Opportunities for Payments for Ecosystem Services

in

Peatlands

Intrinsic value Should we only value what we can put a price on

and value as humans?

A human problem... Caused by not sufficiently valuing the things we

can’t put a price tag on, but that society relies on

PES ...a very human solution Creating an economic incentive to look after

more of our countryside But must avoid being biased towards services

that are easy to monetise

Payments for Ecosystem Services A voluntary transaction where A well-defined ecosystem service (or land use

likely to secure that service) Is being “bought” by a (minimum one)

ecosystem service buyer From a (minimum one) ecosystem service

provider If and only if the ecosystem service provider

secures provision (conditionality)

Opportunities for peatland PES1. Climate regulation through carbon

sequestration and storage in peat soils

2. Regulation of water quality

3. Regulation of wildfire risk

4. Cultural ecosystem services

1. Climate regulationPotential to enhance this service: Restoration can stem loss & absorb carbon Short-term CH4 problem, long-term GHG benefit Co-benefits

Market demand Market demand estimated between 1-10M

tonnes carbon reduction p.a. (BRE, 2009) Pay premium for UK-based carbon from land-

based project that has co-benefits Voluntary carbon markets and CSR operating at

a very small scale Need Government guidance to help regulate &

expand this emerging market to ensure: Long-term, additional climate benefits Avoid trade-offs with other important services

UK Peatland Carbon Code Provide projects & investors with scientific basis

for good practice in peatland restoration Option to include peatland restoration in official

carbon accounting to become “carbon neutral” Greenhouse Gas Accounting Guidelines Not possible to trade this carbon, so... Government could count it towards Kyoto targets if

we sign up to “peatland re-wetting” option

UK Peatland Carbon Code If designed to meet the Verified Carbon

Standard: Peatland Code would be cheaper alternative that

would still provide investors with confidence Possible to generate trade-able carbon credits for

voluntary carbon market (and perhaps compliance markets in future)

A Code could boost both peatland CSR and carbon markets, making more restoration possible

UK Peatland Carbon Code Next steps:

IUCN establishing Peatland Code group including science panel

Develop GHG accounting methods Form a Peatland Alliance of businesses interested in

funding pilot projects IUCN launching a Peatland Gateway

Co-ordinate monitoring of restoration projects Knowledge exchange about peatland restoration between

researchers and policy & practitioner communities

2. Regulation of water quality Some water companies already paying for WQ

via land management Most interest from companies:

With high proportion of peatland catchments upon which they can influence land management

With current Dissolved Organic Carbon problems (brown water)

With concerns about future DOC problems under climate change

Flood regulation Evidence too equivocal for inclusion in PES

schemes Impact of restoration on flood regulation

depends on: Type of peat Its topographic and catchment location Intensity & type of restoration Location of restoration with

respect to river channels (danger of flood wave synchronicity)

Viki Hirst – water@leeds KE Fellow • VNN & water@leeds

‘Reducing the cost of the Water Framework Directive through Payments for Water Services’ 9th May 2012

• Aims• address barriers and identify options • share examples • assess the economics of WFD implementation • identify the best ways to continue sharing knowledge

• Links very well with • IUCN Commission of inquiry on peatlands• Today’s discussion – excellent timing• Write up from today will inform the 9th May event and proceedings• From 9th May we will write a briefing note bringing together

• Science understanding• Policy issues • Future requirements and suggestions• Wider interests of those involved• Will provide the best base for future decisions, make

suggestions – and will raise awareness of issues

3. Regulation of wildfire risk Restoration raises water table Reduces risk of wildfires burning deep into peat No market for wildfire risk regulation, but may

contribute towards the attractiveness of PES schemes based on carbon or water

4. Cultural Ecosystem Services Hard to monetarise, but options emerging Spatial planning approaches to pay for

restoration of sites that could be used for restoration near new developments Section 106 agreements/Community Infrastructure

Levy Habitat banking/ biodiversity offsets

Visitor Payback as a PES Where visitor payback schemes in National

Parks elicit payments from individual visitors or companies that pay for specific projects that enhance (usually cultural) ecosystem services in the Park

Additional money at a time of Government cut-backs to pay for projects in National Parks that provide cultural services to society...

Uptake

?

X

Opportunities to expand1. Interest from DEFRA and Scottish Government

in PES – notably NEWP commitments

2. Technological advances may reduce administration costs, achieve economies of scale without losing local distinctiveness, educate new audiences and make contributions easier

3. Bundling visitor payback with other ecosystem services e.g. offset your travel

Conclusions Don’t be dazzled by the economics – avoid

trade-offs & be aware of stakeholders needs Opportunities to bundle PES:

Bundling payments for co-benefits of restoration may add value to carbon and/or water schemes

Bundling carbon offsetting with visitor payback? Integrate with CAP for cost-

effective & fair administration?

Need for regulation