This document outlines the development of a framework to prioritize peatland restoration and conservation activities across the UK. It discusses key considerations like scenario selection, timeframes, costs and benefits, and uncertainty. Spatially explicit data on restoration impacts and costs are needed. While restoration benefits biodiversity, valuing these impacts is difficult. The framework aims to inform decisions by evaluating restoration outcomes and costs over various time periods and under uncertainty. Developing this complex framework presents challenges in obtaining sufficient data and balancing analytical demands with practical usefulness.

1. Overview on framework and issues
related to prioritising peatland
restoration and conservation
activities on a UK scale
Klaus Glenk
VNN workshop on assessing & valuing peatland ecosystem services
January 2012, Leeds
1

2. Outline
 Aims and overview
 Scenario selection
 Choice of time-frame
 Cost-effectiveness of measures
 Wider ecosystem service benefits
 Uncertainty
2

3. General aim framing WP2
 To generate a better understanding of the economics
of peatland ecosystem services in order to inform
decision-making on peatland restoration and
conservation activities in the UK
 Focus on working towards the development of a
framework for prioritising peatland
restoration/conservation activities on a UK scale
 What is needed? Challenges?
3

4. Related VNN challenges
 Relates particularly to VNN challenges 1 and 3
 VNN challenge 1: How can the complexity of socio-ecological systems
be incorporated into valuations of biodiversity, ecosystem services and
natural resource use?
 Incorporating spatial variability in the natural environment within analyses
 Risk and uncertainty
 VNN challenge 3: How can issues of scale be incorporated within
valuations of biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural resource use?
 How do variations in scale affect natural processes, marginal values, etc?
 What are the barriers to cross-scale analysis and how can they be
overcome?
 Are there scale-dependent transitions in the interactions between ecological
environmental and socio-economic data in the valuation process? 4

5. Overview
RESTORATION
OPPORTUNITY COST
SCENARIO
OF RESTORATION
COMPARED WITH
BASELINE UPFRONT AND COSTS
RECURRING COSTS OF
IMPLEMENTATION
NET BENEFITS
CLIMATE BIODIVERSITY
REGULATION: NET
GHG EMISSION OTHER SERVICES
CHANGES BENEFITS
WATER-RELATED Valuing
CULTURAL SERVICES: SERVICES: WATER impacts Areas with
RECREATION AND QUALITY, QUANTITY highest benefit-
CULTURAL HERITAGE AND FLOOD cost ratio should
then be
REGULATION
prioritised
5

6. Spatially explicit values
 Need to assign costs and benefits to specific areas of
peatland in the UK
 Information needs:
 How will a peatland area degrade (or not) under various
‘business-as-usual’ and ‘restoration’ scenarios?
 What is the opportunity cost of restoration/conservation
activities (and their upfront and recurring costs)?
 How much does a given level of restoration/conservation
of an area of peatland contribute to the wider ecosystem
service benefits due to peatland restoration and
conservation?
 Distinction between lowland and upland peatlands? 6

7. Evaluating the impacts of restoration and
conservation over time
Net
emissions Without
(CO2 eq) restoration/conservation
The area between the two
curves gives the measure of
effectiveness over a certain
time period
Time
With
restoration/conservation
7
Changes in carbon stocks should include both above-ground and below-ground biomass

8. Restoration scenario
 Different degrees of restoration possible?
 Varying ‘effectiveness’ of restoration activities (i.e.
different time needed for ‘full’ restoration)?
 Ecosystem service delivery of particular area
independent of condition of adjacent area:
 Net GHG emissions
 Provisioning services
 (Recreation)
 Ecosystem service delivery of particular area
depends on condition of adjacent area:
 Water-related services 8

9. Restoration scenario
Net GHG emissions
baseline
plus marginal benefits of
reducing net GHG
-20% emissions are more or
less constant
=
 spatial optimisation
straightforward
-12%
+
9
-8%

10. Restoration scenario
Probability of high flows
relative to baseline
baseline
plus marginal benefits of
flood risk reduction may
-12% diminish with increasing
risk reduction
≠
 spatial optimisation
complicated
-4%
+
10
-3%

11. Restoration scenario
Probability of high flows
relative to baseline
baseline
A -12% contribution of A and B to
flood risk reduction??
B ≠
-4%
B
+
11
A -3%

12. Restoration scenario
Probability of high flows
relative to baseline
baseline
Is it possible to identify
-12% areas of peatland that are
independent with respect
to service delivery (e.g.
=
different sub-catchments
or ‘hydrological response
A -8% units’)?
+
12
-4%
B

13. Restoration scenario: biodiversity
• There is a consensus that biodiversity (conservation) is
very valuable
• Placing monetary values on biodiversity, especially the non-
use value aspects, is difficult; and it is questionable if
results of such an undertaking can be treated with much
confidence
• In a framework for prioritising peatland restoration and
conservation, biodiversity could enter via a ‘no regret’
approach conditioning the selection of appropriate
restoration and conservation measures
13

14. Restoration scenario: biodiversity
• A specific area is not considered suitable for restoration or
conservation if peatland restoration or conservation
compromised biodiversity conservation objectives
• But: it often seems to be difficult to agree on clear
objectives for biodiversity conservation
• e.g., near natural state may not support greatest ‘diversity’
14

15. Evaluating the impacts of restoration and
conservation over time
Net
emissions Without
(CO2 eq) restoration/conservation
Time
With
restoration/conservation
15
Changes in carbon stocks should include both above-ground and below-ground biomass

16. Choice of timeframe
 Impacts may not be linear over time
 What would be an appropriate timeframe for analysis?
 20 – 30 – 50 years?
 How would the choice of a timeframe influence results?
 One thing to think about here is the issue of protecting existing
stocks against restoring degraded stock: do longer time periods
favour one or the other?
 Effects of discounting (generally: choice of discount rate)?
 How long does it take for a peatland to be (fully) restored (no
additional effects)?
 How does uncertainty/variability in model predictions
change when the period of time increases?
16

17. Spatially explicit values
 Need to assign costs and benefits to specific areas of
peatland in the UK
 Information needs:
 How will a peatland area degrade (or not) under various
‘business-as-usual’ and ‘restoration’ scenarios?
 What is the opportunity cost of restoration/conservation
activities (and their upfront and recurring costs)?
 How much does a given level of restoration/conservation
of an area of peatland contribute to the ecosystem
service benefits due to peatland restoration and
conservation?
 Distinction between lowland and upland peatlands? 17

18. Uncertainty related to scenarios
 How certain are predictions about future states of
peatlands?
 what is the range of model outcomes?
 can this range be described probabilistically, i.e. in
terms of risk?
 Which are key variables influencing the sensitivity of
predictions of future states of peatlands?
18

19. Uncertainty related to activities
 What is the level of variation (based on current
knowledge/models) regarding the impact of
restoration activities on net GHG emissions?
 What is the level of uncertainty associated with the
effectiveness of restoration/conservation activities
regarding flood and water (quality) regulation?
 What drives variation in both?
 Can variation be described in probabilistic terms?
19

20. Outcome-related risk
 Generally individuals tend to prefer sure options over
uncertain ones when pay-offs are held constant (they
tend to be risk-averse)
 In the presence of ‘risky choices’ (risk regarding
outcomes of restoration/conservation), individuals
may therefore demand a risk premium (minimum
WTA for risk)
 This is basically the amount by which the value of an
environmental good should be reduced given that
outcomes are risky
20

21. Incorporating risk in valuation
 In (environmental) CBA, outcomes tend to be treated
as certain and individuals as risk neutral
 Increasing variance (risk) regarding the effectiveness
of restoration or conservation activities could be
‘penalised’ ex-post in the decision-making process
 Information on outcome-related risk could be
incorporated directly into primary valuation studies
 e.g., respondents to a stated preference question could
be informed about the likely range of outcomes they are
asked to value
 Perform sensitivity analysis
21

22. Back to the general aim…
 To generate a better understanding of the economics
of peatland ecosystem services in order to inform
decision-making on peatland restoration and
conservation activities in the UK
 Focus on working towards the development of a
framework for prioritising peatland
restoration/conservation activities on a UK scale
 What is needed? Challenges?
22

23. Summary
 Clearly a very demanding task – with lots of potential to
learn on the way
 Will the outcomes of such research justify the amount of
effort that is needed to generate decent results?
 Potential for simplification e.g. regarding the selection of
restoration/conservation scenarios by imposing certain rules
and constraints
 Is the ‘science’ available to support the necessary
valuation?
23

24. 24