MoorFutures Financing Peatland Rewetting in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany

Transcription

1 MoorFutures Financing Peatland Rewetting in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany 6th Sino-German Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation BfN, Bonn, Germany, July 2013 Thorsten Permien, Katharina Dietrich, Achim Schäfer, John Couwenberg, Hans Joosten, Franziska Tanneberger, Bettina Holsten, Michael Trepel, Andreas Wahren, Augustin Berghöfer SEITE 1

2 Overview 1. What role do peatlands play in German GHG emissions? 2. How to assess GHG emissions from peatlands? 3. How do MoorFutures support rewetting peatlands in the State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania? 4. Why and how to capture the co-benefits of carbon financed peatland rewetting? SEITE 2

3 Peat drainage mobilises carbon: CO 2 (und N 2 O) emissions Kalimantan, Indonesia 3

4 rewetting peatlands reduces emissions 4 Peenetal, Germany

5 Largest peat area vs. largest GHG emissions from degrading peat (Joosten & Wetlands International 2010) SEITE 5

6 Drained peatlands are single most important source of GHG emissions in Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania 7 naturnahe/ ungenutzte Moore landwirtschaftlich genutzte Moore forstwirtschaftlich genutzte Moore Emissionen in Mio. Tonnen CO2-eq.pro Jahr öffentl. Strom- und Fernwärmeversorgung Industrie Verkehr Kleinverbraucher Emissionen aus den Mooren electricity industry traffic households peatlands Emissionsquellen MLUV estimate for 2008 based on data from InVeKos and Biotopkartierung SEITE 6 M-V has about ha peatland ~12,6% of total area of the State 6

7 Such figures rely on average emissions estimates, e.g. (Joosten & Wetlands International 2010) Actual measuring is more difficult. Organic soil fluxes are based on direct measurement, not stock-change approach (as with e.g.forests) SEITE 7

8 Measuring fluxes for all three GHG (CH 4, CO 2, N 2 O) is expensive: Wide variety of site parameters influencing emissions peatland types, peat types, spatial heterogeneity, land use, former land use, abiotic conditions, vegetation BUT: water level appears as main single explanatory variable 8

9 Emissions strongly related to average water level Vegetation cover also strongly related to water level Use vegetation cover types as indicator for emissions! This indicator allows for the cost-effective assessment of GHG emission reductions related to rewetting Basis for developing a carbon offset based on peatland rewetting

10 What are MoorFutures? Guaranteed emission reductions from rewetting Water table registered in official land use plans Issued by the State s Ministry for Environment and Agriculture 1 MoorFuture= 1t Co2equiv. saved Registered online: SEITE 10

11 MoorFutures are a unique product in Germany Sale on international markets requires certification by International standards (VCS) - too expensive for small peatland areas in M-V In Europe, demand for offsets: 21 Mt CO2e offset supply: 0,02 Mt CO2e (Peters-Stanley 2011) Regional clients interested in regional offset opportunity MoorFutures leverage on credibility of the State s regulatory system and the high capacity of university and administration to develop, manage and monitor SEITE 11

12 The MoorFutures Standard - follows VCS criteria - but is adapted to fit the regional situation and - builds on locally developed assessment methodology (with vegetation as indicator) Key criteria: MoorFutures precise and transparent, MoorFutures geared to the voluntary carbon market MoorFutures are based on realistic emission reduction estimates MoorFutures are permanent MoorFutures credible and additional MoorFutures are sustainable SEITE 12

13 Example: Polder Rosin Size: 840ha Emissions prior to rewetting: 24t/ha/year CO2 equiv. Emissions after rewetting: 10t//ha/year CO2 equiv. Total emission reductions: t /year CO2 equiv. For 20 years: For 30 years: For 40 years: MoorFutures MoorFutures MoorFutures 1 MoorFuture = 1t CO2 equiv emissions saved Cost per Moorfuture: SEITE 13

14 14

15 So far, the multiple co-benefits of rewetting - even if regionally known are not officially captured in the MoorFutures standard. If MoorFutures are to attract national buyers they need to compete with pure carbon projects The co-benefits of rewetting need to be made visible SEITE 15

16 MoorFutures 2.0: peatlands are much more than just carbon biodiversity water retention nutrient retention local cooling tourism production (paludicultures) avoid one-dimensional approach to rewetting 16

17 Example of co-benefit: rewetting a cost-efficient alternative to waste water treatment? Cost for waste water treatment kg -1 N-retention kg -1 P-retention Cost of natural solution kg -1 N-retention < > 20 durchschnittliche Kosten auf 10 Jahre SEITE 17 17

18 Process for including further ecosystem services in MoorFutures 2.0 Clarify: which other peatland ES are highly relevant in the State? Examine: which indicators are feasible? Can indicators already in use (e.g. vegetation cover) help? Use: (Adapt and) apply available models (e.g. for N-retention, hydrological cycles) Test: Which assessment methods are appropriate and practicable? Develop: Formally establish co-benefits, following the criteria set for the MoorFutures1.0 carbon standard Formulate: describe assumptions, assessment methodology, and monitoring/reporting/verification procedures SEITE 18

19 Thank You. Financial support is gratefully acknowledged: SEITE 19