1. Natural Capital in the HotSW
Sarah Jennings, County Ecologist DCC and Devon Local Nature Partnership Manager

2. What is Natural Capital?
Natural capital = the renewable and non renewable ASSETS on which we depend e.g.
Geology, soils, water, air, climate
Complex habitats e.g. seas, estuaries, rivers, woodland, wetlands, soil
Wildlife e.g. bees, fungi, birds, fish, mussels, plants
Accessible green space e.g. parks, nature reserves
Landscapes
Renewable assets should last forever provided they stay above critical thresholds. If not then they are lost forever.
Healthy natural capital assets provide us with essential services – known as ecosystem services
Soils = crops, C storage, water storage & flood control
Woodland = timber, C storage, temperature regulation, pollution filter, recreation
Seas = food, recreation
Wildlife = pollinators, decomposition, predator control, recreation

4. Why is healthy NC relevant to the LEP? Examples of benefits
Attracts Inward investment – Met Office relocation, Forward Space
Attracts Innovation – Offshore Shellfish Ltd
Provides a competitive advantage – NC underpins branding
Minerals – ball clay, tungsten
Underpins core rural sectors – farming, orchards, fishing, tourism
Health & wellbeing – provides recreational opportunites
Provides resilience – NC can help protect us from flooding, store C, reduce air pollution

5. Why is Natural Capital relevant to the LEP?
Quotes from Dieter Helm, Professor of Economic Policy, Oxford University and Chair of the Natural Capital Committee
Natural Capital assets are at the heart of the economy – no different to roads, railways, broadband & electricity.
Any serious discussion around sustainable economic growth has to include Natural Capital – if you are seriously into economic growth you have to get seriously into Natural Capital.
The damage to the natural environment accelerated during the twentieth century, and now is already reducing economic growth and development…… our economic well- being depends upon a flourishing natural environment.

6. Why is Natural Capital relevant to the LEP? Context
Global Natural Capital Coalition – Coca Cola, Credit Suisse, Shell, Viridor, Unilever etc -
Government commitment to the environment
2011, Natural Environment White Paper
2012, establishment of the Natural Capital Committee– reports to the Treasury
2018, 25 Year Environment Plan
Environment is one of the five foundations of the Industrial Strategy
HotSW – ambition to trail blaze a Natural Capital approach to productivity….

7. Why is Natural Capital relevant to the LEP?
The HotSW’s USP IS its Natural Capital Eight AONBs, two National Parks, two coasts, amazing estuaries, culm grassland, Somerset levels, rich soils, minerals, fantastic outdoor recreational opportunities etc etc etc The HotSW is therefore THE obvious place to ‘trail blaze a Natural Capital approach to Productivity’ Lots of interest, two Universities carrying out research into NC, two national Pioneers, Ian Bateman (NCC) etc etc As Prof Helm says – ‘we need to get on with it’!

8. Dieter Helm - Natural Capital Accounting approach
Based on an understanding of assets and benefits – which are not taken into account by GDP – leading to unsustainable growth.
Rule = the aggregate level of NC should not decline & should be improved. NC assets must remain above any critical thresholds.
We therefore need to know:
What and where are our NC assets?
What state are they in?
What do we need to do to protect them / meet critical thresholds / higher targets?

9. What are our key NC assets and what state are they in?
Lots of work already done to map and assess NC assets in the HotSW e.g
FC/Woodland Trust – existing woodland and priority areas for planting
EA/LAs - high risk soils for flooding
EA – rivers/ water bodies assessed against WFD targets
NE – mapping and monitoring of SSSIs
Local Records Centres - mapping and monitoring of priority habitats
Local Authorities – accessible green spaces / air quality management areas
CPRE – dark skies / tranquility
Mapping done by Catchment Partnerships – WCRT etc
NC mapping being commissioned by the Exmoor Society
See draft table……….note not all monitoring currently based on provision of ecosystem services……..

10. What do we need to do? Prof Dieter Helm’s recommendations include :
Taking a strategic long term approach using a mix of voluntary actions, public/private funding, regulation/policy
Regulation where needed
Compensation for unavoidable losses (not everything can be protected)
Green taxes (polluter pays)
Paying farmers for public goods
Compensation for use of non renewables to be used to manage renewables (Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund)
Better use of existing funding
Learn from existing work………..

11. Case studies – Soil and wetlands
SWW Upstream Thinking
Problem = Cost of cleaning water / wetland habitats lost or in poor condition.
Solution = Catchment restoration. SWW recognize that it is cheaper to fund farmers to deliver cleaner raw water than it is to pay to treat water downstream. A partnership project between SWW, Westcountry Rivers Trust, National Parks, Devon Wildlife Trust and FWAG SW delivered over £9 million worth of restoration between Measures included mire restoration, culm grassland restoration, woodland planting and pesticides advice.
Benefits to NC = upland bogs restored, soils managed appropriately
Benefits to SWW and consumers = savings to customers and healthier habitats.

12. Case studies – Soil and wetlands
Poole Harbour nitrogen offsetting project
Problem = Excessive nitrogen entering Poole Harbour Special Protection Area + excessive cost of a new nitrogen removal plant at Dorchester STW.
Solution = Catchment approach. Wessex Water is working with farmers to reduce nitrate in the catchment (e.g. growing cover crops to reduce leaching), compensating them where appropriate. Development of EnTrade – a national online trading platform that allows farmers to bid for catchment funding.
Benefits to NC = improved water quality in Poole Harbour helping to meet WFD targets.
Benefits to SWW and consumers = savings to customers and healthier habitats.

13. Case studies – Soil and wetlands
Somerset Hills to Levels Partnership
Problem = Devastation caused by the 2013/14
floods.
Solution = Natural Flood Management measures promoted in the catchments of the rivers Parrett, Tone and Brue to ‘slow the flow’ & reduce loss of soil from fields. Advice and grants available. Funding from the People’s Postcode Lottery, Somerset Rivers Authority and EU Interreg 2 Seas fund (Triple C).
Benefits to NC = Improved soil quality and wildlife habitats.
Benefits to people = 150 properties protected in and around the Somerset levels + others in the upper catchment.
Future: Hoped that funding will be available through a new agri-environment scheme.

14. Case study – marine habitats / fish & shellfish
Lyme Bay Fisheries and Conservation Reserve
Problem = Depletion of rich reef habitats due to scallop dredging and bottom trawling & resulting depletion of fish stocks. Overfishing by pots and nets.
Solution = Regulation (60 sq miles closed to mobile fishing in 2008). Lyme Bay Working Group (four local ports and local fishing associations) has agreed a voluntary code of conduct to ensure that assets remain above critical thresholds. Lyme Bay Seafood Brand developed to help fishermen achieve top pricing for their catch. Accredited to the Seafish Responsible Fishing Scheme.
Benefits to NC = Monitoring undertaken by Plymouth University shows that the reefs are recovering.
Benefits to people = Restored habitats ensure sustainable fisheries. Divers and anglers attracted to the area. Plymouth monitoring.

15. Case study – Accessible green space
Derriford Community Park
Problem = lack of accessible green space for existing and new Plymouth residents.
Solution = Derriford Community Park. Revenue generated from an education centre (admin by a Community Trust) will resource park maintenance.
Benefits to NC = protection and management of existing habitats and creation of species rich meadows, wetlands etc
Benefits to people = increased recreational opportunities, increased health and wellbeing, cycle routes, local food production– increased H&W – reduced costs to NHS and employers…….

16. Case study – Compensation to ensure no loss
South Devon Link Road
Problem: Unavoidable loss of habitats and wildlife (bats, cirl buntings, great crested newts) – planning policy / legislation requires compensation.
Solution: Developer (DCC) made a financial contribution to RSPB to purchase Labrador Bay and manage for bats and cirl buntings.
Benefits to NC: Long term management of habitat secured. Meets Dieter’s ‘no aggregate loss of NC’ rule.
Future: National net gain approach / toolkits being developed (commitment in 25 YEP). Largely developer led.

17. Pioneers and SWEEP……….

18. Potential next steps ???
A joint LEP/LNP/H&WBB HotSW Natural Capital Coalition is set up to champion and lead a NC approach for the HotSW. This could:
Maintain and publish a register of NC Assets and their condition
Publish a clear statement of intent to ensure a healthy stock of NC assets
Identify priorities for strategic investment in NC assets and base funding decisions on a NC approach
Help ALL businesses to take a NC approach (invest in skills, knowledge and technology) and champion those that do
Share learning across the HotSW and from other areas
Develop new innovative approaches to improving our stock of NC assets – lots of opportunities to grasp e.g.
Developing new agri-environment schemes which work for farmers and NC - e.g. the Exmoor Ambition
Developing a new net gain / protected species approach which works for developers and NC
Champion new approaches to achieving high quality GI in all development schemes – rolling funds?
Work with partners to ensure that existing funds are better aligned / spent to benefit NC