Biomass from Reeds As a Substitute for Peat in Energy Production in Belarus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biomass from reeds as a substitute for peat in energy production in Belarus Lida district, Grodno region, Belarus (LPF: N 53.8283389, E 25.4227639) Andreas Haberl and Wendelin Wichtmann, Michael Succow Stiftung zum Schutz der Natur (Michael Succow Foundation) ©FAO/Andreas Haberl ©FAO/Andreas Excavated peatlands near Lida, Belarus with reed vegetation (left). Envisaged fuel pellets from 100 percent graminaceous biomass (center). Reed samples from project sites at Lida peat factory (right). Summary More than half of the total peatland area of Belarus (over 1.5 million ha) has been drained for agriculture, forestry, and peat extraction. Out of this area, 122 200 ha are cutover peatlands that have been abandoned after peat excavation and 36 800 ha are still being exploited. During the last few years, about 50 000 ha of drained peatlands have been rewetted. Currently, another 500 000 ha are potentially available for hydrological restoration. The sustainable cultivation of biomass from wet or rewetted peatlands (paludiculture) is being implemented in cooperation with local stakeholders (nature reserves, peat factories, collective farms, local energy suppliers) at two pilot peatland sites. The regional production of biomass briquettes is opening up new opportunities for earning incomes in rural areas. The re–orientation of peat factories in Belarus to practices that use renewable biomass sustainably will be encouraged to replace land management practices that consume natural resources in ways that are not environmentally sound. The introduction and implementation of paludicultures on drained and degraded peatland sites after rewetting can improve habitats for threatened peatland species and reduce GHG emissions. Within the wetland–energy project, ecological and socio–economic monitoring activities have accompanied the establishment of a fuel briquette production line from the harvest of biomass to the finished briquettes. Gaps and needs for scaling up the activities will be identified. 1. Practice description Area of the site 360 ha Current land cover/use Paludicultures Abandoned dry and bare peatland and rewetted as well as Previous land cover/use spontaneously vegetated peat extraction sites. The project is an initiative of Michael Succow Foundation with the International Sacharov Environmental University, Minsk and the Institute for Nature Management of the Origin of intervention Academy of Sciences, Belarus supported by the EU Aid programme and based on an experiment and research project within the German International Climate Initiative for peatland rewetting and climate change mitigation. Rewetting Drainage Cultivation of crops Types of intervention Grazing used in the area Forestry Wet peatland cultivation and Aquaculture harvest of graminaceous Fishery species for energy fuel Other production. How long the practice 2 years has been applied? Replacement of fossil fuels and reduction of GHG emissions, Main purpose of the practice income generation in rural areas. Low Level of technical knowledge Medium High Water table depth from surface From –10 to –20 cm below surface Width of channels Channels were blocked Present active drainage system Distance between channels – Before practice – Subsidence During practice 0 2. Implementation of activities, inputs and cost N Establishment of activities Input/materials Duration Cost Special harvesting equipment for very 0.5 year, High Purchase and application of wet peatland sites, adapted pelleting/ partly (more 1 adapted harvesting machine and briquetting line for graminaceous ongoing than USD biomass procession equipment biomass from wet peatlands activity 50 000) Optimization of biomass harvest Local engineering with experience and production of biomass pellets; in developing special machinery 2 improvement of basic preferred for agriculture and scientists from 1.5 years Medium concepts with engeneering of International Sacharov Environmental technical solutions University, Minsk Market analysis and life cycle Literature and database as well as use 3 analysis of biomass fuel production 0.5 year Low in Belarus of models Dissemination of project results Publication in magazines, journals, 4 and innovations; scaling up on the brochures, booklets; participation in 3 years Low national level in Belarus conferences and congresses 3. Environmental characteristics Tropical Climate Temperate Boreal Average annual rainfall ~600 mm Altitude ~150 m a.s.l. Slope 0 % ≤ 30 30–50 Peat depth (cm) 50–100 100–300 >300 Peatland type Fen Bog based on the water source Undefined Hydrologic network Tributary to River Neman Bare peat or spontaneous moist reedbed Before practice succession Phragmites australis, Carex Main vegetation species spec, Calamagrostis spec. Developed wet reedbeds Phragmites During practice australis, Carex spec, Calamagrostis spec. Water pH 6.8– 7.4 at both sides Water quality Water turbidity – Dissolved organic carbon content – 4. Socio–economic dimension Peat factory as energy supplier in Belarus, local energy Local stakeholders consumers (communities), Sporovsky Zakaznik nature conservation administration Land tenure State/government Land, water, and other natural Public properties resource access and use rights Conflicts between different public property funds may arise (forestry/agriculture) because exploited Conflicts peatlands fall to the forestry fund after abandonment what complicates further landuse other than forestry. Suitable mechanisms within legal framework conditions for landuse change from peat extraction Conflict resolution mechanism towards energy biomass production will be identified by the project. and solutions implemented for Best practice examples will be demonstrated. Legal framework No relevant legal obstacles are observed. Products derived from the peatland Biofuels (energy briquettes and pellets from biomass) Local and regional markets as well as export markets Market orientation (replacement of peat briquettes) will be analysed. 5. Assessment of impacts on ecosystem services 1 highly decreasing/ 2 moderately decreasing/ 3 slightly decreasing/ 4 neutral/ 5 slightly increasing/ 6 moderately increasing/ 7 highly increasing Agricultural production 5 Food security and nutrition 4 Employment 5 Provisioning services Income 5 Non–timber forest products yield 4 Livelihoods opportunities 5 Resilience and capacity to adapt to climate change 7 Level of conflicts 4 Socio–cultural services Gender equality 4 Learning and innovation 6 Waterborne carbon (DOC) loss 2 Fire frequency 1 Regulating services Biodiversity 6 Subsidence rate 1 Water quality 6 Off–site benefits Frequency of flooding 3 6. Climate change mitigation potential 1 highly decreasing/ 2 moderately decreasing/ 3 slightly decreasing/ 4 neutral/ 5 slightly increasing/ 6 moderately increasing/ 7 highly increasing Estimate Impact Rate –1 –1 Remarks (t ha year , CO2–eq) Net GHG emission 1 CH4 emission 5 CO2 emission 1 N2O emission 3 – 4 Carbon sequestration/ 4 – 5 storage abovegrounds 7. Additional information Acknowledgements Thanks to the EUAID External Actions programme of the European Union – DCI–ENV/2010/220– 473 that supports the project. For further information see: www.iseu.by/online/showpage.jsp?PageID=89222&resID=100229&lang=en&menuItemID=117646 www.succow–stiftung.de/wetland–energy–sustainable–use–of–wet–peatlands–in–belarus.html The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. I4 428E/1/02.15 © FAO, 2015 © FAO, 2015.