ecosystem services and peatland restoration · 2018-05-16 · bare peat - ~ 500 ha of 2900 ha...

Paul Leadbitter, Programme Manager

Paul Leadbitter, Peatland Programme Manager

Ecosystem Services and Peatland Restoration

Pennine PeatLIFELIFE16 NAT/UK/000725

Ecosystem Services

• Aka green services, green infrastructure. etc.• Not a new concept.• Plato referenced ES in 400 BC.• Concept developed momentum from 1950’s

until Millennium Ecosystem and TEEB report.

Ecosystem Services

Evolution of ES and Peatlands in North Pennines AONB

• North Pennines Peatland Programme started in 2006 known as Peatscapes.

• Seed funding was from Environment Agency based on water quality and quantity.

• Was to be a ‘hearts and minds’ project.• It has evolved into a decade long programme

based on peatland ecosystem services.• Why?• How?

• 100,000 ha of peat• 61,000 ha of SSSI• 30% of England’s Blanket Bog• England’s largest Blanket Bog• Average depth 200 cm• 60% in degraded state

North Pennines AONB Peatlands

Where to start?

• Identify the resource.• Identify threats.• What do we know?• What don’t we know?• Map.• Quantify.• Prioritise.• Promote.• Fund.• Restore.

• Repeat.

Why is Peat Important?

BiodiversityFloodingWater ColourSediment LoadingCarbon Store/Sink Historical Record

Threats• Drainage • Burning• Grazing• Tracks• Wind Farms• Climate Change

North Pennines AONB Peatlands

• AONB wide survey completed for drains and damaged peat completed

• 10,000 km of ditches

• 2900 ha of eroding peat

• Overwhelming evidence of significant damage to blanket bog and their ecosystem services

• 10,000 km of ditches

Why is Peat Important?

BiodiversityFloodingWater ColourSediment LoadingCarbon Store/Sink Historical Record

ES - Flooding and Water Colour

Grips and bare peat areas are related to increased flooding and an increase in water colour.

Grip blocking - to date ~ 9000 km of the 10,000 km blocked.1) At some scales grip blocking smooths out flows compared to unblocked grips.2) Blocking slowed the flow out of blocked grips vs unblocked grips.3)There are no significant differences in DOC between blocked and open grips.

Bare Peat - ~ 500 ha of 2900 ha restored1) Overland flow has a significantly faster velocity when passing over bare peat compared to vegetated peat. Sphagnum mosses were found to be the most efficient vegetation type to slow the movement of water by increasing “surface roughness” (Holden et al., 2008). 2) Bare peat restoration can reduce DOC.

Can we derive a £, € or $ value for this? Is this a silver bullet?

Site level ES evaluation is complicated.

Solution = Restoration

ES - Carbon

How much Carbon Is There?

Peat (ha) T/ha Carbon CO2

90,000 500 45,000,000 164,700,000

90,000 1,000 90,000,000 329,400,000

90,000 1,500 135,000,000 494,100,000

We are still not sure yet.

• NPAP lead on a National Peat Carbon project.

• 10,000s of peat depth points from across England.

• Used GIS to develop a model to predict carbon amount.

• Model is being refined.

UK currently emits 3 million tonnes of peat CO2 per year

£282,000,000 of carbon damage/avoided costs per year

Each tonne of CO2 released = £34 of ‘carbon damage’ Each tonne costs £60 to recover

Each tonne kept in peat saves £94

~£100,000,000 has been spent on peat restoration since 2000*

Defra – ‘Peat Restoration is beneficial for Climate Change’

ES - Historic Environment

Pennine PeatLIFELIFE16 NAT/UK/000725

The aim of the Pennine PeatLIFE project is to demonstrate and evaluate Blanket Bog (*7130) restoration techniques suited to northern England and the development and showcasing of a financial payment for ecosystem services (PES) mechanism in the UK Peatland Code.

Pennine PeatLIFE objectives:

1. Demonstrating financially viable region-specific and sustainable Sphagnum based restoration techniques for re-activating 1353 ha of blanket bog in northern England.

2. Demonstrating through ‘Concept to Contract’ trials, the UK Peatland Code, as a viable payment for ecosystem services for upland peatlands.

3. Demonstrating new approaches using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) to assess vegetation change as a proxy measure for monitoring change in ecosystem services benefits of blanket bog undergoing restoration and as a validation tool for the UK Peatland Code.

4. Disseminating the demonstration activities to policy makers, landowners and managers, government agencies, NGOs, and other key stakeholders in the UK and across the EU.

Expected Results

1. 1353 ha of blanket bog (*7130) restored;2. Avoided losses of 26 000 t/C02, plus 1 327.5 t/C02 sequestered after five years;3. Wider stakeholder awareness as to the importance of peatlands;4. A better methodology for the use of UAVs in restoration monitoring;5. Detailed assessment of a PES mechanism - UK Peatland Code;6. A UK and EU wide increase in the awareness of the UK Peatland Code;7. Development of a legally binding contract for PES;

Conclusions

• Biodiversity is best.• ES are different at different scales.• ES are difficult to monetise.• ES come and go in importance.• Bundling ES is effective.• Look for low hanging fruit• Need to keep pushing the ES agenda.

• ES priorities are different for different sectors agencies, funders and decision makers.

• Quantifying exact benefits is difficult – i.e. €1 spent on restoration gives € 1.50 in benefits.

• Bundling of benefits can work.• Ethics still problematic?• To date most funding (~€ 12 million) has come

from biodiversity and flooding pots with the acknowledgement that other benefits come with these.

Conclusions

The UK Peatland Code

From ‘Concept to Contract’

A reminder: Why are Peatlands Important?

BiodiversityWater ColourWater SupplyFloodingSediment LoadingCarbon Historical RecordEconomy

€1.50 Flooding?

What is Blanket Bog worth?

€4.00 Carbon Store?

€3.20 Biodiversity?

€1.65 Sediment?

€0.65 Water Colour?

Paul Leadbitter, Programme Manager

Paul Leadbitter, Peatland Programme Manager

Pennine PeatLIFELIFE16 NAT/UK/000725

Thank YouLIFE Programme

Yorkshire Water

Northumbrian Water

United Utilities

Environment Agency

NAME TITLE ORGANISATION E MAIL ADDRESS

Paul Leadbitter Peatland Programme Manager North Pennines AONB Partnership pleadbitter@northpenninesaonb.org.uk

Tim Thom Peatland Programme Manager Yorkshire Wildlife Trust tim.thom@yppartnership.org.uk

Elliott Lorimer Principal Officer Forest of Bowland AONB elliott.Lorimer@lancashire.gov.uk

Emma Taylor Field Officer North Pennines AONB Partnership emma@northpenninesaonb.org.uk

Alistair Lockett Field Officer North Pennines AONB Partnership alistair@northpenninesaonb.org.uk

Christopher Miller Peatland Restoration Officer Yorkshire Wildlife Trust christopher.miller@yppartnership.org.uk

Jenny Sharman Peatland Restoration Officer Yorkshire Wildlife Trust jenny.sharman@yppartnership.org.uk

Mark Brown GIS & Remote Sensing Officer Yorkshire Wildlife Trust mark.brown@ywt.org.uk

Joanna Richards Communications Manager IUCN UK Peatland Programme joanna.Richards@iucn.org.uk

Christopher Osborne Earth Observation Officer Yorkshire Peat Partnership christopher.osborne@yppartnership.org.uk

Lyndon Marquis Communications Officer Yorkshire Wildlife Trust lyndon.marquis@iucn.org.uk

Sylvia Cleasby Admin. Assistant North Pennines AONB Partnership sylvia@northpenninesaonb.org.uk

Christopher Watt Peatland Conservation Trainee North Pennines AONB Partnership c.watt@northpenninesaonb.org.uk

Pennine PeatLIFE Team