1. Are emission reductions from peatlands MRV-able
Challenges and options
John Couwenberg
Hans Joosten
Greifswald University

2. Stocks & emissions Current Carbon stock in peat soils: ~550 000 Mt C
Current emissions from drained peatlands:
>2000 Mt CO2 y-1

3. Global CO2 emissions from drained peatlands
Drained area (106 ha)
CO2 (ton ha-1 y-1)
Total CO2 (Mton y-1)
Drained peatlands in SE Asia 12 50
600
Peatland fires in SE Asia
400
Peatland agriculture outside SE Asia 30 25
750
Urbanisation, infrastructure 5
150
Peat extraction 1 60
Boreal peatland forestry
Temperate/tropical peatland forestry
3.5
105
Total 63
2077

4. Mitigation management options
Conservation of the C stock
Sequestration of C from the atmosphere
Substitution of fossil materials by biomass.

5. Conservation management
Conserve existing peat C pools:
Prevent drainage
Reverse drainage by rewetting

6. Reducing the rate of deforestation (rate of reclamation of new areas)
yearly emissions
time

7. Reducing the rate of peatland drainage
(rate of reclamation of new areas)
yearly emissions
Peatlands continue emiting for decades after drainage: Annual emissions are cumulative
time

8. Conservation management
Rewetting is the only option to reduce emissions
Strategic rewetting of 30% (20 Mio ha) of the world’s drained peatlands could lead to an annual emission avoidance of almost 1000 Mtons CO2 per year.

9. Sequestration management
~75% of peatlands are still pristine
accumulating new peat
removing & sequestering 200 Mtons CO2 y-1
 strict protection
rewet 20 Mio ha
restore peat accumulation in 10 Mio ha
 additional removal ~10 Mtons CO2 y-1

10. Substitution management
replacing fossil resources by biomass from drained peatlands:
 CO2 emitted > CO2 avoided
biomass from wet peatlands or
paludiculture (= wet agriculture and forestry)
implemented on 10 Mio ha of rewetted peatland  substitution of 100 Mtons of CO2

11. Peatland management avoiding peatland degradation and
actively restoring peatlands
results in significant climate benefits
 quantify emission reductions

12. Measure drained…

13. … and (re-)wet(ted) situation...

14. frequent, prolonged, intensive

15. expensive, complex, time consuming

16. Measure pilot sites, develop proxies for the rest
Peenetal

17. Proxies: water level Good proxy for CO2 emissions:
Example temperate Europe 50 40 30
t CO2 ha-1 y-1 20 10
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
mean annual water level [cm]

18. Proxies: water level Good proxy for CH4 emissions:
Example temperate Europe
600 12
500 10
400 8 -1 -1 y y
300 -1 -1 6
?ha
-eq?ha 4
200 2
kg CH 4
t CO
100 2
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20 20 40 60
-100 -2
mean water level [cm]

19. Proxies: water level SEAsia Good proxy for CH4 emissions:
-0,5 1 2 3
CH4 emission [mg m-2 h-1] 5 10 15
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20 20
water level [cm]
SEAsia
Good proxy for CH4 emissions:
Boreal/temp Europe
At high water levels
differences due to vegetation

20. Emissions strongly related to water level
Vegetation strongly related to water level
 Use vegetation as indicator for emissions

21. Proxies: vegetation developed for NE Germany
currently being verified, calibrated and updated for major peatland rewetting projects in Belarus.

22. Proxies: vegetation Advantages of using vegetation
reflects longer-term water level conditions
reflects factors that determine GHG emissions (nutrient availability, acidity, land use…),
itself determines GHG emissions (quality of OM, aerenchyma mediated CH4)
allows fine-scaled mapping (1:2,500 – 1:10,000)

23. Proxies: vegetation Disadvantage of using vegetation
slow reaction on environmental changes
necessity to calibrate for different climatic and phytogeographical conditions.

24. GESTs:
Greenhouse gas Emission Site Types

25. GESTs with indicator species groups
GEST: moderately moist forbs & meadows
Vegetation forms:
Urtica-Phragmites reeds
Acidophilous Molinia meadow
Dianthus superbus-Molinia meadow …
Each with typical / differentiating species
Each GEST with GWP

26. Proxies: subsidence loss of peatland height due to oxidation
complication: consolidation, shrinkage
promising especially in the tropics: subsidence based methodology being developed by the Australian-Indonesia Kalimantan Forests Carbon Partnership.

27. Proxies: subsidence
Oxidative component derived from changes in bulk density and ash content: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-120
-100
-80
-60
-20
subsidence [cm y-1]
Estimated emission [t CO2 ha-1 y-1] 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-40
drainage depth [cm]

28. Proxies: subsidence
possible to measure using remote sensing and ground-truthing
works well for losses from drained peatlands, but less for decrease in losses under rewetting (swelling)

29. Monitoring emission reductions from rewetting and conservation
wide range of land use categories
may require different approaches to
reduction of GHG emissions
monitoring these reductions
land use may enhance GHG emissions (plowing, fertilization, tree removal)

30. Monitoring emission reductions from rewetting and conservation
Avoided emissions need clear baseline
clear in case of rewetting
proxy approach for avoided drainage
Note: peat depth determines duration of possible emissions after drainage

31. Monitoring emission reductions from rewetting and conservation
cost of monitoring is related to the desired precision of the GHG flux estimates.
determined by market value of ‘carbon’
assessing the GHG effect of peatland rewetting by comprehensive, direct flux measurements might currently cost in the order of magnitude of € ha-1 y-1

32. Monitoring by proxies Monitoring GHG fluxes using water levels:
data frequent in time, dense in space.  field observations and automatic loggers.
water level modelling based on weather data
remote sensing not yet suited

33. Monitoring by proxies Monitoring GHG fluxes using Vegetation:
easily mapped and monitored in the field
monitoring by remote sensing has been tested successfully and is very promising, also in financial terms.

34. Monitoring by proxies Monitoring GHG fluxes using subsidence:
easily monitored by field observations, but practically impossible over large areas when annual losses are high.
In tropical peatlands (several cm y-1) the use of LiDAR looks very promising.

35. Monitoring of proxies
derivation of actual emissions from proxies open to improvement

36. conservative estimates indicate that reduced and avoided emissions
from peatland rewetting and conservation
can provide a major contribution to
climate change mitigation