The document discusses the cost effectiveness of peatland management and restoration. It provides some illustrative examples showing the upfront and ongoing costs of restoration techniques like grip blocking in uplands, and compares the costs per ton of carbon dioxide saved to other mitigation options. However, it notes the results are dependent on assumptions and site-specific conditions that require more detailed monitoring and data collection to properly assess overall cost effectiveness relative to other options and the costs of inaction. Proper targeting of restoration efforts needs better geographic data.

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