creating a place-based pes scheme in the south pennines
Post on 20-Oct-2014
892 views
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given to South Pennine Ecosystem Service Pilot steering group about potential for a place-based Payment for Ecosystem Service scheme in the South Pennines, as part of a project funded by Natural England and DEFRA, January 2013 (by Mark Reed)TRANSCRIPT
Creating a place-based PES scheme in the South Pennines
Plan Why place-based PES? Opportunities Barriers Scheme options Questions UK Peatland Carbon Code
Why place-based PES? Additional funding to help meet existing local
goals e.g. conservation & water quality Saving money and creating value for local
brands/investors Getting nature working together for everyone
Place-based schemes are more likely to avoid trade-offs than focusing on one service alone e.g. food production or conservation
Why place-based PES? PES is the future:
Common Agriculture Policy reform DEFRA Natural Environment White Paper
PES Action Plan imminent Promoted to make NIAs/LNPs financially sustainable Ministerial support for PES priorities identified by EMTF
It is already happening: Peatland Plus Westcountry Rivers Trust/SWW – Upstream Thinking New SWW scheme layering carbon/biodiversity with water Westcountry Angling Passport Pumlumon Project
Opportunities
Opportunities
A number of ecosystem services can be co-produced in space/time with similar management Revegetating bare peat & grip blocking in blanket
bogs not exposed to significant historic grazing & burning, with Sphagnum re-introduction & reductions in (or prevention of) grazing/burning where necessary
Grip blocking dry heath on deep peats with changes in grazing/burning where necessary
Afforestation of upland valleys and flood plains
Opportunities Market research (BRE 2009 & ongoing): CSR
demand for UK-based projects with multiple benefits Focus on biodiversity Interest also in water quality
Few likely trade-offs and these can be managed
Secure land tenure, interested land owners
Opportunities Grip blocking/revegetation on blanket bog:
Climate regulation (reduced C loss + C sequestration) Biodiversity (incl. birds of conservation significance) Reduced water colour (and heavy metals) Improved recreational access over dissected sites Improved aesthetics in previously bare sites
Grip blocking dry heath/deep peat: Climate regulation Improved water quality Improved recreational access
Opportunities Carbon sequestration potential of restoration:
>100t CO2 equivalents/year/km2 for Peak District 6000 t CO2 per year for South Pennines Pilot Area
assuming all 60 km2 blanket bog degraded & restored 1.5% Yorkshire Water’s annual carbon footprint Equivalent to £2000 per km2 per year (£20 per tonne
– less than the shadow price of carbon at £26) ELS & HLS: £800 and £2300 per km2 for moorland CSR: probably paid by hectare or project (not tonnes)
Opportunities Carbon+: join pilot phase Peatland Carbon Code
Give potential local investors greater confidence Work with intermediaries to find new investors
Opportunities Biodiversity offsetting:
Up to £25,000 per km2 per year Unlikely to be much demand for blanket bog credits More demand for woodland creation on flood plains?
Water quality payments Combined payments from UU &
agri-environment schemes were £3800 per km2 per year for SCaMP
Opportunities Tree planting in upland valleys for carbon and
biodiversity (and recreation?) Tree planting in flood plains to reduce flood risk
plus carbon storage and biodiversity benefits Potential to build on well
established market for woodland carbon with multiple benefits via Woodland Carbon Code
Opportunities Buyers
Water Utilities (i.e. Yorkshire Water & United Utilities) Corporates interested in climate regulation Corporates/developers purchasing
conservation/biodiversity credits to offset impacts generated elsewhere
(Government via agri-environment schemes)
Members of the public paying for ecosystem service projects via Visitor Payback schemes?
Barriers
Trade-offs Grouse moors
Not viable in long-term without burning/grazing But grazing/burning not needed on active blanket bog Focus only on grip blocking for dry heath on deep
peat, where low level grazing/burning is sustainable?
Trade-offs Hill farming
1,204 farm businesses supporting >300,000 sheep LFA farms lose >£5000 p.a. without agric. payments Might private PES offset CAP budget contraction?
Trade-offs If burning/grazing ceased for
dry heath on deep peats: Increase likelihood of wildfire Reduce visibility for walkers &
compromise “sense of place” Eventual conversion to forest
would impact designated species Need to maintain sustainable
levels of grazing/burning on these already degraded sites
Barriers Complex and fragmented land ownership The need to work across property boundaries to
deliver some ecosystem services Transaction costs associated with the above Perceived incompatibility of PES scheme and
land owner objectives Overcome by focusing on areas that still function as
blanket bog and allowing low level grazing/burning for dry heath on deep peat?
Scheme options
Bundled scheme 1 Buyer: water utilities Approach: peatland restoration (and tree
planting on flood plains) Ecosystem services marketed:
Water quality Biodiversity Climate regulation (Flood risk management)
Bundled scheme 2 Buyer: corporations Approach: peatland restoration (and
afforestation of upland valleys & flood plains) Ecosystem services marketed:
Climate regulation Biodiversity Water quality (Flood risk management)
Bundled scheme 3 Buyer: developers and corporations Approach: woodland creation on flood plains
(and peatland restoration) Ecosystem services marketed
Biodiversity Flood risk management Climate regulation (Water quality)
Layered scheme 1 Approach: peatland restoration Buyer & service 1: water utility for water quality Buyer & service 2: government for multiple
services (via agri-environment scheme)
Layered scheme 2 Approach: peatland restoration Buyer & service 1: corporations for climate
regulation/biodiversity Buyer & service 2: government for multiple
services (via agri-environment scheme)
Layered scheme 3 Approach: peatland restoration & afforestation of
upland valleys and flood plains Buyer & service 1: corporations for climate regulation Buyer & service 2: corporations/developers for
biodiversity credits Buyer & service 3: water utilities for water quality Buyer & service 4: visitors for access/aesthetics Buyer & service 5: downstream residents for flood risk
management Buyer & service 6: government for multiple services
(via agri-environment scheme)
Questions We need your feedback:
Your views on the viability of establishing a place-based PES scheme for the South Pennines Pilot Area
Help to refine costs: Peatland restoration costs (questions from Clifton) Afforestation costs for upland valleys and flood plains?
Group work (1) Operationalising a place-based PES scheme for
peatland restoration Do you think a place-based PES scheme would work
in the South Pennines? What are the main opportunities a scheme could exploit? What services should get priority? Do you favour any of the proposed bundled/layered scheme
options? Why? What do you see as the main problems in getting
such a scheme to work? How to overcome? How would it fit with existing payments to land owners? Overcoming barriers to land owner participation?
Next steps?
Group work (2) Costs…
UK Peatland Carbon Code Develop a UK Peatland
Carbon Code to: Open, consistent, credible and
verifiable basis for good practice peatland restoration
Register to account for projects & avoid double counting
Standards to ensure projects are of high environmental quality & genuinely additional
Technical guidance to calculate emissions savings
UK Peatland Carbon Code Option to include peatland
restoration in official carbon accounting to become “carbon neutral” Greenhouse Gas Accounting
Guidelines Not possible to trade this carbon Government could count it
towards Kyoto targets if we opt in to Wetland Rewetting & Drainage under Article 3.4 Kyoto Protocol
UK Peatland Carbon Code If also designed to meet the requirements of the
Verified Carbon Standard: Peatland Code would be cheaper alternative, better
tailored to the UK context, that would still provide investors with confidence
Possible to generate tradeable carbon credits for voluntary carbon market (and compliance in future?)
Similar to UK Woodland Carbon Code & German MoorFutures: we can learn from their experience
Legislative targets
Funding
Peatland carbon markets
Re-wetting/conservation
Climate regulation
Co-benefits
Voluntary C market
Compliance C market
Regional Carbon Market
GovernmentPrivate
CAP Rural Development eg
Agri-environment
Changes to EUETS & JI
Peatland CRUs
Value of carbon outweighs accreditation
& other costs
VCS accred-itation
Peatland AAUs
UK Peatland Carbon Code
GHG Accounting Guidelines integration
Higher uptake if carbon accounting
becomes mandatory across all sectors
Peatland projects used in
corporate C accounting
UK climate targets
Targets under WFD & Habitats Directive
Underpinned by robust scientific evidence and monitoring, overseen by a science panel
REDD & Art 3.4
Corporate Social Responsibility
GHG change from peats damaged/restored since 1990 in GHG inventory
UK opt into WDR Art 3.4 Kyoto
Kyoto targets
Next steps
Developing metrics DEFRA PES Pilot with
German MoorFutures and learning from UK Woodland Carbon Code
Plan to launch draft code for CSR (not offset) investment summer 2013
Market research to tailor the code to needs of the market
Next steps
Consider for inclusion in Defra/DECC GHG Accounting Guidelines for corporate carbon accounting
Option to trade on voluntary C markets if prices increase
Recommended to Secretaries of State for DEFRA/DECC/BIS in March