MIRES AND PEATLANDS

Guidelines for the Practical Application of Wise Use

DISCUSSIONDRAFT

Revised October2011

EDITOR’S NOTE

Over a number of years a document entitled Guidelines for the Practical Application of Wise Use has been in the course of preparation. It is intended as a hands-onaid to implementing the 'Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands' guidelines and as afollow-on to the Strategy for Responsible PeatlandManagement. The current draft has been prepared by IPS members with assistance from friends and colleagues in other organisations.

We are currently launching a consultation process with a view to having as wide a participation as possible in drafting the document and to achieving the maximum possible consensus. To this end we would be grateful if you could review the attached document and let us have your suggestions for improvement.

It is envisaged that this first consultation will last until 9th December 2011. It is proposed that Jack Rieley and Donal Clarke will then re-edit the document in the light of the comments received and issue the revised for further circulation hopefully by 3rd March 2012 with a view to completing the consultation by 16 March 2012. Following re-editing in the light of these suggestions, a Seminar could be held in April 2012. The hope would be to have a wide-consensus agreed document ready for the 2012 Congress.

We very much look forward to your co-operation in this process. If you wish to make suggestions regarding the proposed consultation process, these will also be welcome.

Donal Clarke

9th November 2011

The original version of Sections 1 to 5 and Section 9 were prepared by the present editor. The original versions of the other Sections were prepared as follows: Section 6 by the late Tomasz Brandyk, Section 7 by Juhani Päivänen and Section 8 by Jack Rieley. The whole was then edited by Jack Rieley. This Rieley edition was then the subject of comments between Hans Joosten, Jack Rieley and Gerald Schmilewski.

In preparing this present version I took account of all these inputs. I have restored Section 9 which was omitted from the Rieley edition and added a Section 10 which was recommended in the exchange of comments: Catherine Farrell provided material which assisted in the compilation of Section 10. I am aware that the document is far from final.

It is proposed that the document be discussed at the SAB and EB meetings in Québec in June 2011. I would like to suggest that the following matters might be dealt with during these discussions:

  • Does this document add anything to the existing material? Does it add value?
  • If so can we initiate a consultation process over a number of months, culminating in a seminar to finalise the paper?

Donal Clarke

3rd June 2011

Contents

  1. Introduction
  1. The Role of Public Policy
  1. Guidelines for the application of Wise Use to land use planning decisions
  1. Decision Framework regarding the Wise Use of peat forhorticulture
  1. Decision Framework regarding the Wise Use of peat forenergy
  1. Decision Framework regarding the Wise Use of peatlands for agriculture
  1. Decision Framework regarding the Wise Use of peatlands for forestry
  1. Decision Framework regarding the Wise Use of tropical peatlands
  1. The application of Wise Use to decisions on protecting or preserving peatlands
  1. Guidelines for the restoration of peatlands
  1. Conclusions

1. Introduction

The Wise Use book[1] (from now on referred to as the WUMP) was published in 2002. It is a comprehensive work and is considered by many to be ‘difficult’. Because of this perception some practitioners claim not to fully understand it. This document seeks to set out some practical applications in simple language.

This document has been further developed in the context of paragraph 5.5 of the Strategy for Responsible Peatland Management adopted in October 2010.

The use of simple language causes a problem because the language used in the WUMP was carefully chosen. Any simplification of ideas or words in this document should be interpreted as the WUMP intended and if it serves its purpose readers may find the WUMP easier to follow.

The simplest guide to the concepts behind the WUMP is the joint I.M.C.G.-I.P.S. statement of March 2002 which is reproduced on pages 6 to 9 of the WUMP. Wise Use is defined as those uses of mires and peatlands for which reasonable people now and in the future will not attribute blame.

The WUMP provides a framework to resolve conflicts between the commercial use of mires and peatlands[2] for energy, agriculture, horticulture and forestry and the demands for the cessation or reduction of this exploitation[3] because of the environmental, ecological, aesthetic and scientific values of peatlands.

The nature of conflicts between people as to what is ‘wise’ and ‘unwise’ is outlined briefly in the “Guide to the Framework for decision-making” on pages 13 to 17 of the WUMP.

The WUMP is clear that in dealing with peatland conflicts different considerations apply in different cases: it also insists that the importance of dialogue and of seeking to understand the other person’s point of view is paramount.

Most conflicts are between persons who value peatlands for the benefits they confer on human beings: developers who seek the advantages, for example, of fruit, vegetables and other plants produced from peat-based horticulture; or conservationists who highlight, for example, the environmental, aesthetic or archival benefits provided by peatlands.

More fundamental differences arise between developers on the one hand and, on the other, conservationists who believe that ecosystems such as peatlands, and the plants and animals they support, have an inalienable right to exist. Conflicts arising from such fundamentally different world views can be particularly frustrating. The WUMP suggests firstly that the fact that this is the basis for the conflict should be established; each side should acknowledge and respect the other’s positionand “black/white” approaches should be replaced by the concept of the less harm the better. ‘Respect’ does not imply that one agrees with the other’s position nor that the parties agree as to which occupies the “weak moral” or the “strong moral” ground.

In the context of the WUMP it is not correct for a developer to argue that it is ‘obvious’ that a particular peatland should be developed or should continue to be developed: nor is it correct for a conservationist to argue that it is ‘obvious’ that a particular peatland should never be developed or should not continue to be developed. Neither case can simply be asserted: each case should be rationally debated.

It can be argued that these positions are not equivalent. The developer‘s action is largely irreversible (a pristine mire cannot be protected once it has been drained), whereas continued conservation keeps the option of future development open. This can be said to imply that the arguments from the developer’s side should be “better” than that from the conservationist’s side: but even in this case the arguments should still be based on reason.

The Framework for decision-making on pages 15 to 17 of the WUMP is intended to provide a basis for such rational debate. The WUMP argues that competing claims can often be weighted so that sensible judgements can be made or workable solutions can be found.

Chapter 1 of the WUMP (pages 22 and 23) lists the groups targeted by the book. Of these, the groups to whom these present Guidelines may be helpful are:

­Government regulatory bodies

­Environment agencies

­State bodies charged with the conservation of peatlands

­Environmental management divisions of private companies deriving commercial income from peatlands

­Managers of peatlands working for any of these bodies, agencies or companies.

For ease of use this document refers to the relevant sections of the WUMP. However, it can be read on its own.

2. The Role of Public Policy.

2.1 Before going on to the eightsets of guidelines contained in this document a few general ideas set out in the WUMP are summarised here because they apply to all of the guidelines. In any political entity (province, state, country or the EU) it greatly helps the Wise Use process if there is a legal and administrative structure within which decisions on peatlands can be taken. Such political entities, in summary, will

* Have ratified the principal international environmental conventions

* Have in place comprehensive national policies relevant to mires and peatlands.

* Have in place relevant legislation on land use planning and environmental protection

* Have public administration functions adequate to administer this legislation

* Have in place legal frameworks which protect the rights of individuals and communities over land

* Take decisions at a macro-economic level regarding the exploitation of mires or peatlands on the basis of cost-benefit analysis

2.2 In more detail, this structure should include:

  1. National policies covering such matters as environmental protection, land use planning, the development of industry and agriculture, and property rights.
  2. National policies that are implemented through legislation, stimulation and education.
  3. Legislation covering such areas as

-land use planning;

-protection of wildlife, habitats and specific areas;

-environmental protection, including licensing;

-the implementation of relevant international agreements.

  1. Land use planning with:

-development plans;

-a system of controls;

-public access to and participation in the planning process;

-assessment of probable impacts on the environment of a proposal (E.I.S.) and public participation in this assessment.

  1. An environmental licensing system governing exploitation of peatlands, which should prevent, limit, abate or reduce negative environmental impacts and require an appropriate form of restoration/ rehabilitation/ after use.
  2. Defined and secure property and other rights of landowners and all those with a proprietorial interest in peatlands with compensation if public policy interferes with those rights.
  3. Protection of peatlands in accordance with legislation governing the protection of habitats and sites.
  4. Awareness or educational programmes on environmental issues.
  5. National socio-economic policies involving the utilisation of peatlands for social benefits (such as employment) should be incidental to wider energy or economic policies.

2.3 The WUMP recognises that some countries do not have all or any of the suggested legal or administrative structures in place. Where a developing country or country in transition does not possess the infrastructure to meet some or all of the above criteria this can be compensated for by the conditions of utilisation and the behaviour of the enterprise carrying it out, particularly by verifiable efforts on a best-endeavours basis. Ideally, these will be incorporated in codes of conduct and/or certification systems where these exist.

3. Guide To the application of Wise Use to land use planning decisions (Chapter 5 of WUMP).

3.1 This guideline outlines a decision framework to assist in deciding if planning consent should be given for peatland development. It is based on a planning application for permission to use a peatland for the extraction of peat for use in horticulture but could be applied equally to the development of a peatland for any economic purpose. The same framework can be used by any organisation considering whether to fundamentally alter a peatland. The decision framework is based on question-and-answer format.

This guideline is a simplification of Chapter 5 of the WUMP. It is assumed that it will be used in conjunction with the WUMP, accepting the definition that “Sustainable development” is seeking to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and the statement that “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development”.

The proposed guideline includes two stages:

1. The arrival at a decision in principle

2. The examination of the decision in principle to see if its implementation will be consistent with sets of principles, modifiers and instruments.

If a decision comes through the ‘decision in principle’ process with a clear ‘yes’ then its implementation can be examined further. If it comes through with a ‘no’ it should be established if the ‘no’ is a genuine stopper or more a reason to be cautious.

Under the ‘implementation decisions’ process it is unlikely that any proposal would achieve 100% ‘yes’. In most cases a proposal will emerge either preponderantly positive or preponderantly negative. It is to be decided in the circumstances of each case whether the negative elements are ‘stoppers’ or not. The WUMP recalls that

Wise Use is not simple or simplistic and cannot be reduced to formulae.

Deciding in principle

In deciding on whether or not to grant planning consent three aspects have to be looked at:

  • the effect of the proposed use[4] on the function itself: does the intervention negatively affect the further provision of that function
  • the effect of the use on other functions: does the intervention negatively or positively affect other functions.
  • Consistency with a number of “Guidance Principles”.

3.2 The effect of a use on the function itself

The WUMP defines (Chapter 3) a large number of functions of peatlands. One of these functions is the extraction of peat for horticulture.

1. Will the proposed intervention have a positive effect on the satisfaction of human needs and wants? As the proposal is to use the extracted peat for horticulture, the answer is yes.

2. Are the resources or services to be provided essential for the maintenance of human life and non-substitutable? The answer to this is no. No-one will die if the peatland is left intact.

3. If the proposed resource use is implemented will the continuous provision of the same quantity and quality of resources or services remain possible? This question could be re-worded as Does the use of this peat for horticulture enable the continuous provision of peat for horticulture? If the proposal is for the development of an individual peatland from which horticultural peat will only be extracted for a short period the decision at this point might be negative (it would not be proportionate to irreversibly drain a peatland for a brief use). If, however, the proposal is to integrate the extracted peat into a wider supply chain, the answer to this question is probably yes, though there can be debate on this. In countries or regions where peat resources are exhausted or are becoming rare the answer may be invariably negative.

4. Are the peatland resources or services to be consumed by the proposed intervention abundant and will they remain abundant? This question could be re-worded as Are supplies of sphagnum peat abundant and do they remain abundant? This is a difficult question. A mire type which might be rare in a district might be plentiful in a province, and one which might be rare in a province might be plentiful in a country. In general, if a peatland is unique it should probably not be developed, but if it is relatively plentiful on a national basis, the examination of the case should continue. In an economically integrated area with common environmental laws, such as the EU, a case can be made for looking at the situation in the area as a whole.

The WUMP summarises by saying:

  • If the use of a resource keeps the quantity and quality of that resource intact, there is no reason not to use the resource. Even when the supply is decreasing, the use can be continued as long as the resource is abundant.
  • If a resource is not abundant and getting rare, it is wise not to use the resource to the point of exhaustion, in case the resource might be needed for more urgent (and presently unknown) purposes in future.

3.3 The effect of a use on other functions

The use of a peatland for a specific purpose may have considerable side-effects. These effects on all other functions must be taken into account in deciding on the planning application.

1. Will the proposed intervention have negative effects on other functions[5]? For example would the draining of this mire to extract peat for horticulture (a production function) have a damaging effect on the hydrology of the catchment area as a whole? (a regulation function). If the answer is no, the authority can proceed to the implementation decisions. If there are negative effects on other functions, the remaining three questions need to be answered.

2. Are the negatively affected functions non-substitutable and essential for the maintenance of human life? For example if the draining of the peatland would deprive the local community of essential drinking water, the answer to the question would be ‘YES’ at this point and the intervention should not be done. If the negative effects on other functions are considered minor, the process can continue.

3. Are the negatively affected functions sufficiently abundant to guarantee their adequate future provision? If, for example, the peatland were used to provide drinking water, but there are plenty of alternative sources of drinking water, then the process can continue.

4. Are these negatively affected functions easily substitutable or are the negative impacts easily reversible? In both these cases the process can continue.

With respect to side-effects, a peatland development is considered permissible in principle when:

  • there are no negative side-effects, or
  • the affected resources and services remain sufficiently abundant, or
  • the affected resources and services are easily substitutable, or
  • the impact is easily reversible.

In all other cases the WUMP recommends an integrated cost-benefit-analysis that involves a thorough weighing of the pros and cons of the intervention.

3.4 General Considerations

Some general considerations also form part of the ‘decision in principle’ process. A negative answer does not necessarily mean that a use / intervention should be excluded. Not all of these General Considerations can be subjected to the question-and-answer format of a decision framework. The following four questions are those selected in the WUMP.

1. What are the aims of the proposed intervention; will the proposed intervention achieve them; and will it achieve them in the best way? These questions are aimed at ensuring that wasteful damage to peatlands does not take place. In the case of excavating a peatland for horticultural peat the cost-benefit-analysis and commercial strategy questions below at 3.7.3 will deal with most of the issues raised here. For example, if upon examination it became self-evident that a peatland is too far from the market to make the transport of peat viable, then it would be unwise to use the peatland, as it could be abandoned soon afterwards.

2. Does the proposed intervention interfere with a fundamental human right? Or