38
Local Authorities and Sustainable Peatland Management: Current Opportunities and Future Possibilities for Local Approaches
GHG emissions by companies who instead are seen to ‘buy’ a solution to their problems. There can also be conflict between large scale schemes and the needs of local communities. In Wales, for example, there is some evidence that large companies from outside Wales are buying large farms in mid-Wales to support private funding initiatives for tree planting, but with significant impacts on rural areas.
There are also a number of restrictions in the use of the Peatland Code as follows:
• Only certain types of peatland (blanket, raised bog or fen) with certain peat soil depths (>30cm for bogs and >45cm for fens) will qualify. • The aim is restoration so peatlands must be within certain categories ('Actively Eroding', 'Drained', ‘Modified bog’, ‘Cropland – drained’, ‘Grassland - intensive’ ‘Grassland - extensive’ or ‘Modified fen’). This excludes activities for sustainable peatland management to protect carbon stores. • Restoration activities must not include forestry removal. This will exclude large areas of peatland under forestry. • The project must be able to enter a minimum contract of 30 years. This means the landowner will gain a one-time benefit from the sale of carbon credits for this work which will then tie successive landowners to the effective management of the peatland. One of the key issues with ‘off-setting’ schemes is that it is a self-regulated market. This can cause some issues of ‘trust’. The Peatland Code aims to address this by providing a means of ensuring verification of the work to be carried out and the carbon benefits it will bring. The work will also be underlined by a 30-year agreement. Projects are ‘advertised’ on the IUCN website, but private companies may also be put in touch with landowners registered with the scheme through a ‘broker’. However, without a regulatory framework some problems of ‘trust’ in the system remain as follows: The reliability of ‘brokers’ within the system – there is an argument that greater trust may be placed in the system if the ‘broker’ were an organisation such as a local authority or National Park Authority. With this in mind, there has been significant interest in developing systems to support private finance initiatives, including but not limited to peat restoration, by Greater Manchester Council as well as National Parks UK. These organisations also have a more ‘local’ focus that may overcome some of the other problems that are exacerbated in schemes organised by more remote large private organisations.
Made with FlippingBook HTML5