Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
Towards a framework for peatland PES
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

Towards a framework for peatland PES

1,292

Published on

Talk by Andrew Moxey as part of VNN peatland workshop, Leeds 18th January 2012

Talk by Andrew Moxey as part of VNN peatland workshop, Leeds 18th January 2012

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,292
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Cost Effectiveness of peatland management & restoration Andrew Moxey “VNN workshop on assessing & valuing peatland ecosystem services” Presentation on 18/01/2012, Leeds
  • 2. 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
  • 3. 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?
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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
  • 6. Comparable mitigation options? £80 11 £60 £40 5 4 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.2 £20 1.5 0.5 mt CO2 £/tC02 Cost £0 Abatement -£20 -£40 -£60 -£80
  • 7. 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?
  • 8. 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?
  • 9. 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?
  • 10. 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?
  • 11. 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)
  • 12. 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

×