A future task in good hands Benefits for man, climate and nature: peatland restoration and ecologically sound flood prevention Dr. Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft.

A future task in good hands

Benefits for man, climate and nature: peatland restoration and

ecologically sound flood prevention

Dr. Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Unit I 2.1: Legal Affairs, Economics and Ecologically Sound Regional Development

Email: [email protected]

Our Idea

…we wanted to

show the benefits (ecosystem services) of nature and nature conservation

not only in qualitative and physical terms

but also in monetary terms

Encouraged by the TEEB-Study (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity)

8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN

Our basis assumption (that was to be proved)

Regulating and cultural services are very often correlated with high biodiversity

Monetary value of ecosystem services can serve as an

additional (economic) argument for the conservation

and restoration of high-nature-value ecosystems

(e.g. ● C-sequestration by peatlands,

● mitigation of CO2 emissions by peatland restoration,

● flood-protection and water purification by natural flood plains)


Case-Study: Regaining natural flood plains by dike

shifting

Cost-benefit-analysis of measures at the river Elbe Source: Grossmann et al. 2010

486

177

926

Present Value

in Mio €Willingness to pay for the effects of regained flood plains on biodiversity and recreation

Flood damage reduction (very conservative estimate)

Value of additional nutrient retention / decomposition estimated by (saved) expenses for aquivalent measures to reduce nutrient load

Cost-benefit-ratio including ESS and willingness to pay for biodiversity:

1 / 3


Case study: Mitigation of climate gas emissions and

carbon sequestration by peatland restoration

rewetted grassland with elder afforestation

intensively used meadows and pastures on peat soil

Emission:24 t CO2 per ha/a

Sequestration: 1 t CO2 per ha/a

ESS = Mitigation of 25 t CO2 per ha/a

Valued with alternative costs for CO2 mitigation by wind power (40 € per t CO2)Value of ESS = 25 • 40 € = 1000 € per ha/a

Valued with avoided damage costs (70 € per t CO2):Value of ESS = 25 • 70 € = 1750 € per ha/a

Mitigation costs per t CO2:

0 – 4 €

Value for greenhouse gas

mitigation of 30,000 ha peatland

restoration in the state „Mecklenburg

Vorpommern“: 30 Mio. € per year (avoided damage

costs)

Source: Schäfer 2007, 2009


Case study:Ecosystem services of high-nature-value

grassland (meadows and pastures )

Data basis:

Representative sample of high-nature-value (HNV) grassland; estimated area of HNV-grassland in Germany: 1.062.322 ha = 2,8% of total land cover

Value of ecosystem services of HNV-grassland compared with conversion to cropland

● Production: reduced market returns minus production costs:

● Carbon sequestration, climate-gas-mitigation damage cost approach (70 € / t C02, +- Stern-Report)

● Groundwater purification compensation payments for reduced fertilizer input on cropland:

● Nature conservation downscaling of germanwide willingness to pay for nature-conservation measures on a simple ha basis:

0 – - 400 €/ha/a

160 €/ha/a

70 €/ha/a

1000 €/ha/a

Preliminary

findings,

all figures

to be

confirmed


830 - 1230 €/ha/a

Monetary calculation – limits and advantages –

Only a few ESS can be estimated for different ecosystems relative easily (e.g.: carbon sequestration, existence values for species habitats)

Other ESS are extremely hard to quantify because they depend heavily on local physical and social conditions (e.g.: flood mitigation)

Some monetary values of ESS can be heavily dependent on assumptions on discount rates (e.g. flood mitigation, climate gas mitigation)

But:

Often evaluating only a few aspects of the overall figure is enough to show that nature conservation counts even economically


Recommendations


Many kinds of projects that offer the chance to combine nature conservation with other targets, like

● climate gas mitigation and adaption to climate change, ● renewable energy, ● clean water supply● regional development,

are planned on a local or regional level

National policy should provide regions with

best practice examples

methods to assess economic benefits

funds to pay for supra-regional benefits like climate-gas-mitigation, downstream flood prevention or improved water supply

A future task in good hands

Many thanks for your kind attention

Dr. Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft

Unit I 2.1: Legal Affairs, Economics and Ecologically Sound Regional Development

Additional informations

The idea of monetary evaluation of ecosystem services (ESS)

applying cost-benefit-analysis helps to value gains in provisioning services against losses in regulating or cultural services (or the other way round) and thus helps to find decisions that are most beneficial for society regarding more than one aspect / especially conflicting aims

Cost-benefit-analysis is an instrument of welfare economics

Often there is a conflict between provisioning services (e.g. food production, biomass for use in energy-production) and cultural or regulating services (e.g. flood-protection, groundwater-protection, recreational use)

(All) Costs and benefits are made comparable and valued in monetary terms:

A ratio „benefit / costs“ that exceeds „1/1“ means: this project has positive effects on welfare.


An additional ongoing study: Cost-benefit-analysis of land use-

scenarios for Germany

Land use scenarios:

Status Quo Intensified land use for food and energy-biomass production

Reaching the goals of the national biodiversity strategy

focus on synergies between nature-conservation and climate gas mitigation

Costs and benefits:

Production

Restoration and management

Nature Conservation

Recreation

Climate-gas mitigation

Other ecosystem services

monetary valuation: differences between prices and prod.costs

monetary valuation: restoration and management costs

monetary valuation on the basis of revealed preferences for nature-related day trips (demand curve estimation on the relation between costs, frequency of trips and landscape features of the destination)

monetary valuation on the basis of choice analysis for willingness to pay for different nature-conservation programmes

partly monetary / partly semi-quantitative ++ + o – – –

semi-quantitative ++ + o – – –


Management actionsalong the Elbe:

500

Hamburg

Magdeburg

Leipzig

Dresden

Neu Darchau

Wittenberge

Havelberg

Tangermünde

Barby Wittenberg

Torgau

Dessau

400

300

200

Havel

Aland

Saale

MuldeN

10 km

100

S a x o n y -

A n h a l t

Brandenburg

S a x o n y

Morphological inundation area

Active inundation area

200 German Elbe-River KilometreBorder of the Biosphere Reserve

Sandau

Rogätz

Locations for potential dike shifting

● Dike shifting in order to regain up to 15,000 ha of flood plains

● Extensification of agriculture on new and existing flood plains (up to 40,000 ha)

Details: Dyke shifting along the river Elbe

Retentionsflächen

Siedlungen

aktive Aue

ehemaliger Überflutungsraum

0 25 5012,5 Kilometers

situation of flood plains:

proposed

historicalactually active

settlements

Source: Dehnhardt, Bräuer, 2007; Hartje, Grossmann, Meyerhoff, 2010)

0 25 50 75 1000

1000

2000

3000

Tage

Abf

luss

(m

3 s

-1)

50-JAHR EREIGNIS100-JAHR EREIGNIS200-JAHR EREIGNIS

0 500 1000 15000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 5000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Elbe km

Beitrag der Nebenflüsse

Ist Zustand (100 Jahr Hochwasserereignis)

Beispiel mit Maβnahmen

Max

imal

er

Ab

fluss

m3s-1

0 100 200 300 400 5000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Elbe km

Beitrag der Nebenflüsse

Ist Zustand (100 Jahr Hochwasserereignis)

Beispiel mit Maβnahmen

Max

imal

er

Ab

fluss

m3s-1

140 150 160 170 180 190

75

80

85

Elbe km

Wasserstand HQ200 (m NN)

Deichkronenhöhe (m NN)

140 150 160 170 180 190

75

80

85

Elbe km

Wasserstand HQ200 (m NN)

Deichkronenhöhe (m NN)

2. Flood-routing model for the river

3. Inundation model / flooding model for areas behind the dykes

1. Statistical model of flood water incidents

wat

er l

evel

in

th

e

stre

am

(m N

N)

contribution of side rivers

flooding volume in areas behind the dyke in million m3

wat

er l

evel

in

are

as

beh

ind

th

e d

yke

(m

NN

)

heigt of surface area (m above NN)

flooding heigt above surface (m)

Details: Elbe – models applied for estimation

max

imu

m d

isch

arg

e /

wat

er r

un

-off

(m

3s-1

)

dis

ch

arg

e /

wat

er r

un

-off

(m

3s-1

)

stream km

stream km

days per year

current situationwith proposed measures

dyke height

water level

flooding

average occurrence:every 50 yearsevery 100 yearsevery 200 years

Source: Hartje, Grossmann, 2010

0

100

200

300

400

Siedlun

g dic

ht

Siedlun

g loc

ker

Indu

strie

Verke

hr

Acker

land

Grünla

ndW

ald

Sonst

iges

Infra

struk

tur

Sp

ezi

fis

ch

e V

erm

ög

en

sw

ert

e [

€/m

²]

_bau _aus _ert

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4

Überflutungshöhe in mS

chad

en i

n %

des

sp

ezif

isch

en V

erm

ög

enw

erte

s

Details: Elbe – models applied

4. property damage model

Land use

lan

d u

se s

pec

ific

p

rop

ert

y v

alu

es (

€ /

m2

se

ttle

me

nt

de

ns

es

ett

lem

en

t s

pa

rse

ind

us

ty

tra

ns

po

rt

ara

ble

la

nd

me

ad

ow

s /

pa

stu

res

fore

sts

oth

ers

infa

str

uc

ture

flooding heigt above surface (m)d

amag

e in

% o

f p

rop

ert

y v

alu

e

average property value

damage function

Source: Hartje, Grossmann, 2010

(Large) River System

pro

ble

mm

od

el

de

nit

rifi

cat

ion

pro

ces

ses

Non-point N-Imission point N-Imission

StreamFloodplain

Influence of dike shifting on the structure of the

river

Influence of dike shifting on the structure of the

river

Lower runnig

velocity

Lower runnig

velocity

Increase in flooded area




Model: Behrendt & Opitz (2000)

Model: Behrendt & Opitz (2000)

Inundation dynamic & morphology (site-specific) effective flooded area

Inundation dynamic & morphology (site-specific) effective flooded area

Rates of Denitrification (Literature)

Rates of Denitrification (Literature)

Floodplain

Details: Elbe – models applied

denitrificationSource: Dehnhardt, Bräuer, 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

342

394

458

557

648

811

1.06

91.

377

1.70

42.

290

3.09

63.

895

discharge Q [m3/s]

ann

ual

flo

od

ing

[d

ays/

year

]

0

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

2.200

flo

od

ed a

rea

[ha]

flooded days Rogätz - actual state

Rogätz - after dyke relocation Sandau - actual state

Sandau - after dyke relocation

Details: Elbe – flooded area with and without at Rogätz and Sandau


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

discharge Q [m3/s]

an

nu

al

flo

od

ing

[d

/a]

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

nit

rog

en

rete

nti

on

[t/

a]

flooded days Sandau - after dyke relocation Rogätz - after dyke relocation

Annual nitrogen retention for relocation sites Sandau & Rogätz – depending on the annual inundation days and the specific dischargeHigh variability of the effects difficult to scale up for the 15,000 ha in total

Details: Elbe – denitrification at Sandau and Rogätz – problems for

benefit transfer


Details: greenhose gas emissions / carbon sequestration of peatlands

Relationship between greenhouse gas emissions, average groundwater level and land use

average groundwater level (cm)

gre

enh

ose

gas

em

issi

on

s observed

average

conventional agricultue

low input grazing systems

meadows – nature conservation orientated

reed use

elder forests8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN

99 – 123

98

51

14

5 - 15

10

7

Biotope and species conservation / Avoiding bio-diversity loss in Germany (1990 currently updated)

15% of the Area of the country Schleswig-Holstein for nature conservation

Species Conservation in the region of Kraichgau and AllgäuProgramme for ecogically sound management of meadows and others measures for nature con-servation in the community of Erlbach / Vogtland

Conserving the butterfly “Heller Ameisenbläuling” on 64 ha meadows in the community of Landau / Pfalz

Ecologic forest management in the regions Solling and Harz

Conservation of biological diversity by ecological upgrading of the floodplains of Rhine (Elbe, Weser)

General aims / programmes covering Germany or greater parts of it

Special aims / programmes covering smaller areas

Willingness to pay in€ per household and

year:

Details: Willingness to pay for nature conservation in Germany

Literature

Grossmann, M.; Hartje, V. und Meyerhoff, J. (2010): Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Heft 89, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn.

Schäfer, A. (2009): Moore und Euros. Die vergessenen Millionen. Archiv für Forstwesen und Landschaftsökologie, Bd. 43, Heft 4, S. 156-160

Barthelmes, A.; Joosten, H.; Kaffke, A.; Koska, I.; Schäfer, A.; Schröder, J. und Succow, M. (2005): Erlenaufforstung auf wiedervernässten Niedermooren. Institut für dauerhaft umweltgerechte Entwicklung von Landschaften der Erde. 68 S., Greifswald.

Dehnhardt, A. (2002): Der ökonomische Wert der Elbe als Nährstoffsenke: Die indirekte Bewertung ökologischer Leistungen. In: Dehnhardt, A. & Meyerhoff, J. (Hrsg.): Nachhaltige Entwicklung der Stromlandschaft Elbe. Nutzen und Kosten der Wiedergewinnung und Renaturierung von Überschwemmungsauen. Vauk: Kiel.

A future task in good hands Benefits for man, climate and nature: peatland restoration and ecologically sound flood prevention Dr. Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft.

Documents

flood mitigation

haa slide

value of ess

haa mitigation costs

haa ess

climate gas mitigation

naturevalue ecosystems

haa sequestration