Mark Reed


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • 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

No notes for slide

Mark Reed

  1. 1. IntroductionClifton Bain, Aletta Bonn, Chris Evans, Klaus Glenk, Viki Hirst & Mark Reed
  2. 2. Valuing Nature Network Valuing Peatlands project  Valuing changes in stocks and flows of ecosystem services in complex socio-ecological systems – using peatlands as a case study  Using this information to help design financial mechanisms to pay for the provision of ecosystem services in future
  3. 3. Why are we here? Huge interest in Payments for Ecosystem Services
  4. 4. Why are we here?National policy: Natural Environment White Paper, Payments for Ecosystem Services Action Plan & Best Practice Guide (this pm) Emphasis on valuing the environment and incorporating these values in decision-making in Living Wales Green Paper and Scotland’s Land Use Strategy
  5. 5. Why are we here?Growing interest from water companies and other businesses in PES: Presentations from water companies today See case studies being developed for DEFRA PES Best Practice Guide Ecosystem Markets Taskforce exploring PES and other mechanisms to “develop green goods, services, investment vehicles and markets which value and protect the environment”
  6. 6. Why are we here?New research and networking initiatives: Valuing Nature Network Ecosystems Knowledge Network Follow-on to the National Ecosystem Assessment NERC KE fellows e.g. Viki Hirst Upland Hydrology Group: Water companies & uplands, the next chapter (15th March) NERC workshop “Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services for Business: collaboration opportunities" (13th March) Natural Capital Initiative: Forging interdisciplinary links to inform public policy (8th May) CIWEM event: Water & Ecosystem Goods and Services, Translating this into routine operation (12th June) IUCN/BES Investing in Peatlands conference (26-28 June)
  7. 7. Goal To exchange ideas from ongoing research and networking initiatives & experience from water companies, regulators etc. (using upland/peatland catchments to illustrate where useful) to inform Government and business about opportunities to spread the cost of producing clean water (helping meet WFD requirements) using Payments for Ecosystem Services
  8. 8. Rationale Improving water quality at source can reduce water treatment costs and help implement WFD Water companies aren’t the only beneficiaries:  Recreational water users and visitors to restored or more sensitively managed catchments
  9. 9. Rationale Water companies aren’t the only beneficiaries:  Freshwater habitats and species  Terrestrial habitats and species in restored or more sensitively managed catchments
  10. 10. Rationale Water companies aren’t the only beneficiaries:  Global society by reducing carbon emissions (in stream water and from water treatment) and increasing carbon sequestration and storage (in restored peatlands)
  11. 11. Rationale Payments for Ecosystem Services is all about getting society to pay for the benefits we take for granted from nature By creating markets for the carbon, biodiversity and visitor co-benefits of producing clean water, might it be possible to:  Share the costs of reaching WFD targets; and  Meet these targets whilst minimising trade-offs with other ecosystem services and optimising co-benefits?
  12. 12. Bundling In most natural systems, services are produced in bundles – they are all linked together  Improve your water quality by reducing DOC and you reduce fluvial carbon loss  Restore peatland for carbon and improve biodiversity By paying for bundles of services, you can avoid trade- offs and exploit co-benefits to increase revenues by paying for a wider range of services
  13. 13. Types of bundling Direct sale Shopping basket approach approach (sometimes referred to as layering/stacking)“grouping multiple ecosystem “schemes where payments are madeservices together in a single for different ecosystem servicespackage for payment” separately from the same system”e.g. bundling carbon water quality, e.g. the restoration project runs abiodiversity, visitor benefits and carbon offset scheme in parallel withwildfire risk benefits in a peatland a scheme where water companiesrestoration scheme pay for water quality, whilst doing visitor payback
  14. 14. Shopping basket approach Shopping basket approach may lead to double- counting, assumes services are produced independently and can be delineated, quantified and valued separately However shopping basket may be necessary if no buyers for direct sale of multiple bundled services – still have opportunity to co-ordinate between services to avoid trade-offs
  15. 15. Direct sale approach Trade-offs between services less likely Can charge a premium if co-benefits quantified Makes payments more diverse = resilient Less transaction costs than establishing multiple markets Attract new buyers interested in  Specific co-benefits  Wider spatial scales May increase political/public support for scheme
  16. 16. Bundling peatland PES1. Regulation of water quality2. Climate regulation through carbon sequestration and storage in peat soils3. Regulation of wildfire risk4. Cultural ecosystem services
  17. 17. 1. Regulation of water quality Some water companies already paying for WQ via land management In peatlands, 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
  18. 18. 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)
  19. 19. 2. Climate regulationPotential to enhance this service: Restoration can stem loss & absorb carbon Short-term CH4 problem, long-term GHG benefit Co-benefits e.g. biodiversity
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. UK Peatland 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” via Corporate Social Responsibility payments  Greenhouse Gas Accounting Guidelines  Can count towards Government climate targets Option to trade on voluntary carbon markets Similar to UK Woodland Carbon Code – we can learn from their experience
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 4. Cultural Ecosystem Services Biodiversity benefits of restoration 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 Habitat banking/ biodiversity offsets
  24. 24. Visitor Payback as a PES X Where visitor payback schemes elicit payments from individual visitors or companies that pay for specific projects that enhance ecosystem services Bundling visitor payback with other ecosystem services via shopping basket approach? e.g. offset your travel ?
  25. 25. DEFRA PES Best Practice Guide See handouts Opportunity to discuss this afternoon We want your feedback
  26. 26. Next Some of the latest research: natural science & economics Regulator and water company perspectives A land owner’s perspective Discussion to feed into briefing note to inform policy and business  A mechanism to integrate insights from future meetings & continue the conversation?