MoorFutures–Financing peatland rewetting in Mecklenburg-Western ...

MoorFutures –
Financing Peatland Rewetting in
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,
Germany
6th Sino-German Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation
BfN, Bonn, Germany, 15-18 July 2013
Thorsten Permien, Katharina Dietrich, Achim Schäfer, John Couwenberg,
Hans Joosten, Franziska Tanneberger, Bettina Holsten, Michael Trepel,
Andreas Wahren, Augustin Berghöfer
SEITE 1

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

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

ewetting peatlands reduces emissions
4
Peenetal, Germany

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

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
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
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 300.000ha peatland
~12,6% of total area of the State
6

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

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

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

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: www.moorfutures.de
SEITE 10

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

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

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:
11.760t /year CO2 equiv.
For 20 years:
For 30 years:
For 40 years:
235.200 MoorFutures
352.800 MoorFutures
470.400 MoorFutures
1 MoorFuture = 1t CO2 equiv emissions saved
Cost per Moorfuture: 30-50€
SEITE 13

www.moorfutures.de
14

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

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

Example of co-benefit: rewetting a cost-efficient
alternative to waste water treatment?
Cost for waste water treatment
• 17 – 66 € kg -1 N-retention
• 58 – 220 € kg -1 P-retention
Cost of ‚natural‘
solution
€ kg -1 N-retention
< 5
5 – 10
10 – 20
> 20
durchschnittliche Kosten auf 10 Jahre
SEITE 17
17

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

Thank You.
Financial support is gratefully acknowledged:
SEITE 19