Watch our webinar with Yorkshire Water here. 

We hosted a webinar with Yorkshire Water on scaling nature-based solutions for targeted water outcomes. This webinar focused on the work carried out in the Wharfe catchment to identify interventions that have the potential to improve bathing water quality at the designated site in Ilkley.  In just 8 weeks, we analysed a 132,000 ha catchment, identified the highest-impact nature-based interventions to address pollution at source. The result: 1,400 ha of prioritised land converted into a pipeline of 15 deployable projects, underpinned by an initial financial view of impact and cost, and active engagement with 36% of prioritised landholders. The programme is now moving into its investment and business case phase.

Hear from our speakers on how we did this and what it means for Yorkshire Water’s forward programme:

• Miles Cameron – Manager of Strategic Partnerships (Bathing Water), Yorkshire Water
• Claire Burke – Head of Applied Sciences, Zora Ecosystems
• Andrea Gysin – Head of Water, Zora Ecosystems

If you're working on bathing water outcomes, diffuse agricultural pollution, or building the business case for nature-based solutions at scale, join us to see how a landscape-scale opportunity is being built, backed by cutting-edge science and tech.

Click HERE to access the full recording.

Questions & answers

We have provided responses to the questions received during the webinar below. Didn't get a chance to ask your question? Please email hello@zora.eco and we will be sure to answer directly.

Did you consider other water ecosystems service benefits, noting that there is flood risk in Ilkley?

For this project our focus was specifically on improving bathing water quality, however, the flood model in MOSAIC allows us to model flood risk and how this can be reduced through natural flood management (NFM) interventions.  The wider Partnerships team in Yorkshire Water have been engaged throughout the project to identify potential synergies/co-benefits.

How did you determine the major source of pollution was agriculture and not human in origin?

Microbial source tracing, undertaken previously by Yorkshire Water in collaboration with the Environment Agency showed that that the sources of pollution were from both human (via the combined sewer overflow – CSO) and animal sources (including sheep, cattle, horses, dogs).  As part of the project, we were able to correlate recorded pathogen loads during periods of rainfall with modelled loads from livestock and data from CSO operations. Overall sources of pollution are both agricultural and industrial. For this catchment there has also been some academic research evidencing 60-70% of pathogen load has agricultural origins.

How do you model pathogen loads from livestock?

We’ve built a proprietary model to estimate livestock densities.  Using aerial imagery taken over several years, we’ve trained a machine learning algorithm to detect and count sheep.  We apply peer-reviewed methods from statistical ecology to translate the raw counts into population densities and produce the map.

We combine this with academic insights on pathogen loads from livestock and their transport through soils and water to estimate pathogen concentrations in the water course.

Do E.coli concentrations cumulate travelling downstream, is there potential for sources upstream to be also impacting measuring points downstream?

Yes, there is clear evidence for this – both in academic literature and specific data and data from the Wharfe catchment show that there are multiple upstream sources impacting bathing water at Ilkley.

We're one of the landowners within your study area and have done E.coli sampling over the last year. Can these samples be incorporated into this to better improve your targeting of measures / landowners?

Absolutely – we would welcome a direct discussion to make sure we are using the best available data.

Were landowners engaged and if so, what was the outcome from this?

Yes, in the first phase of the project we identified 36% of the landholders in the priority area and engaged with a number to develop an initial pipeline for 15 project to confirm that there was appetite to consider nature-based interventions.  All of the landholders we approached were keen to engage and we are now actively scoping the first group of projects in collaboration with the landholders.

Were any other funding sources reviewed such as Countryside Stewardship? Maintenance funding can be a challenge to source.

Yes, this is central to our scoping reports – we will look at a range of funding options including Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs, which encompasses Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), Countryside Stewardship and Landscape Recovery) together with partnership funding from private sources and the sale of credits through compliance markets including carbon and biodiversity net gain (BNG).

Have you considered peatland restoration as an opportunity for both carbon sequestration and water ecosystem service delivery?

We can model peatland restoration impacts from both water and carbon perspectives; it can support flood attenuation and water resources, and the carbon is a great outcome that can be monetised by the landholder. For this project, peatland restoration was a lower priority as we identified very little contribution to improvements in bathing water quality when compared with other interventions.  We will nevertheless flag the potential for peatland restoration to those landholders for whom it is applicable should there be an appetite to pursue it independently of the project with Yorkshire Water.

What area/size of landholding is the MOSAIC platform applicable to and what is the granularity of the data?

MOSAIC can process any GB catchment size at a default granularity of 10m.  As we develop individual projects, we can increase this granularity using finer resolution data and information from the ground.  We can look at individual landholdings starting from a few hectares and can model impacts across geographically dispersed landholding portfolios.

How are you reflecting future climate scenarios in the MOSAIC tool?

Our impact models are physics-driven, so we can include changing weather and climate conditions as drivers.  For interventions themselves we have taken academic and practitioner expertise to understand what species will thrive in what habitats under future climate change scenarios.

Have you explored different approaches to governance and blended finance which work with multiple parties and can be adaptive over the long-term?  Is there a way to put a value, not a cost, on this restoration work?

Absolutely – where practical we will consider the value of the ecosystem services our projects provide. Compliance markets make this very transparent (and we are considering BNG in some of the projects in the Wharfe), but we have also started to value NFM interventions based on avoided damages, for example.

How transferable is this approach to Scotland, given that BNG isn’t currently a driver?

Whilst the compliance market doesn’t exist in Scotland, we are finding that some clients, particularly regulated businesses, are setting similar targets for biodiversity gains to those in England.  The driver for many of our projects in Scotland has been carbon, however, we are seeing an increasing demand for wider ecosystem services (particularly water-related outcomes). 

How has having this data changed relationships? Clearly there’s a need for evidence-based business cases/decisions but in what ways has having a shared understanding and prioritisation moved the dial?

The work has been well received by stakeholders across Yorkshire Water; it has provided clear evidence for how to prioritise this engagement based on where interventions will have the greatest impact.  The response from landholders has been very positive, with all landholders we have engaged being keen to explore how they can participate.  We’re currently developing the business cases for initial projects.

What length of commitment are you seeking from landowners?

The duration of the commitment will depend on the funding mechanism – BNG requires a 30-year commitment, whilst some ELMs can be as little as 3 years.  Clearly, we are seeking a reduction in pathogens entering the water course in perpetuity and hope to achieve this through a combination of formal commitments and education/communication.