towards a framework for peatland pes
Post on 20-Oct-2014
1.404 views
DESCRIPTION
Talk by Andrew Moxey as part of VNN peatland workshop, Leeds 18th January 2012TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Cost Effectiveness of peatland
management & restoration
Andrew Moxey
“VNN workshop on assessing &
valuing peatland ecosystem services”
Presentation on 18/01/2012, Leeds
![Page 2: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Basic premise: marbles in jars
• Carbon storage in peatlands is significant
• Degradation leads to emissions
• Avoid emissions by avoiding/repairing degradation
• Also maintain/enhance sequestration (+ co-benefits)
• Reduce need for other mitigation activities
![Page 3: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
But, not costless exercises
• Up-front capital costs of restoration
• On-going management (& monitoring) costs
• Displaced activities: opportunity costs
• (Possibly) land acquisition costs
• Cost-effectiveness vs. other mitigation options?
![Page 4: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
An illustrative upland example
• Upland grip blocking costs c.£240/ha upfront
• c.52t CO2e/ha net emission savings over 20 years
• c.£450/ha management & monitoring costs
• Negligible opportunity & land acquisition costs
• c.£13/t CO2e for restoration by grip blocking
![Page 5: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Another illustrative upland example
• Conservation of near-natural upland site
• c.72t CO2e/ha net emission savings over 20 years
• c.£450/ha management & monitoring costs
• Negligible opportunity & land acquisition costs
• c.£6/t CO2e for maintaining a near-natural site
![Page 6: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Comparable mitigation options?
2.2 2.5
1.5
0.5
2.2
11
4
2.2
5
-£80
-£60
-£40
-£20
£0
£20
£40
£60
£80
mt
CO
2
£/t
C0
2
Cost
Abatement
![Page 7: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Costs of inaction?
• e.g. Not grip-blocking c.2.2mt to address
• Greater reliance on other mitigation options
• £/t CO2e cost difference depends on options used
• e.g. c.+£20m if forestry, c.+£90m if biogas?
• But: capacity of other options? missed targets?
![Page 8: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
But, assumption-dependent
• Net emissions from:
– a near-natural site?
– a degraded site?
– a restored site?
• Temporal profile and duration of net emissions?
• Spatial variation of costs across sites?
• Uptake?
![Page 9: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Restoration effectiveness & costs
• Generalisable or always site-specific?
• Different site conditions
• Different techniques & management requirements
• Scale and halo effects of size of area considered
• Non-negligible opportunity costs?
![Page 10: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Opportunity costs
• Currently generally low for upland agriculture
• Higher for lowland agriculture/horticulture
• But , vary with: – Site conditions
– Farming structure
– Policy support (e.g. subsidies, regulatory criteria e.g. “active farmer”?)
– Market conditions
• Forestry? Renewables? Recreation?
![Page 11: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
What’s needed?
• Monitoring to establish baseline conditions
(likely to be expensive unless proxy indicators used)
• Collate conservation & restoration trial data
(difficult given spatial variation & time-lags)
• More detailed assessment of opportunity costs
(cost-effectiveness sums; incentive design issues)
• Consideration of place in mitigation tool-kit
(relative cost-effectiveness; costs of inaction)
![Page 12: Towards a framework for peatland PES](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5444f630b1af9f476c8b460f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Conclusions
• Upland marble jars probably cost-effective
(...relative position in tool-kit & costs of inaction)
• But, likely to vary spatially & temporally
• So, targeting needs better geographic data on:
– net emissions before & after degradation/restoration
– costs of restoration & maintenance (& monitoring)
– timing & duration of actions and effects