1) The current policy and funding mechanisms in the UK broadly result in effective delivery of ecosystem services from peatlands, but there is room for improvement. 2) Moving towards more place-based payments for ecosystem services schemes could better coordinate delivery of multiple ecosystem services at relevant scales. This involves combining public and private funding schemes. 3) Key barriers include limited markets and demand for private payment schemes, uncertainty around metrics and verification, and obstacles to collaboration across different land ownerships. Overcoming these barriers could help optimize ecosystem service delivery from peatlands in the UK.

1. Prof Mark Reed
Birmingham City University
Research Manager, IUCN UK Peatland Programme
Does the range of policy and funding mechanisms
currently in place result in effective delivery of a
balance of ecosystem services?

2. An Talamh Briste “The Broken Ground” (2006)
By Anne Campbell
Oil on canvas of a summer moorland walk with observations in pencil

3. Introduction

4. Introduction
! Working with Defra, DAs and their agencies to
develop Peatland Code
! Exploring integration of private/public PES in
RDPs
! Goal: effective delivery of upland ecosystem
services

5. Short answer
! Broadly, yes
" Need to continue on trajectory to design
policy mechanisms that support a wider
range of services
" WTO regulations prevent appropriate
payment rates and limit engagement with
higher-level scheme options
" Key question: continuing & improving funding

6. Why?

7. Policy options
! (Nationalisation of land)
! Information provision and capacity building
! Regulation
! Financial mechanisms
! Creation of new markets
! COMBINATION

8. Legisla(ve*targets*
*
Funding*
Peatland*carbon*markets*
Re8we:ng/conserva(on*
Climate*regula(on*
Co8benefits*
Voluntary*C*market*
Compliance*C*market*
Regional*Carbon*Market*
Government*Private*
CAP*Rural*
Development*eg*
Agri8environment*
Changes*to*
EUETS*&*JI*
Peatland*CRUs*
Value*of*carbon*
outweighs*accredita(on*
&*other*costs*
Accred8
ita(on*
Peatland*
VCUs*
UK*Peatland*
Code*
GHG*Accoun(ng*
Guidelines*integra(on*
Higher'uptake'if'
carbon'accoun2ng'
becomes'mandatory'
across'all'sectors'
Peatland*
projects*used*in*
corporate*C*
accoun(ng*
UK*climate*targets*
Targets*under**
Habitats*&*Birds*Direc(ves*
Underpinned'by'robust'scien2fic'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*
Net*GHG*emission*reduc(ons*

9. Direction of travel
! Shrinking and greening CAP
! Public and private Payments for Ecosystem
Services
! Management of functional units e.g. catchment,
habitat, landscape
! Increasingly spatially targeted
! Increasing stakeholder participation
! Increasing recognition of cultural services

10. Direction of travel

11. Direction of travel
“A ‘place-based’ approach to PES delivers
more than one ecosystem service across more
than one ecosystem, potentially including
terrestrial, freshwater and/or marine, in a single
area, in which several human uses, traditions,
cultures and social norms, and tenure,
institutional and governance arrangements
typically co-exist.”
“

12. Why place-based PES?
! Deliver ecosystem services
at relevant scales
! Co-ordination to avoid
trade-offs:
" ES operate at multiple, linked spatial/temporal scales
" Payments for one service may compromise others
! Multi-level governance with stakeholders

13. Why place-based PES?
! Combine private and public PES:
" Transaction costs of running multiple separate
schemes in parallel
" Target buyers interested in particular locations
" Resilience to changes in demand for particular
services or habitats

14. Barriers to place-based PES
Private PES
schemes limited to
small number of
habitats/services in
the UK
Limited scientific
certainty &
verification metrics
High perceived risks
among sellers
Diverse payment
sources at varying
levels
Complex property
rights
Barriers to
collaboration across
property boundaries

15. Where will this lead?

16. relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
• Extensifica(on*of*land*use*
&*management*in*uplands*
• Intensifica(on*
*(in'reality,'probably'a'patchwork'of'both)'
RELU*scenarios*

17. BESS scenarios
! Agricultural intensification
! Managed ecosystems
(extensification)
! Business as usual
! Abandonment

22. The new business as usual
Managed ecosystems via public/private PES is the
new norm and has the potential to deliver an
effective balance of ecosystem services

23. Conclusions

24. How can we build on this?
! Continue to develop collaborative options in
RDPs operating at functional scales
! Understand (social) barriers to collaboration at
these scales & build social capital
! Integrate private/public PES & target public
funds to most expensive sites (per tonne C)
! Overcome barriers to demand/investment
! Overcome barriers to supply
! Understand PES scheme effects on sheep/game

25. How can we build on this?
! Integrate private PES schemes to shift focus
from habitat to landscape
! Link with other policy areas e.g. e Zero Carbon
Homes Bill
! Improve accuracy and cost-effectiveness of
metrics including integration of metrics for
biodiversity and water quality with carbon
! Social justice concerns: PES for commoners?

26. Conclusions

27. Contact
Mark Reed
Mark.Reed@bcu.ac.uk
07538082343
www.profmarkreed.com
Twitter: @profmarkreed