high level habitat types, means that the modelling undertaken has not taken account of variation within sites. However it is important to acknowledge that small scale variability, which can be produced as a result of natural changes in topography, soil type or the water table, or by changes in management affecting vegetation structure or drainage type, can facilitate the movement of species through landscapes, enabling adaptation to changing climate zones.

7.42. Whereas large blocks of semi-natural habitat in core sites are necessary to maintain viable populations of species capable of withstanding change in the climate, large blocks of heterogeneous habitat can be a block to the movement of species through landscapes. These two objectives (i.e. maintaining large blocks of stable habitat and ensuring variation within sites) are not necessarily incompatible. It is helpful to consider the implications for low value habitats separately from those of core wildlife sites.

Introducing variation to areas with low conservation value

7.43. For the large blocks of habitat with lower wildlife value, such as the plantation forestry in the upland and transitional zones and the improved grassland in the lowland farmland zone, variation can be introduced into these existing habitats without any negative impacts on conservation objectives. These changes will tend to reduce the economic productivity of these areas (for timber and livestock production respectively), but much less than if these habitats were replaced by those with a higher conservation value. The economic impact depends on the extent to which increasing habitat diversity can be accommodated within the respective production systems, or in areas where the productivity and economic viability is marginal (as may be the case for inaccessible areas of plantation forestry).

7.44. In forestry, changes in species composition along streams or ride edges, or the creation of patches of open ground from wind throw or from pests (both potential results of climate change) create variation. Different sylvicultural practices allow for different amounts of variation with continuous cover forestry providing greater small scale diversity of vegetation structure than clear fell and replanting techniques.

7.45. Within large areas of agriculturally improved grassland in the lowland farmland zone, the presence of hedgerows and ditches creates opportunities for species movement which can be accentuated by variation in management (for instance trimming hedges on alternate sides each year, leaving trees in hedgerows, or leaving margins of longer grassland around silage fields, as advocated by agri-environment schemes). Planning for this variation will often require co-ordination between separate farm holdings.

7.46. The question "How much variation is enough?" is difficult to answer since it depends on the individual needs of species. There was insufficient evidence to be able to answer this question for the project area.

79 CBD (2006)

96

Introducing variation to core wildlife sites

7.47. Building variation within the large blocks of stable habitat of core sites is not necessarily incompatible with the need to maintain stable populations of species in these sites, but it is important that it does not result in habitat fragmentation. The implications of changes in management on key species should also be understood.

7.48. It is in the large blocks of upland heath and acid grassland in the upland zone that the need to maintain and enhance variation is most significant. Variation is provided at a large scale the river valleys, particularly the Rheidol which runs through the Nant-y-Moch Reservoir in the heart of the upland plateau in the south eastern part of the project area. The role of these river valleys is considered further below. The modelling work recognised the benefit of enhancing the species diversity of the large areas of acid grassland, but converting them to upland heath where they adjoin upland heath blocks.

7.49. Localised changes in management of these sites can increase variation in vegetation structure (for instance different heights of heather by variations in grazing or burning) or in water tables (by blocking of certain moorland grips and ditches). But it is important that these changes are not pursued for their own sake without understanding the impacts they have on key species or the delivery of other benefits. Restoring high water tables to areas of peat soils that have lost their blanket bog cover was identified as a key opportunity for biodiversity, flood management and carbon storage in the modelling work, and is clearly a desirable change.

7.50. It is also worth noting the important role that transitional habitats can have in 'softening' and increasing variety at the edges of large blocks of habitat. Climate change means that these 'ecoclines' (the zone where one habitat merges with another) will shift (with the movement usually being upslope or inland). It is important that land cover and management allow for the natural development of new areas of these habitats.

7.51. Scrub (particularly in the ffridd zone between woodland and grassland or heathland) is a key transitional habitat in the project area. The most common adjoining habitat 'upslope' of woodland, from where scrub development might be encouraged, is often acid grassland or upland heath. These habitats can be considered as relatively permeable to succession to scrub, with the main management change required being a reduction in grazing density which, as noted earlier in this chapter, is one of the anticipated drivers of change.

7.52. The coastal habitats of sand dunes and salt marsh (along the coast of Cardigan Bay and the Dyfi Estuary respectively) are another example of transitional habitats that are likely to be displaced by climate change. These are considered further below.

7.53. Key conclusions in relation to the delivery of this principal in the project area are:

• Variation within core sites to facilitate movement of species. Whereas large blocks of semi-natural habitat in core sites are necessary to maintain viable populations of species capable of withstanding change in the climate, large blocks of heterogeneous habitat can be a block to the movement of species through landscapes.

• Enhancing transition zones. Building variation within the large blocks of stable habitat of core sites should be done in ways that do not result in fragmentation. River valleys within the upland plateau, and the transitional habitats that lie between the often wooded valley sides and open moorland (particularly scrub) provide valuable variation at the edge of, and within sites.

• Allowing for the movement of transition zones. Climate change means that these transitional areas will shift requiring that land cover and management allow for the natural development of new areas of these habitats.

97

• Variation within sites of low conservation value. Management that will increase variability within the large blocks of habitat with low wildlife value include continuous cover forestry practices and introducing semi-natural trees and shrubs and open ground within plantation forestry. In lowland farmland, variation in the management of field boundaries and field edges, increasing the areas of non-cropped habitats can provide this local diversity, but often requires co-ordination between farm holdings.

3b) Make space for the natural development of rivers and coasts

7.54. This Principle identifies the importance of rivers and coasts, as key physical elements in the landscape, to provide corridors along which species can move. Many of the river corridors emerge strongly from the modelling work as areas containing priorities for the protection of existing habitat (particularly the river itself and its riparian habitat, and the semi-natural woodland that occurs on many valley sides) and with opportunities for land cover change to deliver biodiversity objectives or other benefits (particularly areas of agricultural grassland in the flood plain and on steep valley sides). As noted further below, wooded river valleys in the project area emerge as key networks through which species can move, offering opportunities for colonisation of habitats up the altitudinal gradient.

7.55. In practice, this study found it was difficult to identify the scale of land use interventions that are needed to enhance the role of rivers as corridors for the movement of species, particularly the width that delivers a significant benefit (both to create new habitat and buffer the river and riparian vegetation from the impacts of adjoining landuses). There appears to be a lack of research and good evidence of the benefits achieved by riparian buffers of different widths (para 6.35).

7.56. The importance of the coastal habitats of sand dunes and salt marsh as transition zones, under threat from sea level rise, was noted above. In the project area, these habitats are often bordered by the coastal road and, around Borth, settlement boundaries. In-land of these, lie the raised mires of Cors Fochno or improved grassland. All of these provide relatively impermeable boundaries which would constrain their natural development in response to climate change. Without interventions that enable and encourage succession of these terrestrial habitats on to adjacent land, it is likely that these core sites on the coast will be squeezed, preventing positive adaptation for biodiversity.

7.57. In practical policy terms it is likely to be necessary to prioritise efforts either on the coast or in the river corridors. Although, in the project area, the concentration of highest value core sites along the Dyfi Estuary suggests that the greatest direct benefit can be gained from interventions to reinforce the natural development of habitats on this section of coast, there is a lack of evidence from research or case studies to compare the costs and benefits that would be achieved.

7.58. Key conclusions in relation to the delivery of this principal in the project area are:

• The role of river corridors. Many of the river corridors emerge strongly from this project as areas containing priorities for the protection of existing habitat (particularly the river itself and its riparian habitat, and the semi-natural woodland that occurs on many valley sides) and with opportunities for land cover change to deliver biodiversity objectives or other benefits (particularly areas of agricultural grassland in the flood plain and on steep valley sides).

• The coastal zone. Coastal habitats are also important but in the project areas these are often tightly contained by other relatively ‘impermeable’ land uses. Significant interventions to bring about suitable land use change will be needed if there is to be colonisation from core sites on the coast to other areas.

98

• The paucity of evidence. In practice, there appears to be a lack of evidence from research to inform the precise land use interventions needed to fulfil this Principle.

4. Establish ecological networks through habitat protection, restoration and creation

7.59. The concept of ecological networks brings together many of the issues discussed under the previous adaptation principles. Creating networks and improving connectivity involves taking a spatially targeted approach to deliver the guidance on conserving core sites, ensuring there are a range of suitable habitats and reducing the non-climate sources of harm. As noted earlier (para. 1.18) the Lawton Review acknowledges a hierarchy of intervention in which increasing connectivity is based upon previous decisions about improving the management of existing sites, enlarging these sites and creating new wildlife areas.

7.60. Creating landscapes that are more permeable to wildlife by strengthening existing networks and reconnecting fragmented patches of habitat recognises the importance of the movement of species. This movement is important to enable natural patterns of behaviour (e.g. foraging and diurnal or seasonal migration) to take place; to ensure there is a robust gene pool and viable population of individuals; and to enable movement of communities of plants and animals in response to changing climate zones.

7.61. Here again, there is a lack of empirical data on how most species move through land and waterscapes. Nor is there sufficient evidence of the practical value of different spatial models that seek to predict movement. Instead, planning for biodiversity adaptation must rely on based ecological assumptions and good practice. The precise character of the networks that are needed (for instance their scale, the types of habitats involved, the sizes of discrete blocks and the distances between them) is likely to depend on the species involved. Whereas some more mobile species will need to move a considerable distance from their current locality if they are to survive climate change, this may not be an option for less mobile species, for whom the priority must be the maintenance of optimal conditions close to their existing location. The scale of the networks that are needed, and the balance of habitat protection, restoration and creation, will therefore depend on the species involved and the nature of the threats facing them.

7.62. The mapping of Core and Focal Habitat Networks for key habitat groups using the Wales-wide data generated by CCW using the methodology developed by Forestry Research (para 5.17) provides a simple way of identifying areas where there is are established networks. As noted in Chapter 5, these maps are based on broad assumptions about the needs and behaviour of species and require interpretation at a local scale. Nevertheless, they provide a broad and useful indication at a landscape scale of the opportunities that exist for expanding and strengthening existing networks.

7.63. The Habitat Networks for bog, all unimproved grassland, marshy grassland, lowland grassland and broad leaved woodland are shown in Figure 7.1. A number of overall conclusions arise from the distribution of these networks.

• The overall pattern of these networks is determined by the topography, soils and climate of the Project Area, which have influenced the distribution and scales of land use. Networks in the more agricultural productive lowlands tend to be more isolated and smaller than those in the uplands. There is a strong east-west orientation in much of the central part of the Project Area dictated by the river valleys.

• For bog habitat, Cors Fochno is shown as a large network in which there is little differentiation between the core and focal network and around which there are no

99

other nearby areas of bog network and few areas of other habitat networks. Based on existing habitats, Cors Fochno therefore appears as an isolated area requiring significant habitat creation if networks allowing species movement are to be created.

• For upland bogs, there are several relatively small networks on the high mountain plateau east of Pumlumon and Elenydd, with intervening gaps between several of these networks a few kilometres wide. These gaps lie in unimproved grassland networks and offer opportunities for expanding the bog networks through habitat restoration.

• For unimproved grassland, there are large areas of strongly connected habitat in the uplands but few and isolated areas in the lowlands. However, in the lowlands, networks of unimproved grassland tend to be co-located with networks of broad leaved woodland, suggesting that interventions should be co-ordinated for these two habitats.

• Networks of broad leaved woodland show a strong spatial pattern, mostly running in an east to west orientation up the river valleys in the southern part of the project area, and as a fringe on the lower slopes of the upland, in the northern part of the area.

• The broad leaved woodland focal networks are often significantly larger than the core networks. This is partly a result of the assumptions that lie behind the model (with the core networks requiring larger and more densely located sites than the focal networks). However, it also suggests that action to improve the chances for core woodland species can be taken up by expanding woodland cover into areas that already provide relatively good networks for focal species.

100

Figure 7.1. All habitat networks

7.64. The relatively close co-location of unimproved grassland with broad leaved woodland

networks in the valleys and the transitional zone, coupled with the findings of the modelling work (Chapter 6) that opportunity areas for land use change occur in these same areas, suggests that that there should be a focus for positive interventions in land use and management around the woodland networks. These woodland networks are shown on their own in Figure 7.2.

101

Figure 7.2. Woodland habitat networks

7.65. By their nature, habitat networks need to be planned and delivered at a relatively large scale that will often span several different land holdings. As the Lawton Review emphasises (para. 1.20), intervention at this landscape scale must involve landowners, and this involvement needs to be co-ordinated so that consistent, rather than haphazard, patterns of land use and management result. In the uplands, land holdings tend to be large but in the transition zone, the lowlands and at the coast, holdings are often small and working along a river valley of, for instance 2km in length (the size of many of the core broadleaved woodland network areas in Figure 7.2) will require co-ordinated working with perhaps five farmers and other landowners who may not have been used to planning their land use and management together before. Again, this emphasises the need for adaptation intervention to work at a social and cultural level that understands the limitations and opportunities that arising from individual business and personal objectives and decisions by farmers.

102

7.66. Key conclusions in relation to the delivery of this principal in the project area are:

• The modelling of networks. The mapping of Core and Focal Habitat Networks for key habitat groups using the Wales-wide data generated by CCW using the methodology developed by Forestry Research provides a simple way of identifying areas where there is are established networks, notwithstanding the lack of conclusive research evidence and the limitations of the broad assumptions that underpin the modelling.

• Patterns in the landscape. These networks reflect the broad distribution of topography, soils, climate and land use, and differentiate between relatively dense but isolated areas of habitats (such as lowland raised bogs and blanked bogs) and more widely dispersed patches of habitat (such as woodland and grassland in the valleys).

• Priorities for lowland bog. Cors Fochno appears as an isolated area requiring significant habitat creation inland from the coast if networks allowing species movement are to be created.

• Priorities for upland bog. Isolated patches of upland bog can be connected by focussing on the rewetting of unimproved grassland and upland heath.

• Priorities for broadleaved woodland. For broadleaved woodland, the larger area occupied by focal networks, compared to the core networks suggests that action should focus on expanding woodland cover into areas that already provide relatively good networks for focal species.

• Priorities for unimproved grassland. The small isolated areas in the lowlands tend to be associated with broadleaved woodland. A co-ordinated approach to extending unimproved grassland patches with woodland creation and management is needed.

• Taking account of landownership patterns. By their nature, habitat networks must be planned at a landscape scale, usually across many different landholdings. Co-ordinated planning that takes account of the different business and personal objectives of landowners is essential if coherent patterns of land use and management are to be created and maintained.

7.67. This chapter has been concerned with the way in which the evidence gathered on the project area can be used, through the first four of the CBCC Principles, to identify priorities for positive adaptation for biodiversity to anticipate the impacts of climate change. These first four Principles seek to establish the spatial land use objectives that should be pursued. Putting these into effect in practice is addressed by the last two CBCC Principles and is covered in the next and final chapter of the report.

7.68. Before moving onto these last two CPCC Principles, it is worth drawing attention to some of the key conclusions from this Chapter.

• When exploring the extent and condition of priority habitats at landscape scales, there are significant gaps in data which constrain the effective planning of interventions. In the absence of this lack of evidence, intervention to encourage biodiversity adaptation must rely on established ecological principles and best practice, but these limit the confidence with which strategic land use planning and habitat management can be pursued.

• Adaptation interventions for biodiversity cannot operate in a vacuum. Decisions on land use and management are subject to a wide range of influences and priorities vary between types of landscape (for instance farmland and woodland, upland and lowland)

103

and between landowners. The priorities of individual farmers and other land managers are often difficult to predict. This makes actioning many of the principles difficult unless these stakeholders are engaged with and there is effective co-ordination of land use and management.

• The maps produced by this study suggest what some stakeholders’ priorities might be. They provide a basis for dialogue and negotiation, but they cannot on their own, suggest what the interventions should be.

104

8. APPLYING THE LESSONS THROUGH POLICY

8.1. The last two CBCC Principles seek to ensure that the land use and management priorities established through the first four Principles are applied appropriately into land use planning and practical conservation management. These Principles are as follows:

5. Make sound decisions based on analysis 6. Integrate adaptation and mitigation measures into conservation management,

planning and practice.

8.2. In addition, the England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation Principles (Box 1.1) also emphasises the need to integrate actions across partners and sectors, including through partnership working, and to develop knowledge and plan strategically, such as by piloting and monitoring new approaches and ensuring cross-sectoral knowledge transfer.

8.3. These are the topics covered by this final chapter which is split into the following headings

• Partnership working to achieve integrated objectives

• Communicating objectives and engaging with key players

• Delivering adaptive landscapes in practice

PARTNERSHIP WORKING TO ACHIEVE INTEGRATED OBJECTIVES

8.4. As noted in Chapter 4, decisions about land management are subject to a variety of influences including, in the project area, the market prices for agricultural products, the provision of farm support and agri-environment agreements through the Common Agricultural Policy, the protection of designated areas and other natural resources, particularly water quality, and the management of public access. The imperative of addressing climate change, through both adaptation and mitigation measures, is also now being recognised in all aspects of public policy.

8.5. Public policy towards land use and management is delivered by a range of organisations of which the Assembly Government, CCW, FCW, Environment Agency Wales and local authorities are the most significant in the Project Area. As reflected in the ecosystem services approach, land is valued for the many benefits it provides, with carbon storage and high quality food production80 two that have become increasingly important in Wales in recent years (as across the UK), joining established priorities such as biodiversity, water quality and management, health and recreation and the historic environment. There is a strong commitment from the Assembly Government for these policies and programmes to be integrated. This is demonstrated by the shared objectives for multi-purpose land use, in which adaptation to climate change is an increasingly important element.

8.6. Given that the organisations and departments within organisations above have different roles to play, and they interact with land owners and managers in different ways, achieving integration of policy objectives in practice is often more difficult. The challenge lies in finding effective ways of co-ordinating priorities for spatial interventions in land management, while maintaining the specific focus of individual programmes and schemes.

8.7. The experience of working with stakeholders in this study suggests that this co-ordination needs to take place in two dimensions (Figure 8.1). Firstly, there needs to be co-

80 WAG (2010)

105

ordination between the organisations responsible for different policy domains or service areas. Organisations need to understand the impact of their actions on the objectives of others – for instance on the condition of core wildlife sites or the non-climate threats to biodiversity. Secondly, there needs to be dialogue within organisations to ensure that the knowledge and expertise present at different levels and in different professional disciplines is shared. Policy development must be evidenced based and take account of practical experience of delivery, just as delivery of programmes on the ground must reflect their overall strategic objectives and the science that lies behind them. Of most relevance to this study, it is essential that evidence from research and established best practice should be fed into both policy development and implementation.

8.8. Finding ways of communicating this evidence in ways that are seen as relevant and necessary is a key challenge for such ‘extension advice’. It is suggested that the spatial approach to identifying trade-offs and win-wins used by the Polyscape tool in this study provides a valuable means of doing this, which is of equal value when developing strategic policies at a national and regional level as it is identifying suitable interventions at a sub-regional and even landholding level.

Figure 8.1. Schematic diagram to show the two dimensions of co-ordination needed to delivery adaptation measures in practice.

8.9. During this study, all the organisations and stakeholders involved expressed interest in the approach adopted in this project to prioritising land management interventions. The approach is not unique to this project – as shown below, strategic woodland creation areas have recently been identified for Wales which are mapped using a traffic light-based zoning system similar to that used by Polyscape. However, the way that the Polyscape process trades-off different objectives to identify spatial conflicts and ‘win-win’ outcomes was considered to be a helpful contribution to the process of co-ordinating priorities. The process must be seen as way of shedding light on conflicts and synergies to aid decisions, not as a ‘black box process’ which provides the answers.

8.10. A practical constraint is the limitation of resources, particularly staff time, to co-ordinate planning and delivery of work with other agencies and with other departments within organisations. This project found it was often difficult to secure attendance at planning meetings from the appropriate staff from partner organisations (such as the EAW and FCW) even where video conferencing facilities were used.

Nature conservation

Water management

Forestry

Strategic policy making Research and development Practical implement-ation

STA

GES

IN D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

A

ND

DEL

IVER

Y

POLICY DOMAINS / SERVICE AREAS. Examples:

Food and health

Social & econ. development

106

8.11. Just as important as coming to a consistent and integrated approach between the public sector bodies that influence land use and management, is the need to engage with landowners and managers. This is examined in the next section.

COMMUNICATING OBJECTIVES AND ENGAGING WITH LAND MANAGERS

8.12. The large majority of the project area is privately owned and farmed in nearly 260 different land holdings (para 3.10). Part of this project involved discussions with a small sample of farmers to test the methodology that was developed in the land use scenarios (Chapter 6) and to communicate the outputs of the modelling.

8.13. A small group of farmers were interviewed mid-way through the project. These farmers had previously volunteered to take part in the carbon footprinting work undertaken by the Cambrian Mountains Initiative and were selected on the basis that their farms were within or immediately adjacent to the study area. The interviews were informal and on two of the farms visited this was combined with a walk around the holding (both including land in both the uplands and lowland areas).

8.14. The farmers were generally very receptive to the maps presented during the meetings and agreed that the areas shown on their land as opportunity areas for land use change (for instance for establishing trees or conversion to unimproved grassland) were sensible from a farming point of view, providing the financial consequences were realised. A range of conclusions emerged from the discussion about the Polyscape maps, including the following.

• Unsurprisingly, the farmers agreed that the lowland areas were the most agriculturally productive in the project area. However they commented that these areas were much less productive than other areas of Wales, the implication being that changes of land use in this area would have relatively less of a negative impact on Wales’ food production than in other more productive areas.

• Again unsurprisingly, most of the upland parts of the catchment were considered of mostly marginal value for agriculture – especially over the thick peat soils. Much of the land was retained primarily for income associated with Tir Gofal – and the farmers felt that the resulting change in management had further reduced the agricultural outputs and capability. As noted earlier in this study (for instance para. 4.24 and Figure 7.1), low levels, or inappropriate types of grazing, are now considered a greater threat to the favourable condition of many upland sites than over-grazing.

• Historically, the transition zone between the uplands and lowlands tended to fluctuate between being suitable for agricultural improvement or being agriculturally marginal, depending on the prices of agricultural products (farming tended to move ‘up the hill’ when prices were high and ‘down the hill’ in periods of agricultural depression). The farmers commented that the land capability and socio-economic characteristics of this zone (with smaller farms, more rented land and younger farmers who tended to work the land ‘harder’) might mean there were fewer opportunities to take land out of production. This needs to be considered in relation to the conclusions from the modelling work in this study that this area provides many important opportunities for biodiversity adaptation and provision of ecosystem services.

• As noted above, the farmers generally felt that the opportunity areas identified through this study were sensible and gave a useful basis for further discussion about the changes in land use and management that could take place. However, there was criticism of the

107

way that agri-environment schemes had operated in the past. Scheme prescriptions had, it was felt, been developed with insufficient understanding of the farming systems they sought to influence and the impacts they would have on these systems. Although the inadequacy of financial incentives offered was (perhaps not surprisingly) part of this, it is apparent social and cultural factors are also important. These include a reticence to adopt grazing regimes which were not ‘tried and tested’ or traditional in the area and concern about the impact that commitments entered now would have for future generations on the farm.

8.15. A further meeting with landowner representatives, community representatives and other stakeholders took place towards the end of the study. At this stage, the outputs of the Polyscape modelling were discussed and demonstrated using the Google Earth software. To do this, the GIS polygons (in Esri Arc Map shapefile format) were converted to KML layers81 which were then opened in Google Earth and viewed over Google Earth’s native aerial photography. Individual KML layers (covering a simplified land use zones, the outputs of the different scenarios, and combined scenarios) could be turned on and off, enabling users to compare the layers and understand how they relate to topography and land use and how they interact with each other. Google Earth allowed users to ‘fly-over’ the landscape at will, zooming in to particular locations, or out to see the overall assemblage of land holdings and blocks of habitat at a landscape scale. In addition, the KML layers were packaged into a single KMZ file which was small enough to be emailed and used remotely. A screen shot of the KML files in use with Google Earth is shown as an example in Figure 8.2.

8.16. Using the Polyscape outputs in this way proved a powerful and transparent way of engaging with landowner representatives and other stakeholders. It facilitated debate about how different areas of the Project Area currently provide different functions and how the land use priorities suggested by individual scenarios can be resolved and integrated when the outputs from combined Polyscape layers were displayed.

8.17. Limitations of the approach were also discussed at the workshop. These can be summarised as follows:

• The Polyscape outputs are just the start of a process of establishing land management interventions. On their own they don’t specify what new forms of land use or management should be adopted and they take no account of the resources needed or the costs incurred.

• The modelling is only as good as the underlying assumptions and data. Gaps in the data, such as apply to carbon flux in soils and vegetation, mean that some of the outputs are weaker than others

• It is essential that users understand the assumptions that lie being the individual layers, and the method used to combine the layers. If this cannot be explained satisfactorily, the visualisations become another ‘black box’ that stakeholders cannot engage with.

• This study developed four scenarios but others need to be included for a truly integrated picture to be produced. In particularly, the delivery of tourism, protection of the historic environment and provision of renewable energy could be added as additional scenarios or layers.

81 KML stands for Keyhole Markup Language and is recognised computer programming language for expressing geographic annotation and visualization within two-dimensional and three-dimensional maps produced by internet-based browsers.

108

• The outputs have not been ground truthed and lack the authority that this would provide. As one participant put it “Welly boy will tell you more than Google boy”.

Figure 8.2. Screenshot of Google Earth displaying Polyscape outputs

8.18. Overall, the modelling of scenario maps through Polyscape by this study, provided a valuable means of engaging with farmers and other stakeholders about the opportunities for land use change to deliver different benefits. The inclusion of an agricultural productivity scenario meant that the farmers were able to see some of their own objectives (i.e. agricultural productivity) reflected in the decision process (albeit in a simple way across the landscape as a whole) and could discuss the trade-offs that they need to consider from a business perspective before taking up voluntary measures such as those available from agri-environment schemes.

DELIVERING ADAPTIVE LANDSCAPES IN PRACTICE 8.19. This section focuses on the Assembly Government’s new agri-environment scheme in

Wales, Glastir. This will be the primary means of delivering a wide range of public policy objectives, dovetailing with the compulsory measures achieved through site designation, environmental regulation and the cross-compliance standards that apply through the Single Payment Scheme.

8.20. Glastir is a five year ‘whole farm’ land management scheme available to farmers and land managers across Wales. It pays for the delivery of specific environmental goods and services amongst which combating climate change is a primary objective together with, improving water management and maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. It is designed to deliver measurable outcomes at both a farm and landscape scale. The scheme will replace

109

the four existing agri-environment schemes in Wales (Tir Gofal, Tir Cynnal, Tir Mynydd and the Organic Farming Scheme) and will consist of three main elements as well as additional funding for special objectives as show in Box 8.1.

Box 8.1. The different elements of Glastir

All-Wales Element - a whole farm land management scheme which is open to application from all farmers and land managers throughout Wales. It is designed to provide support for the delivery of environmental benefits that meet today’s challenges and priorities. Successful applicants will make a commitment to deliver environmental goods for five years under a legally binding contract.

Targeted Element – a part farm scheme intended to deliver significant improvements to the environmental status of a range of habitats, species, soils and water that might also require changes to current agricultural practices. In order to achieve these specific improvements and outcomes, financial support from the Welsh Assembly Government will be targeted at locations where action will lead to the required result.

Common Land Element - designed to provide support for the delivery of environmental benefits on common land.

There is also an additional funding source for an Agricultural Carbon Reduction and Efficiency Scheme (ACRES) and Organic Conversion, available to farmers who have a contract under the All-Wales Element.

The All-Wales Element 8.21. The All-Wales Element (AWE), which is broadly equivalent to the Entry Level of

Environmental Stewardship in England, is open to all farmers in Wales and provides a payment per hectare over the whole farm in exchange for a five year agreement. The agreement consists of two elements:

• The Whole Farm Code of compulsory requirements which applies to all the land entered into the contract. These requirements are firstly that the farmer must abide by the cross-compliance conditions, secondly comply with all legal requirements and thirdly identify, retain and manage existing Habitat Land (defined according to set criteria and mapped as part of the agreement).

• A set of Management Options which farmers can either select individually from a full list of 40 options or choose from a Regional Package of options which deliver the greatest environmental benefit within the region where the farm is located. Each option attracts a certain number of points. A threshold of points must be achieved in order to initiate the agreement.

8.22. Farmers were invited to express interest in joining the AWE on their Single Farm Payment application form in May 2010 and those who did so were invited to apply for the scheme in October 2010. When the application period ended in November 2010, it was clear that the number of applications was well short of the target number, with the farming unions commenting that the scheme is not sufficiently attractive, particularly to farmers in existing agri-environment schemes (principally Tir Gofal), for them to enter. As a result, the Assembly Government has commissioned an independent review of Glastir, the results of which are awaited.

8.23. In terms of the objectives of this study, a number of aspects of the AWE are significant

110

• The requirement under the Whole Farm Code to retain and manage existing habitat land should mean that CBCC Principle 1a (Conserve Protected Areas and other high-quality wildlife habitats) is addressed.

• The Regional Package of options also recognises the specific management requirements likely to be most suitable on a regional basis. The options allocated to Ceredigion, which apply to the project area are shown in Box 8.2. It is significant that the regional measures focus almost entirely on the maintenance and management of key habitats such as lowland marshy grassland, upland heath and blanket bog, with no emphasis on their restoration or extension, suggesting that they may offer little scope for advancing CBCC Principle 1b (the range and variability of habitats).

• The cross compliance conditions and requirement to comply with other legal requirements should make a positive contribution to CBCC Principle 2 (Reduce sources of harm not linked to climate).

• A set of management options encourage farmers to improve habitat connectivity across improved land, recognising CBCC Principle 4 (Establish ecological networks through habitat protection, restoration and creation). These focus on establishing corridors of trees, shrubs and rough grass margins beside field boundaries and watercourses.

• Many options seek to improve the diversity within crops, recognising CBCC Principle 3a (Conserve and enhance local variation within sites and habitats). These include establishing unsprayed spring sown cereals after winter stubbles and planting unsprayed rootcrops on improved land.

• However, it is important to note that the decisions on where to select Management Options on the farm are left to the farmer. Certain options are unavailable where land falls within defined protected areas which relate to the distribution of priority species such as water vole, lapwing and curlew. Other options are only available on identified Habitat Land. As noted above (for the connectivity options) guidance is provided to the farmer in relation to each option, but the extent to which their choice of options contributes positively to CBCC Principles 3 and 4 (Develop ecologically resilient and varied landscapes and Establish ecological networks) is likely to be limited, or at least to rely on the knowledge and interest of the farmer.

Box 8.2. Regional Package of options applicable in Ceredigion

• Enhanced hedgerow management on both sides • Double fence gappy hedge • Allow woodland edge to develop out into adjoining fields where these are improved land • Fallow crop margin • Maintenance of existing haymeadow • Management of lowland marshy grassland • Management of coastal and lowland heath • Allow small areas of improved grassland in corners of field to revert to rough grassland & scrub • Continued management of existing streamside corridor • Create streamside corridor on improved land on both sides • Unsprayed spring cereals containing winter stubbles • Plant unsprayed root crops on improved land • Unharvested cereal headland • Management of blanket bog • Management of upland heath

111

The Targeted Element 8.24. The Targeted Element (TE) of Glastir is broadly equivalent to the Higher Level of

Environmental Stewardship. It will be implemented from January 2013 and will be discretionary, meaning that agreements will be offered to applicants who offer the greatest benefits and value for money (and who are already in the All-Wales Element).

8.25. The selection process will analyse the potential for each applicant to contribute to the objectives of the TE scheme, based on the location of the farm in relation to priority areas mapped by the Assembly Government. These priority areas inform where specific objectives of the scheme can best be delivered, in relation to current failures or opportunities for enhancement. There is separate mapping of priority areas for targeting the TE scheme as follows: • Carbon management • Water quantity • Water quality

• Biodiversity species • Biodiversity habitat • Historic environment

• Landscape and access

8.26. An example of one of the priority area maps is shown in Figure 8.2, covering Biodiversity Habitats. It should be noted that this map is based on the current extent of existing habitats and makes no judgement on the optimal areas for changes of land use or management in relation to the need to increase the variability of existing habitat cover, buffer priority habitats where they are adjacent to potentially harmful activities, or to enhance habitat networks.

8.27. While Figure 8.2 goes some way to addressing CBCC Principle 1, it does so only partially. The ranking of areas on the basis of the number of priority habitats present is crude and is likely to highlight areas with high levels of habitat fragmentation and diversity and downplay areas with large blocks of few habitats. For instance within the project area, it is possible that the core area of Cors Fochno would be given the same score as an area of pastoral farmland that contained small areas of unimproved grassland which would significantly under value the importance to biodiversity of the former compared to the latter. In short, Figure 8.2 cannot be regarded as identifying areas with the greatest need to conserve core wildlife sites (CBCC Principle 1a), far less the range and ecological variability of habitats and species (Principle 1b) or the development of ecologically resilient and varied landscapes (Principle 3). While it is understood that Figure 8.2 has been published as a first step in the process of selecting farms most suitable for inclusion in the TE of Glastir, it is clear that it is very limited in the extent to which it highlights opportunity for biodiversity adaptation measures.

8.28. Farms that are selected to enter the TE scheme will be encouraged to adopt management prescriptions that best deliver the priority objectives. Options are available for protecting and enhancing existing habitats (such as establishing upland heath on species poor grassland or restoring improved land to salt marsh), for increasing the variability of low value and heterogeneous habitat (such as reducing inputs on improved grassland) and for increasing habitat connectivity (such as the creation of grassland buffer strips and woodland shelter belts). The analysis in this study (Chapter 7) suggests that these prescriptions potentially offer many if not all of the interventions that may be needed. However, as noted above, the critical issue will be to ensure that the interventions take place on the most suitable holdings, and on the most suitable position within these holdings.

8.29. Overall, it is suggested that while there are suitable options available under the TE scheme to deliver biodiversity adaptation benefits, there is scope to improve the way that holdings are selected to join the scheme, based on their position at a landscape scale.

112

Figure 8.2. Example of Glastir priority areas for the Targeted Element – Biodiversity Habitats

Woodland creation 8.30. Glastir has been set a specific objective for the creation of new woodland on farms in

Wales. Responding to the recommendations of the Land Use and Climate Change group (which was asked to consider the actions needed to reduce green house gas emissions

113

from Wales), the Assembly Government aims to create 100,000 hectares of new woodland over the next 20 years. Initially, this will be delivered by FCW, transferring to Glastir in 2013. Although the primary objective for this new woodland creation, as defined by the Land Use and Climate Change group, is to mitigate climate change, this study shows that there are clearly important benefits to be gained from woodland planting to provide adaption measures for biodiversity.

8.31. In order to target the most suitable areas for woodland creation, FCW has created woodland planting maps using similar ‘traffic light’ colouring to that used by Polyscape in this project. This zoning has been prepared by FCW with input from a variety of stakeholders including CCW, Archaeological Trusts, Wales Environment Link, EAW, the National Parks and AONBs based on a sensitivity analysis of where new woodland will be most appropriate. All of Wales has been divided into four zones showing where: • planting can go ahead without consultation (coloured green); • planting requires the use of specific prescriptions (shown hatched green); • local consultation and possibly survey is required before planting is approved (coloured

amber); and • no planting will be allowed as a result of the land’s designated status, the presence of

deep peat, etc (coloured red).

8.32. The maps are subject to change as decisions about the constraints on planting are revised. The distribution of these areas in the project area (as downloaded from the FCW website on 26 November 2010) is shown in Figure 8.3.

114

Figure 8.3. Woodland planting constraints map of Glastir creation scheme for the project area

Source for Figure 8.3: http://maps.forestry.gov.uk, accessed on 26 November 2010. Note: Green line running east from Abersytwyth is the A44 trunk road and does not signify a planting area. Green hatched areas (planting with specific prescriptions) are not shown.

8.33. It is important to appreciate that the FCW woodland creation maps seek to identify constraints on planting (ensuring that woodland is not planted in areas where it would be inappropriate on environmental or other grounds, but not including agricultural productivity) but do not attempt to identify the most appropriate opportunity areas (although this may be added in future). They do not currently show where there is a presumption in favour of planting, or where new woodland could achieve most benefit. For instance, the maps have not taken account of the modelling of woodland habitat networks, although the woodland habitat networks can be viewed as a separate layer on the FCW mapping web page.

8.34. The maps might be considered to contribute somewhat to CBCC Principle 2 (reducing non-climate sources of harm) but do little to conserve core wildlife sites and the range and variability of habitats (Principle 1) or to develop ecologically resilient landscapes (Principle 3).

115

8.35. Furthermore, the weakness of this approach is that the user may be encouraged to think that the green areas are where woodland planting is most suitable or most feasible. In fact, the green areas only indicate where there is a lack of environmental constraints on planting. In addition, these areas generally include the most agriculturally productive land where competition for land use is likely to be high. In reality, it is in the amber areas where significant woodland creation may be most achievable, accepting that specific constraints need to be taken into account. It is also in these amber areas that the results of this study suggest that woodland planting may achieve the greatest benefits, as shown in the opportunity areas identified for biodiversity (Figure 6.8) and for biodiversity with other services (Figure 6.24).

8.36. A significant difference between the FCW woodland creation areas and the opportunity maps produced by this study occurs in some of the lower valleys, particularly on the valley floors, where the FCW map shows this land as being unsuitable for woodland planting. One such area is the Rheidol Valley between Aberffrwd and Aberystwyth. It is understood that these areas are considered unsuitable for planting because of the impact that this would have on flood storage. This is not incompatible with the findings of this study which recognises that different types of land use change may be required to meet the requirements of biodiversity and other service benefits.

KEY MESSAGES FROM THIS STUDY FOR POLICY • Notwithstanding the limitations of data on existing land use, the likely changes that will

arise as a result of climate change, and the most effective interventions to aid biodiversity adaptation, the CBCC Principles can be applied at a landscape scale in an area such as the Cambrian Mountains to establish overall priorities for changes in land use and management that will aid adaptation of biodiversity to climate change.

• It is helpful to consider other policy objectives (or ecosystem services) alongside biodiversity adaptation because of the increasingly multi-functional objectives that are placed on land and because of the importance of engaging with different stakeholders. Climate change will touch on all of these objectives and policy interventions will be more effective where they have been taken into account from the start.

• In rural areas such as the Cambrian Mountains it is essential to involve farmers in decisions about changes in land use and management. Taking account of the agricultural productivity of land, as one of the key ecosystem services, helps engage farmers in the decision making process and ensures that this increasingly important objective is taken in account. The constraints and opportunities presented by individual farmers are not always easy to predict, with social and cultural issues being as significant as the perhaps more predictable economic ones.

• This study has started to demonstrate the value of interactive spatial modelling tools such as Polyscape as a means of bringing evidence from monitoring and research into spatial discussions with stakeholders, both at the level of strategic policy development and ‘on-the-ground’ delivery. It is important to appreciate that these modelling approaches provide a means to reach better informed decisions, but that the models rely heavily on decisions and judgements by stakeholders rather than providing the answers on their own.

• From a brief review of current agri-environment schemes taking shape in the project area, it would appear that some of the CBCC Principles are evident in the way the schemes are being delivered, but that there is significant scope firstly to improve the

116

way existing data and scientific understanding feed into this process and secondly, to ensure that all the CBCC Principles are addressed consistently in the spatial targeting and uptake of agri-environment interventions. This is particularly the case in terms of identifying opportunities at a landscape, and then farm holding, scale for developing ecologically resilient and varied landscapes (Principle 3).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adger and Subak (1996), Estimating Above-Ground Carbon Fluxes from UK Agricultural Land, The Geographical Journal, 162(2), 191-204.

Adger, WN, Brown, K, Shiel, RS and Whitby, MC (1992) Carbon Dynamics of Land Use in Great Britain, Journal of Environmental Management, 36, 117-133.

Allott, T. E. H., Monteith, D. T., Patrick, S. T., Duigan, C. A., Lancaster, J., Seda, M., Kirika, A., Bennion, H. & Harriman, R. (1994) Integrated Classification and Assessment of Lakes in Wales: Phase I. CCW Contract Science Report 85. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

BSI (2008). Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institute for The Carbon Trust and Defra

Cacador, I, Costa, AL and Vale, C (2004) Carbon storage in Tagus salt marsh sediments, Water, Air and Soil Pollution: Focus 4, 701-714.

Cambrian Mountain Society (2008). Comments of the Cambrian Mountains Society to the Cambrian Mountains Recreation Vehicle Pilot Project Draft Report.

CBD (2006) Guidance for promoting synergy among activities addressing biological diversity, desertification, land degradation and climate change. Technical Series No. 25. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

CCW (2009). The green infrastructure framework for ecosystem services. CCW P 09 39.

Conkling, BL, Hoover, CM, Smith, WD and Palmer, CJ (2002) Using forest heath monitoring data to integrate above and below ground carbon information, Environmental Pollution 116, 221-232.

Cruickshank, MM, Tomlinson, RW, Devine, PM and Milne, R (1998) Carbon in the Vegetation and Soils of Northern Ireland, Biology and Environment- Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 98B, 9-21.

Defra (2007a). Conserving Biodiversity in a changing climate: guidance on building capacity to adapt. Published by Defra on behalf of the UK Biodiversity Partnership. PB12597

Defra (2007b). Securing a healthy natural environment: An action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach. PB12853 November 2007

Defra (2008) Analysis of historical data sets to look for impacts of land use and management change on flood generation, FD2120, Final Report

Defra (2010). Natural Environment: Adapting To Climate Change. PB13323 March 2010

Evans M, Allott T, Holden J, Flitcroft C and Bonn A (eds) (2005). Understanding Gully Blocking in Deep Peat. Moors for the Future Report No 2.

exeGesIS SDM Ltd (2008). Cambrian Mountains Recreation Vehicle Pilot Project Draft Report. Report prepared for CCW with the County Councils of Powys, Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire.

Foresight Land Use Futures Project (2010). Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London

FRA (2005) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Global Assessment of Growing Stock, Biomass and Carbon Stock.

FRA (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Country Reports: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island.

Gardiner, B., Suarez, J., Achim, A., Hale, S. and Nicoll, B. (2004). ForestGALES 2 - A PC-based wind risk model for British forests. User Guide. Forestry Commission.

Hopkins JJ, Allison M, Walmsley CA, Gaywood M and Thurgate G, (2007). Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate: guidance on building capacity to adapt. Published by Defra on behalf of the UK Biodiversity Partnership. PB12597 May 2007

IPCC (2000). Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. ISBN: 92-9169-113-5

IPCC (2006) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22.

Jackson, B. M.; Wheater, H. S.; McIntyre, N. R.; Chell, J.; Francis, O. J.; Frogbrook, Z.; Marshall, M.; Reynolds, B.; Solloway, I.(2008) The impact of upland land management on flooding: insights from a multiscale experimental and modelling programme. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 1. 71-80

Jenkins G, Murphy J, Sexton D, Lowe J, Jones P, Kilsby C (2009). UKCP09 Briefing Report. http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/826/500/

Jones, B (2007) Framework to Set Conservation Objectives and Achieve Favourable Condition in Welsh Upland SSSIs. Published by the Countryside Council for Wales, February 2007.

Land Use Consultants (1990) The Cambrian Mountains Landscape. The Countryside Commission

Land Use Consultants (2007) Sustainable Rural Development: A Potential Pilot for the Cambrian Mountains: Phase 1 Report

Latham, J, et al. (2008) CCW Staff Science Report No. 08/7/1

Lawton, J.H. et al (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra.

MEA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis , eds., Island Press. www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

Monteith, D., Hildrew, A. G., Flower, R. J., Raven, P. J., Beaumont, W. R. B., Collen, P., Kreiser, A. M., Shilland, E. M. & Winterbottom, J. H. (2005) Biological responses to the chemical recovery of acidified fresh waters in the UK. Environmental Pollution 137, 83-101.

National Ecosystems Assessment. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/

NEGTAP (2001) Transboundary Air Pollution: Acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone in the UK. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh.

Patenaude G., (2003). The carbon pool in a British semi-natural woodland. Forestry. 76 (1) 109-119

Patenaude, G, Hill, RA, Milne, R, Gaveau, DLA, Briggs, BBJ, Dawson, TP (2004) Quantifying forest above ground carbon content using LiDAR remote sensing, Remote Sensing of Environment 95, 368-380.

Ries, L., Fletcher, R.J. Jr, Battin, J. & Sisk, T.D. (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: Mechanisms, models and variability explained. Annual Review Ecology and Evolutionary Systematics, 35: 491–522.

Smart, S.M.; Allen, D.; Murphy, J.; Carey, P.D.; Emmett, B.A.; Reynolds, B.; Simpson, I.C.; Evans, R.A.; Skates, J.; Scott, W.A.; Maskell, L.C.; Norton, L.R.; Rossall, M.J.; Wood, C. (2009) Countryside Survey: Wales Results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Welsh Assembly Government, Countryside Council for Wales, 94pp. (CEH Project Number: C03259).

Smith, P., Milne, R., Powlson, D., Smith, J., Falloon, P. and Coleman, K. (2000), Revised estimates of the carbon mitigation potential of UK agricultural land, Soil Use and Management, Soil Use and Management 16(4), 293-295.

Smithers RJ, Cowan C, Harley M, Hopkins JJ, Pontier H & Watts O (2008). England Biodiversity Strategy: Climate Change Adaptation Principles. Published by Defra on behalf of the England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation Workstream Secretariat

Stern, N (2006). The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Published in 2007 in Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor R, Jones A & Edwards-Jones G (2010). Measuring holistic carbon footprints for lamb and beef farms in the Cambrian Mountains Initiative. School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEEB). http://www.teebweb.org/

TSO (2000). Climate Change. The UK Programme. Cmd. 4913.

WAG (2010) Low Carbon Energy Policy Statement; and WAG (2009) Farming, Food & Countryside – Building a Secure Future

Walmsley C.A. et al. (2007). MONARCH: Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate Change – a synthesis for biodiversity conservation. UKCIP Technical Report, Oxford