Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Creating a place-based PES scheme in the South Pennines
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Creating a place-based PES scheme in the South Pennines


Published on

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 …

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)

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Creating a place-based PESscheme in the South Pennines
  • 2. Plan Why place-based PES? Opportunities Barriers Scheme options Questions UK Peatland Carbon Code
  • 3. 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
  • 4. 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
  • 5. Opportunities
  • 6. 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
  • 7. 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
  • 8. 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
  • 9. 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)
  • 10. Opportunities Carbon+: join pilot phase Peatland Carbon Code  Give potential local investors greater confidence  Work with intermediaries to find new investors
  • 11. 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
  • 12. 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
  • 13. 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?
  • 14. Barriers
  • 15. 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?
  • 16. 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?
  • 17. 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
  • 18. 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?
  • 19. Scheme options
  • 20. 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)
  • 21. 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)
  • 22. 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)
  • 23. 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)
  • 24. 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)
  • 25. 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)
  • 26. 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?
  • 27. 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?
  • 28. Group work (2) Costs…
  • 29. 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
  • 30. 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
  • 31. 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
  • 32. Targets under WFD & Habitats Directive Legislative targets UK climate targets Funding Kyoto targets Co-benefits GHG change from peats UK opt into WDR damaged/restored since Art 3.4 Kyoto 1990 in GHG inventory Climate regulation Private Government CAP Rural Re-wetting/conservation Development eg Agri-environment Peatland CRUsPeatland carbon markets Changes to REDD & Peatland Art 3.4 VCS AAUs EUETS & JI accred- Compliance C market Value of carbon itation Voluntary C market outweighs accreditation & other costs Regional Carbon Market Higher uptake if carbon accounting Peatland becomes mandatory Corporate Social across all sectors UK Peatland projects used in Responsibility Carbon Code corporate C GHG Accounting accounting Guidelines integration Underpinned by robust scientific evidence and monitoring, overseen by a science panel
  • 33. 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
  • 34. 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