Cost Effectiveness of peatland

management & restoration

Andrew Moxey

“VNN workshop on assessing &

valuing peatland ecosystem services”

Presentation on 18/01/2012, Leeds

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

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?

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

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

Comparable mitigation options?

2.2 2.5

1.5

0.5

2.2

11

4

2.2

5

-£80

-£60

-£40

-£20

£0

£20

£40

£60

£80

mt

CO

2

£/t

C0

2

Cost

Abatement

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?

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?

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?

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?

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)

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