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 



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

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?