DOCSLIB.ORG

RESTORATION of CALIFORNIA DELTAIC and COASTAL WETLANDS Version 1.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RESTORATION of CALIFORNIA DELTAIC and COASTAL WETLANDS Version 1.1 METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM THE RESTORATION OF CALIFORNIA DELTAIC AND COASTAL WETLANDS VERSION 1.1 November 2017 METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM THE RESTORATION OF CALIFORNIA DELTAIC AND COASTAL WETLANDS VERSION 1.1 November 2017 American Carbon Registry® WASHINGTON DC OFFICE c/o Winrock International 2451 Crystal Drive, Suite 700 Arlington, Virginia 22202 USA ph +1 703 302 6500 [email protected] americancarbonregistry.org ABOUT AMERICAN CARBON REGISTRY® (ACR) A leading carbon offset program founded in 1996 as the first private voluntary GHG registry in the world, ACR operates in the voluntary and regulated carbon markets. ACR has unparalleled experience in the development of environmentally rigorous, science-based offset methodolo- gies as well as operational experience in the oversight of offset project verification, registration, offset issuance and retirement reporting through its online registry system. © 2017 American Carbon Registry at Winrock International. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, displayed, modified or distributed without express written per- mission of the American Carbon Registry. The sole permitted use of the publication is for the registration of projects on the American Carbon Registry. For requests to license the publica- tion or any part thereof for a different use, write to the Washington DC address listed above. METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM THE RESTORATION OF CALIFORNIA DELTAIC AND COASTAL WETLANDS Version 1.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This methodology was authored by Steven Deverel (HydroFocus, Inc.), Patricia Oikawa (U.C. Berkeley), Sabina Dore (Hydrofocus, Inc.), Sarah Mack (Tierra Resources), and Lucas Silva (University of Oregon), with technical support from Dennis Baldocci (U.C. Berkeley) and Joe Verfaillie (U.C. Berkeley). The authors are thankful to the large group of people who have contributed to the production of this methodology. Initial methodology development was led and convened by Belinda Morris (formerly of the American Carbon Registry) and Campbell Ingram of The California Sacra- mento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (DC). This resulted in funding for methodology devel- opment and approval from a consortium of partners including the California Department of Wa- ter Resources (DWR), the California Coastal Conservancy, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), and Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD). The Writing Team, Technical Working Group members and stakeholders have been instrumental in shap- ing the methodology by providing helpful comments, coordination, and insight. We are grateful to; Evyan Borgnis (California Coastal Conservancy), Bryan Brock (DWR), John Callaway (Uni- versity of San Francisco), Judy Drexler (USGS), Matt Gerhart (California Coastal Conservancy), Sara Kroopf (Environmental Defense Fund), Campbell Ingram (DC), Michelle Passero (The Na- ture Conservancy), Russ Ryan (MWD), and Lisa Marie Windham-Meyers (USGS). Margaret Wil- liams, Kyle Hemes, Jessica Orrego, and Lauren Nichols of the American Carbon Registry have provided many helpful comments and suggested changes during the writing, approval and publication process. HydroFocus hydrologists Tim Ingram and Kristyn Hanson helped greatly with editing and formatting. The following methodologies were used to provide input to the methodology structure and text: ACR Restoration of Degraded Deltaic Wetlands of the Mississippi Delta, v 2.0 VCS Methodology for Coastal Wetland Creation, v1.0 ACR Emission Reductions Methodology in Rice Management Systems, v1.0 November 2017 americancarbonregistry.org 3 METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM THE RESTORATION OF CALIFORNIA DELTAIC AND COASTAL WETLANDS Version 1.1 Methodology Lead Agency: Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Methodology Lead Author: HydroFocus, Inc. November 2017 americancarbonregistry.org 4 METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM THE RESTORATION OF CALIFORNIA DELTAIC AND COASTAL WETLANDS Version 1.1 ACRONYMS ACR American Carbon Registry A/R Afforestation and/or reforestation ARR Afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation AFOLU Agriculture, forestry, and other land use C Carbon CDM Clean development mechanism CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent CF Carbon fraction CH4 Methane ERT Emission Reduction Ton GHG Greenhouse gas GIS Geographic information system GPS Global positioning system GWP Global warming potential N2O Nitrous oxide MT Metric ton QA Quality assurance QC Quality control SOP Standard Operating Procedures VCS Verified Carbon Standard W/RC Wetlands/Rice Cultivation November 2017 americancarbonregistry.org 5 METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM THE RESTORATION OF CALIFORNIA DELTAIC AND COASTAL WETLANDS Version 1.1 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 3 ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. 5 CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... 6 1 METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK MODULE (MF-W/RC) ......................................................12 1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................12 1.1.1 BASELINE CONDITION EXAMPLES ..................................................................14 1.1.2 PROJECT CONDITION EXAMPLES ...................................................................16 1.1.3 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY .........................................................................18 1.2 GENERAL GUIDANCE ..................................................................................................19 1.2.1 SCOPE ...............................................................................................................19 1.2.2 MODULES AND TOOLS ....................................................................................20 1.2.3 VERIFICATION ...................................................................................................22 1.2.4 ELIGIBLE PROJECT AND BASELINE COMBINATIONS .....................................23 1.2.5 APPLICABILITY CRITERIA .................................................................................24 1.3 ASSESSMENT OF NET GHG EMISSION REDUCTION ..................................................32 1.3.1 STEP 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE BASELINE ACTIVITIES .................................33 1.3.2 STEP 2 DEFINITION OF PROJECT BOUNDARIES .............................................33 1.3.3 STEP 3 DEMONSTRATION OF ADDITIONALITY ...............................................40 1.3.4 STEP 4 DEVELOPING OF A MONITORING PLAN .............................................42 1.3.5 STEP 5 ESTIMATION OF BASELINE CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND GHG EMISSIONS ...............................................................................................43 1.3.6 STEP 6 ESTIMATION OF PROJECT CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND GHG EMISSIONS ...............................................................................................44 1.3.7 STEP 7 ESTIMATION OF TOTAL NET GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (BASELINE – PROJECT – LEAKAGE) ................................................................44 1.3.8 STEP 8 CALCULATION OF UNCERTAINTY .......................................................45 1.3.9 STEP 9 RISK ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................46 1.3.10 STEP 10 CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION TONS (ERTS) ..............47 1.4 REQUIREMENTS OF PROJECT RENEWAL ...................................................................47 1.5 PARAMETER TABLES ...................................................................................................48 November 2017 americancarbonregistry.org 6 METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM THE RESTORATION OF CALIFORNIA DELTAIC AND COASTAL WETLANDS Version 1.1 2 BASELINE QUANTIFICATION MODULES ...........................................................................50 2.1 (BL-AG) BASELINE CONDITION IS AGRICULTURE .....................................................51 2.1.1 SCOPE, BACKGROUND, APPLICABILITY AND PARAMETERS ........................51 2.1.2 PROCEDURE .....................................................................................................52 2.1.3 PARAMETER TABLES ........................................................................................55 2.2 (BL-SW) BASELINE CONDITION IS SEASONAL WETLANDS .......................................56 2.2.1 SCOPE, BACKGROUND, APPLICABILITY, AND PARAMETERS .......................56 2.2.2 PROCEDURE .....................................................................................................58 2.2.3 PARAMETER TABLES ........................................................................................62
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Understanding to Sustainable Use of Peatlands: the WETSCAPES Approach
    Article From Understanding to Sustainable Use of Peatlands: The WETSCAPES Approach Gerald Jurasinski 1 , Sate Ahmad 2 , Alba Anadon-Rosell 3 , Jacqueline Berendt 4, Florian Beyer 5 , Ralf Bill 5 , Gesche Blume-Werry 6 , John Couwenberg 7, Anke Günther 1, Hans Joosten 7 , Franziska Koebsch 1, Daniel Köhn 1, Nils Koldrack 5, Jürgen Kreyling 6, Peter Leinweber 8, Bernd Lennartz 2 , Haojie Liu 2 , Dierk Michaelis 7, Almut Mrotzek 7, Wakene Negassa 8 , Sandra Schenk 5, Franziska Schmacka 4, Sarah Schwieger 6 , Marko Smiljani´c 3, Franziska Tanneberger 7, Laurenz Teuber 6, Tim Urich 9, Haitao Wang 9 , Micha Weil 9 , Martin Wilmking 3 , Dominik Zak 10 and Nicole Wrage-Mönnig 4,* 1 Landscape Ecology and Site Evaluation, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, J.-v.-Liebig-Weg 6, 18051 Rostock, Germany; [email protected] (G.J.); [email protected] (A.G.); [email protected] (F.K.); [email protected] (D.K.) 2 Soil Physics, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, J.-v.-Liebig-Weg 6, 18051 Rostock, Germany; [email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (B.L.); [email protected] (H.L.) 3 Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics, Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Soldmannstr. 15, 17487 Greifswald, Germany; [email protected] (A.A.-R.); [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (M.W.) 4 Grassland
    [Show full text]
  • Paludiculture Potential in North East Germany
    Reed as a Renewable Resource; Greifswald; Feburary 14.-16. 2013 Paludiculture Potential in North East Germany Christian Schröder University of Greifswald Foto: W. Thiel Natural versus drained peatland Mire = growing peatland peat-formation carbon storage surface raise water table Drained peatland peat degradation CO2-Emissions subsidence water table Nabu 2012 Peatlands of Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania ca. 300.000 ha 13% of the total area 95% are drained Peatland Drainage peat degradation subsidence increase of drainage costs management problems -1 -1 25tons CO2 eqha a Annual CO2 emissions in Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania 7 Used 6 For Forestry 5 4 equ per year per equ - 2 Used 3 For t CO 6 Agriculture 2 1 Semi- 0 natural Emissions in 10 Emissions Public energy Industry Traffic Small Emissions and remote customers from heating supply peatlands MLUV 2009 Agricultural used peatlands show highest emissions Estimation of GHG-Emissions from peatlands 70 60 1 - 50 CO2 yr CH4 1 - 40 GWP 30 äq ha äq emissions - - 20 2 10 t CO t GHG 0 -10 -20 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 water table[cm] Rewetting of peatlands Loss of agricultural land Use wet peatlands ! Paludiculture Paludiculture „palus“ – lat.: swamp, marsh Sustainable land use of peatlands Production of biomass Preservation of the peatbody Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions Maintain ecosystem services Peatland conservation by sustainable land use Nature conservation vs. paludiculture rewetting frequency of harvesting water managment planting fertilisation intensity of land use Nature conservation Paludiculture management Use of Biomass Raw material for industrial use Harvesting Energy generation Paludibiomass as a raw material Foto: W.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report
    Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate change Main Report Published By Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur & Wetlands International, Wageningen First Published in Electronic Format in December 2007 This version first published in May 2008 Copyright © 2008 Global Environment Centre & Wetlands International Reproduction of material from the publication for educational and non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior permission from Global Environment Centre or Wetlands International, provided acknowledgement is provided. Reference Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H., Minayeva , T., Silvius, M. and Stringer, L. (Eds.) 2008. Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report . Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. Reviewer of Executive Summary Dicky Clymo Available from Global Environment Centre 2nd Floor Wisma Hing, 78 Jalan SS2/72, 47300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: +603 7957 2007, Fax: +603 7957 7003. Web: www.gecnet.info ; www.peat-portal.net Email: [email protected] Wetlands International PO Box 471 AL, Wageningen 6700 The Netherlands Tel: +31 317 478861 Fax: +31 317 478850 Web: www.wetlands.org ; www.peatlands.ru ISBN 978-983-43751-0-2 Supported By United Nations Environment Programme/Global Environment Facility (UNEP/GEF) with assistance from the Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) Design by Regina Cheah and Andrey Sirin Printed on Cyclus 100% Recycled Paper. Printing on recycled paper helps save our natural
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities and Challenges of Sphagnum Farming & Harvesting
    Opportunities and Challenges of Sphagnum Farming & Harvesting Gilbert Ludwig Master’s thesis December 2019 Bioeconomy Master of Natural Resources, Bioeconomy Development Description Author(s) Type of publication Date Ludwig, Gilbert Master’s thesis December 2019 Language of publication: English Number of pages Permission for web 33 publication: x Title of publication Opportunities & Challenges of Sphagnum Farming & Harvesting Master of Natural Resources, Bioeconomy Development Supervisor(s) Kataja, Jyrki; Vertainen, Laura; Assigned by International Peatland Society Abstract Sphagnum sp. moss, of which there are globally about 380 species, are the principal peat forming organisms in temperate and boreal peatlands. Sphagnum farming & harvesting has been proposed as climate-smart and carbon neutral use and after-use of peatlands, and dried Sphagnum have been shown to be excellent raw material for most growing media applications. The state, prospects and challenges of Sphagnum farming & harvesting in different parts of the world are evaluated: Sphagnum farming as paludiculture and after-use of agricultural peatlands and cut-over bogs, Sphagnum farming on mineral soils and mechanical Sphagnum harvesting. Challenges of Sphagnum farming and harvesting as a mean to reduce peat dependency in growing media are still significant, with industrial upscaling, i.e. ensuring adequate quantities of raw material, and economic feasibility being the biggest barriers. Development of new, innovative business models and including Sphagnum in the group of agricultural
    [Show full text]
  • Paludiculture Projects in Europe
    Paludiculture projects in Europe Franziska Tanneberger, Christian Schröder & Wendelin Wichtmann Conventional agriculture on peatland: the peat mineralises and shrinks subsidence + ‚increasing‘ water levels Van de Riet et al. 2014 Peatland rewetting stops subsidence + emissions Drained peat Wet peat Wet peat Van de Riet et al. 2014 Paludiculture ‐ the wet alternative to drainage‐ based use of degraded peatlands „palus“ –lat. for swamp … the use of wet peatlands which combines the production function with the provision of essential ecosystem services of mires… What can be achieved? • preservation of peat safeguard the production function • reduction of greenhouse gas emissions climate protection • minimisation of nutrient run‐off water protection • optional: mire biodiversity, new peat formation 60 Conventional peatland use 40 -1 a -1 Emission reduction -eq. ha 2 20 Paludiculture GWP t CO 0 Rewetting -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 Crops, high-intensity grassland Mean annual water table [cm] Low-intensity grazing Low-intensity grassland Reed canary grass Alder Reed, sedges, cattail --- Peatmoss Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) energy (combustion, biogas) Common Reed (Phragmites australis) construction materials and energy Sedges (Carex spp.) energy (combustion, biogas), fodder, litter Cattail (Typha spp.) construction materials, fodder, energy (biogas) Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa) construction materials, furniture, energy Peatmosses (Sphagnum palustre, S. papillosum) growing media Cultivation of mire plants Afforestation
    [Show full text]
  • Sphagnum Farming for Replacing Peat in Horticultural Substrates
    Sphagnum farming for replacing peat in horticultural substrates Rastede, Lower Saxony, Germany (53° 15.80′ N, 08°16′ E) Sabine Wichmann1, Greta Gaudig1, Matthias Krebs1, Hans Joosten1, Kerstin Albrecht2, Silke Kumar3 1 2 3 University of Greifswald, University of Rostock, Torfwerk Moorkultur Ramsloh ©FAO/Sabine Wichmann ©FAO/Sabine Sphagnum farming: a: site with infrastructure for water management (pump, ditches, overflow) and dams used as causeways (maintenance, harvest, transport) (schematic representation: Sabine Wichmann) b: Preparation of a Sphagnum farming production site (photo: Sabine Wichmann); c: same site with established Sphagnum culture and irrigation system (photo: Sabine Wichmann). Summary Sphagnum (peat moss) biomass provides a GHG-neutral alternative to fossil peat in professional horticulture. So far however, it has only been collected in the wild. Small-scale land-based Sphagnum farming is currently practiced on degraded peatlands. Sphagnum farming has also been tested on specially constructed floating mats that guarantee a constant water supply. This water–based cultivation allows bog waters to be used as reservoirs to irrigate cultivated areas in dry periods. It also creates additional Sphagnum farming areas. A mosaic of rewetted areas with land-and water-based cultivation may present the optimal combination for Sphagnum farming on degraded bogs. Experiments have also shown the suitability of growing media made of Sphagnum biomass for cultivating a wide variety of crops from seedling to saleable plant. Sphagnum biomass is also suitable for other uses, including gardening design, terrariums, sanitary items, insulation of buildings, water filtering and pharmaceuticals. When Sphagnum is cultivated as a new agricultural crop on rewetted peatlands, the high and stable water levels greatly reduce GHG emissions and the subsidence of the formerly drained peat soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Crops for Paludiculture in Temperate, Boreal and Tropical Climates Susanne Abel University of Greifswald
    FAO peatland workshop Potential crops for paludiculture in temperate, boreal and tropical climates Susanne Abel University of Greifswald Foto: W. Thiel Paludiculture = wet peatland cultivation Preservation of the peat body Reduction of GHG emissions Production of renewable biomass without competition to food production Maintainance of ecosystem services Restoration of habitats for typical mire species Picture: C. Schröder Paludiculture plants Wetland plants Biomass in sufficient quantity and quality Peat conservation –> use of aboveground biomass Utilisation of the spontaneous vegetation or cultivated wetland plants Phragmites australis – Common Reed Highest potential for paludiculture: • Wide distribution • Peat forming species • Productivity: 6-18 t dm/ha*yr • Well studied • Established utilisation chain Phragmites australis – Utilisation Pellets Fuel: winter harvest for direct combustion Raw material: - for thatching - fireproof walls - insulation walls Briquets Pictures: T. Dahms, & W. Wichtmann Phragmites australis – Utilisation Pulp and paper production in China Annual reed yield of 450.000 t of dry biomass Biomass storage Pictures: Siyuan Ye 1. Step of processing: cutting machine Rozwarowo ‘farm’ NW Poland 500 ha - reed harvest for thatching Picture: T. Dahms Typha spp. - Cattail • T. angustifolia, T. latifolia, T. x glauca • Productivity 4 - 22 t dm/ha*yr • Sites with high nutrient loads and high water tables • Paludiculture practices: Germany, USA, Canada Cattail harvest in Manitoba for combustion, nutrient removal and
    [Show full text]
  • Defra Project SP1218 an Assessment of the Potential for Paludiculture in England and Wales
    Literature Review: Defra Project SP1218 An assessment of the potential for paludiculture in England and Wales Authors: Dr Barry Mulholland, ADAS, Boxworth, UK Islam Abdel-Aziz, ADAS, Boxworth, UK Richard Lindsay, Sustainability Research Institute, University of East London, UK Dr Niall McNamara, UKCEH, Lancaster, UK Dr Aidan Keith, UKCEH, Lancaster, UK Professor Susan Page, School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, UK Jack Clough, Sustainability Research Institute, University of East London, UK Ben Freeman, Bangor University, UK Professor Chris Evans, UKCEH, Bangor, UK April 2020 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 5 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 History of Peatland Agriculture in the United Kingdom ............................................................. 8 1.2 Extent and Status of Lowland Peatlands in the United Kingdom ............................................... 9 1.3 Peatland Rewetting .................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Paludiculture ............................................................................................................................... 11 2 PRODUCTIVITY AND SUITABILITY OF LAND FOR PALUDICULTURE ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Progress of Paludiculture Projects in Supporting Peatland Ecosystem Restoration in Indonesia
    Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01084 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco Original Research Article Progress of paludiculture projects in supporting peatland ecosystem restoration in Indonesia * ** Ibnu Budiman a, , Bastoni b, , Eli NN Sari a, Etik E. Hadi b, Asmaliyah b, Hengki Siahaan b, Rizky Januar a, Rahmah Devi Hapsari a a World Resources Institute Indonesia, Wisma PMI, Jl. Wijaya I No. 63, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan, 12170, Indonesia b Environment and Forestry Research and Development Institute (EFRDI) of Palembang, Puntikayu, Kotak Pos 179, Jl. Kol. H. Burlian KM.6 No.5, Srijaya, Alang-Alang Lebar, Palembang, South Sumatra, 30961, Indonesia article info abstract Article history: Sustainable peatland management practices such as paludiculture are crucial for restoring Received 25 September 2019 degraded peatland ecosystems. Paludiculture involves wet cultivation practices in peatland Received in revised form 27 April 2020 and can maintain peat bodies and sustaining ecosystem services. However, information Accepted 27 April 2020 about paludiculture effects on tropical peatlands is limited in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to analyse the effectiveness and progress of paludiculture projects in sup- Keywords: porting peatland ecosystem restoration in Indonesia that uses approaches of soil rewet- Paludiculture ting, revegetation of peat soil/forest, and the revitalisation of rural livelihoods around Peatland restoration fi Indonesia peatlands. We obtained qualitative and quantitative data from eld measurements, ob- Tropical peatland servations, document reviews, spatial data from open-source web applications, and in- Trade-off terviews with key stakeholders in two projects (agri-silviculture and agro-sylvofishery) that adapt paludiculture principles to Indonesia’s South Sumatra Province.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Mitigation Through Land Use on Rewetted Peatlands – Cross-Sectoral Spatial Planning for Paludiculture in Northeast Germany
    Wetlands https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01310-8 PEATLANDS Climate Change Mitigation through Land Use on Rewetted Peatlands – Cross-Sectoral Spatial Planning for Paludiculture in Northeast Germany Franziska Tanneberger1,2 & Christian Schröder1 & Monika Hohlbein1 & † Uwe Lenschow3 & Thorsten Permien4 & Sabine Wichmann1,2 & Wendelin Wichtmann2 Received: 3 December 2019 /Accepted: 6 May 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Drainage of peatlands causes severe environmental damage, including high greenhouse gas emissions. Peatland rewetting substantially lowers these emissions. After rewetting, paludiculture (i.e. agriculture and forestry on wet peatlands) is a promising land use option. In Northeast Germany (291,361 ha of peatland) a multi-stakeholder discussion process about the implementation of paludiculture took place in 2016/2017. Currently, 57% of the peatland area is used for agriculture (7% as arable land, 50% as −1 permanent grassland), causing greenhouse gas emissions of 4.5 Mt CO2eq a . By rewetting and implementing paludiculture, up −1 to 3 Mt CO2eq a from peat soils could be avoided. To safeguard interests of both nature conservation and agriculture, the different types of paludiculture were grouped into ‘cropping paludiculture’ and ‘permanent grassland paludiculture’.Basedon land legislation and plans, a paludiculture land classification was developed. On 52% (85,468 ha) of the agriculturally used peatlands any type of paludiculture may be implemented. On 30% (49,929 ha), both cropping and permanent grassland paludiculture types are possible depending on administrative check. On 17% (28,827 ha), nature conservation restrictions allow only permanent grassland paludiculture. We recommend using this planning approach in all regions with high greenhouse gas emissions from drained peatlands to avoid land use conflicts.
    [Show full text]
  • Sphagnum Farming in a Eutrophic World: the Importance of Optimal
    G Model ECOENG-4430; No. of Pages 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS Ecological Engineering xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Engineering journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng Sphagnum farming in a eutrophic world: The importance of optimal nutrient stoichiometry a,∗ a,b,c a,d a Ralph J.M. Temmink , Christian Fritz , Gijs van Dijk , Geert Hensgens , a,d e e e Leon P.M. Lamers , Matthias Krebs , Greta Gaudig , Hans Joosten a Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands b Sustainable Agriculture, Rhein-Waal University for Applied Science, Wiesenstraße 5, 47575 Kleve, Germany c Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands d B-WARE Research Centre, Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands e Peatland Studies and Palaeoecology, Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University, partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Soldmannstraße 15, 17487 Greifswald, Germany a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Large areas of peatlands have worldwide been drained to facilitate agriculture, which has adverse effects Received 21 March 2016 on the environment and the global climate. Agriculture on rewetted peatlands (paludiculture) provides Received in revised form 25 August 2016 a sustainable alternative to drainage-based agriculture. One form of paludiculture is the cultivation of Accepted 11 October 2016 Sphagnum moss, which can be used as a raw material for horticultural growing media. Under natural Available online xxx conditions, most Sphagnum mosses eligible for paludiculture typically predominate only in nutrient-poor wetland habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Tour - Guide Paludiculture
    STUDY TOUR - GUIDE PALUDICULTURE September 24th - 28th 2018 Contents EXCURSION OVERVIEW 4 EXCURSION DAY 1 I ROUTE AND SCHEDULE 8 II INTRODUCTION 9 II EXCURSION SITES 1. Polder Zuiderveen 10 2. Polder Ilperveld 12 3. Northeast Friesland 14 EXCURSION DAY 2 I ROUTE AND SCHEDULE 16 II INTRODUCTION 17 III EXCURSION SITES 1. Peatland Hankhausen 19 2. Bad Oldeslohe– Company Hiss Reet 21 EXCURSION DAY 3 I ROUTE AND SCHEDULE 23 II INTRODUCTION 25 III EXCURSION SITES 1. Schuenhagen 25 2. The city of Greifswald 28 EXCURSION DAY 4 I ROUTE AND SCHEDULE 32 II INTRODUCTION 33 III EXCURSION SITES 1. KAMP 35 2. IVENACK 36 3. MALCHIN/NEUKALEN 37 EXCURSION DAY 5 I ROUTE AND SCHEDULE 40 II INTRODUCTION 41 III EXCURSION SITE 43 FURTHER READING Overview I EXCURSION OVERVIEW Route 24.-28.09.2018 – Tour days (1-5) Schedule Monday, 24th September Amsterdam & Noordoost Fryslân, The Netherlands Tuesday, 25th September Hankhausen, Bad Oldeslohe, Lower Saxony, Germany Wednesday, 26th September Schuenhagen, Greifswald, Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania, Germany Thursday, 27th September Polder Kamp, Neukalen & Malchin, Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania, Germany Friday, 28th September Potsdam, Brandenburg, Berlin, Germany 4 5 Overview II The EUKI-Project “Potential and Capacities for climate protection through productive use of rewetted peatlands” Date: January 2018 Countries: Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Project duration: 10.2017-02.2020 Implem. Organi- Michael Succow Foundation (MSF) sation: Target Group: Land users (on peatland); Land owners; Administration on national and regional levels; Agriculture and forestry agencies in nature con- servation and agriculture; Ministries of environment and agriculture; Representatives of the Baltic states at the EU in Brussels Project financing Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), is a project financing instrument by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMUB).
    [Show full text]