Opportunities for
Payments for Ecosystem Services
in
Peatlands

Intrinsic value
 Should we only value what we can put a price on
and value as humans?

A human problem...
 Caused by not sufficiently valuing the things we
can’t put a price tag on, but that society relies on

PES ...a very human solution
 Creating an economic incentive to look after
more of our countryside
 But must avoid being biased towards services
that are easy to monetise

Payments for Ecosystem Services
 A voluntary transaction where
 A well-defined ecosystem service (or land use
likely to secure that service)
 Is being “bought” by a (minimum one)
ecosystem service buyer
 From a (minimum one) ecosystem service
provider
 If and only if the ecosystem service provider
secures provision (conditionality)

Opportunities for peatland PES
1. Climate regulation through carbon
sequestration and storage in peat soils
2. Regulation of water quality
3. Regulation of wildfire risk
4. Cultural ecosystem services

1. Climate regulation
Potential to enhance this service:
 Restoration can stem loss & absorb carbon
 Short-term CH4 problem, long-term GHG benefit
 Co-benefits

Market demand
 Market demand estimated between 1-10M
tonnes 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 at
a 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 Carbon Code
 Provide projects & investors with scientific basis
for good practice in peatland restoration
 Option to include peatland restoration in official
carbon accounting to become “carbon neutral”
 Greenhouse Gas Accounting Guidelines
 Not possible to trade this carbon, so...
 Government could count it towards Kyoto targets if we
sign up to “peatland re-wetting” option

UK Peatland Carbon Code
 If designed to meet the Verified Carbon
Standard:
 Peatland Code would be cheaper alternative that
would still provide investors with confidence
 Possible to generate trade-able carbon credits for
voluntary carbon market (and perhaps compliance
markets in future)
 A Code could boost both peatland CSR and
carbon markets, making more restoration
possible

UK Peatland Carbon Code
 Next steps:
 IUCN establishing Peatland Code group including
science panel
 Develop GHG accounting methods
 Form a Peatland Alliance of businesses interested in
funding pilot projects
 IUCN launching a Peatland Gateway
 Co-ordinate monitoring of restoration projects
 Knowledge exchange about peatland restoration between
researchers and policy & practitioner communities

2. Regulation of water quality
 Some water companies already paying for WQ
via land management
 Most interest from companies:
 With high proportion of peatland catchments upon
which they can influence land management
 With current Dissolved
Organic Carbon problems
(brown water)
 With concerns about future
DOC problems under
climate change

Flood regulation
 Evidence too equivocal for inclusion in PES
schemes
 Impact of restoration on flood regulation
depends on:
 Type of peat
 Its topographic and catchment location
 Intensity & type of restoration
 Location of restoration
with respect to river
channels (danger of
flood wave synchronicity)

Viki Hirst – water@leeds KE Fellow
• VNN & water@leeds
‘Reducing the cost of the Water Framework Directive through
Payments for Water Services’ 9th May 2012
• Aims
• address barriers and identify options
• share examples
• assess the economics of WFD implementation
• identify the best ways to continue sharing knowledge
• Links very well with
• IUCN Commission of inquiry on peatlands
• Today’s discussion – excellent timing
• Write up from today will inform the 9th May event and proceedings
• From 9th May we will write a briefing note bringing together
• Science understanding
• Policy issues
• Future requirements and suggestions
• Wider interests of those involved
• Will provide the best base for future decisions, make
suggestions – and will raise awareness of issues

3. Regulation of wildfire risk
 Restoration raises water table
 Reduces risk of wildfires burning deep into peat
 No market for wildfire risk regulation, but may
contribute towards the attractiveness of PES
schemes based on carbon or water

4. Cultural Ecosystem Services
 Hard to monetarise, but options emerging
 Spatial planning approaches to pay for
restoration of sites that could be used for
restoration near new developments
 Section 106 agreements/Community Infrastructure
Levy
 Habitat banking/ biodiversity offsets

Visitor Payback as a PES
 Where visitor payback schemes in National
Parks elicit payments from individual visitors or
companies that pay for specific projects that
enhance (usually cultural) ecosystem services in
the Park
 Additional money at a time of Government cut-
backs to pay for projects in National Parks that
provide cultural services to society...

Uptake
X
?

Opportunities to expand
1. Interest from DEFRA and Scottish Government
in PES – notably NEWP commitments
2. Technological advances may reduce
administration costs, achieve economies of
scale without losing local distinctiveness,
educate new audiences and
make contributions easier
3. Bundling visitor payback
with other ecosystem services
e.g. offset your travel

Conclusions
 Don’t be dazzled by the economics – avoid
trade-offs & be aware of stakeholders needs
 Opportunities to bundle PES:
 Bundling payments for co-benefits of restoration may
add value to carbon and/or water schemes
 Bundling carbon offsetting with visitor payback?
 Integrate with CAP for
cost-effective & fair
administration?
 Need for regulation