1 / 13

Discussion: Should development of peatland support a research levy?

Discussion: Should development of peatland support a research levy?. What don’t we know:. Related to wind farm development: Recovery time (insufficient studies) vegetation response water table & extent of drainage learning about drainage but not about gas emissions?

una
Download Presentation

Discussion: Should development of peatland support a research levy?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Discussion: Should development of peatland support a research levy?

  2. What don’t we know: • Related to wind farm development: • Recovery time (insufficient studies) • vegetation response • water table & extent of drainage • learning about drainage but not about gas emissions? • What happens to peat in a borrow pit? • How significant is the impact of roads on carbon storage / loss / hydrology? • What happens on rewetting? • Temporal significance of changes in water table (4% CH4 = 100 % CO2)

  3. Context • There are current examples of national reinvestment for anthropogenic use of natural resources: • Aggregates levy: The levy is charged at a fixed amount per tonne of aggregates. A proportion of this green levy goes to an aggregates levy sustainability fund to support projects to encourage green strategies • Landfill tax (charged by weight; LOs receive a credit for a proportion of the tax they send to the Government. This can then be donated to organisations.) • Developing the carbon landscape (independent of the use) also represents use of natural resources, and where peatland is concerned, of an important slow-to-accumulate C reservoir

  4. Context • Windfarm and Peatlands Good Practice Principles • “principles are designed to support further dialogue, not provide the detailed direction that is more appropriate in formal planning and other statutory guidance on wind farm development”

  5. Context • Principle 4: The renewables industry will engage with stakeholders to provide support for applied research into key areas of peatland science relevant to understanding the impacts of development on the various peatland qualities including biodiversity, carbon and hydrology. • Principle 3 The renewables industry will assist in improving the knowledge base on the impacts of development on peatland and the effectiveness of peatland rehabilitation through putting in place scientific monitoring and sharing of data with other stakeholders, where appropriate.

  6. Context • CLAD experience: research investment so has been borne by few … but the results will be relevant to all. • A levy (associated with the size of the development on peatlands) will be a fair approach to apportion responsibility for research?

  7. Not just wind farms Peat-cutting in Central Scotland (image date: 2005)

  8. Other developments on/of C landscapes • Coal extraction • Deep heather burning • Infrastructure roads e.g. M90 • Housing developments? (not so likely) • We have sufficient maps of carbon density to identify ‘at-risk’ areas

  9. Comments on research • Provides answers that can save hours discussing complex question - but time-scale to generate this may be long • Moves understanding beyond commissioning a review • Output may not be beneficial to interests of all bodies • Studies may give conflicting results • May require monitoring ≠ monitoring

  10. Discussion points • What benefits does such a levy bring? • Why are the disadvantages of such a levy? If implemented: • What should the levy be used for? • How to quantify the value of the levy and who should calculate this? • How to administer such a levy? • Where would the fund sit? • Who to benefit? • What areas of research?

  11. Example response • Where would the fund sit? • With the Scottish Executive • Who to benefit? • If Scottish levy then Scottish research institutes? • What areas of research? • Generic, not site-specific questions? • For wind farm-related research, those defined by principle 4: biodiversity, carbon and hydrology • ‘Experimental site’ and ‘site-owned equipment’

  12. Discussion points • What benefits does such a levy bring? • Why are the disadvantages of such a levy? If implemented: • What should the levy be used for? • How to quantify the value of the levy and who should calculate this? • How to administer such a levy? • Where would the fund sit? • Who to benefit? • What areas of research?

  13. Where from here? • Summarise views • Distribute for network peer review • How to attribute comments? • Submit report to Scottish Executive and stakeholders e.g. SRF for consideration? Final thought: if not a levy, but a donation to a registered charity (Universities) can industry claim tax back? A cheaper way to support problem-focussed research?

More Related