mark reed
Post on 20-Oct-2014
978 views
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
IntroductionClifton Bain, Aletta Bonn, Chris Evans, Klaus
Glenk, Viki Hirst & Mark Reed
Valuing Nature Network
Valuing Peatlands project
Valuing changes in stocks and flows of ecosystemservices in complex socio-ecological systems – usingpeatlands as a case study
Using this information to help design financialmechanisms to pay for the provision of ecosystemservices in future
Why are we here?
Huge interest in Payments for Ecosystem Services
Why are we here?
National policy:
Natural Environment White Paper, Payments forEcosystem Services Action Plan &Best Practice Guide (this pm)
Emphasis on valuing theenvironment andincorporating these valuesin decision-making inLiving Wales Green Paperand Scotland’s Land UseStrategy
Why are we here?
Growing interest from water companies and otherbusinesses in PES:
Presentations from water companies today
See case studies being developed for DEFRA PES BestPractice Guide
Ecosystem Markets Taskforce exploring PES and othermechanisms to “develop green goods, services,investment vehicles and markets which value andprotect the environment”
Why are we here?
New research and networking initiatives: Valuing Nature Network
Ecosystems Knowledge Network
Follow-on to the National Ecosystem Assessment
NERC KE fellows e.g. Viki Hirst
Upland Hydrology Group: Water companies & uplands, the nextchapter (15th March)
NERC workshop “Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services forBusiness: collaboration opportunities" (13th March)
Natural Capital Initiative: Forging interdisciplinary links to inform publicpolicy (8th May)
CIWEM event: Water & Ecosystem Goods and Services, Translatingthis into routine operation (12th June)
IUCN/BES Investing in Peatlands conference (26-28 June)
Goal
To exchange ideas from ongoing research andnetworking initiatives & experience from watercompanies, regulators etc. (usingupland/peatland catchments to illustrate whereuseful) to inform Government and businessabout opportunities to spread the cost ofproducing clean water(helping meet WFDrequirements) usingPayments for EcosystemServices
Rationale
Improving water quality at source can reducewater treatment costs and help implement WFD
Water companies aren’t the only beneficiaries:
Recreational waterusers and visitors torestored or moresensitively managedcatchments
http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/news/the-home-of-uk-canoeing-and-kayaking-news-reports-river-guides
Rationale
Water companies aren’t the only beneficiaries:
Freshwater habitats and species
Terrestrial habitats and species in restored or moresensitively managed catchments
http://www.allposters.co.uk/-sp/White-Clawed-Crayfish-Male-Norfolk-UK-Posters_i4016570_.htm
Rationale
Water companies aren’t the only beneficiaries:
Global society by reducing carbon emissions (instream water and from water treatment) andincreasing carbon sequestration and storage (inrestored peatlands)
Rationale
Payments for Ecosystem Services is all aboutgetting society to pay for the benefits we take forgranted from nature
By creating markets for the carbon, biodiversityand visitor co-benefits of producing clean water,might it be possible to:
Share the costs of reaching WFD targets; and
Meet these targets whilst minimising trade-offs withother ecosystem services and optimising co-benefits?
Bundling
In most natural systems, services are producedin bundles – they are all linked together
Improve your water quality by reducing DOC and youreduce fluvial carbon loss
Restore peatland for carbonand improve biodiversity
By paying for bundles ofservices, you can avoid trade-offs and exploit co-benefits toincrease revenues by payingfor a wider range of services
Types of bundling
“grouping multiple ecosystemservices together in a singlepackage for payment”e.g. bundling carbon water quality,biodiversity, visitor benefits andwildfire risk benefits in a peatlandrestoration scheme
“schemes where payments are madefor different ecosystem servicesseparately from the same system”e.g. the restoration project runs acarbon offset scheme in parallel witha scheme where water companiespay for water quality, whilst doingvisitor payback
Direct saleapproach
Shopping basket approach(sometimes referred to as layering/stacking)
Shopping basket approach
Shopping basket approach may lead to double-counting, assumes services are producedindependently and can be delineated, quantifiedand valued separately
However shopping basket maybe necessary if no buyers fordirect sale of multiple bundledservices – still have opportunityto co-ordinate between servicesto avoid trade-offs
Direct sale approach
Trade-offs between services less likely
Can charge a premium if co-benefits quantified
Makes payments more diverse = resilient
Less transaction costs than establishingmultiple markets
Attract new buyers interested in
Specific co-benefits
Wider spatial scales
May increase political/public supportfor scheme
Bundling peatland PES
1. Regulation of water quality
2. Climate regulation through carbonsequestration and storage in peat soils
3. Regulation of wildfire risk
4. Cultural ecosystem services
1. Regulation of water quality
Some water companies already paying for WQvia land management
In peatlands, most interest from companies:
With high proportion of peatland catchments uponwhich they can influence land management
With current DissolvedOrganic Carbon problems(brown water)
With concerns about futureDOC problems underclimate change
Flood regulation
Evidence too equivocal for inclusion in PESschemes
Impact of restoration on flood regulationdepends on: Type of peat
Its topographic and catchment location
Intensity & type of restoration
Location of restorationwith respect to riverchannels (danger offlood wave synchronicity)
2. Climate regulation
Potential to enhance this service:
Restoration can stem loss & absorb carbon
Short-term CH4 problem, long-term GHG benefit
Co-benefitse.g. biodiversity
Market demand
Market demand estimated between 1-10Mtonnes 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 ata 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 Code
Provide projects & investors with scientific basisfor good practice in peatland restoration
Option to include peatland restoration in officialcarbon accounting to become “carbon neutral”via Corporate Social Responsibility payments
Greenhouse Gas Accounting Guidelines
Can count towards Government climate targets
Option to trade on voluntary carbon markets
Similar to UK Woodland Carbon Code – we canlearn from their experience
3. Regulation of wildfire risk
Restoration raises water table
Reduces risk of wildfires burning deep into peat
No market for wildfire risk regulation, but maycontribute towards the attractiveness of PESschemes based on carbon or water
4. Cultural Ecosystem Services
Biodiversity benefits of restoration
Hard to monetarise, but options emerging
Spatial planning approaches to pay forrestoration of sites that could be used forrestoration near new developments
Section 106 agreements
Habitat banking/ biodiversity offsets
?
X Where visitor payback
schemes elicit paymentsfrom individual visitors orcompanies that pay forspecific projects thatenhance ecosystem services
Bundling visitor payback withother ecosystem services viashopping basket approach?e.g. offset your travel
Visitor Payback as a PES
DEFRA PES Best Practice Guide
See handouts
Opportunity todiscuss thisafternoon
We want yourfeedback
Next
Some of the latest research: natural science &economics
Regulator and water company perspectives
A land owner’s perspective
Discussion to feed intobriefing note to informpolicy and business
A mechanism to integrateinsights from future meetings& continue the conversation?