Michael Succow Stiftung
MSF
Die Succow Stiftung ist eine national wie international operativ wirkende Stiftung.
ID: 198220691711-29
Lobbying Activity
Response to European Water Resilience Strategy
4 Mar 2025
Context: Current EU targets highlight the importance of peatlands: The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 commits to strictly protect at least a third of the EUs protected areas including all remaining carbon-rich ecosystems, including peatlands. Under the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR), Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that are necessary to improve to good condition areasvarious peatland habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive which are not in good condition, i.e. restoration measures in degraded peatland habitats (Art. 4) and on drained peatlands under agricultural (Art. 11). These goals and targets already reflect peatlands' crucial role in climate and biodiversity. Furthermore, peatlands play a key role in water resilience. Why peatlands are essential for water resilience for the EU: Peatlands occur in almost all EU Member States, although are concentrated mostly in North-western, Nordic and Eastern European countries. Peatlands function as natural water regulators, storing up to 20 times their dry weight in water, reducing flood risks, filtering nutrients and pollutants, and securing water supplies. However, over 50% of EU peatlands are degraded by drainage and used for agriculture, forestry and peat extraction, leading to: Increased flooding and drought risks due to reduced water retention capacity . Declining water quality as drainage causes nutrient leaching (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus pollution) . Land subsidence & compaction, permanently reducing water storage capacity and the capacity to regulate runoff . Subsidence may be expected to increase with higher temperatures and reduced water availability as a result of climate change. In the peatland-rich Netherlands, the damage to roads and sewage infrastructure caused by peatland subsidence is estimated to be around EUR 200 million per year. By 2050, it is expected that subsidence damage to buildings will amount to EUR 80 billion . Evapotranspiration loss, contributing to local heating effects and altering microclimates. Rewetting peatlands enhances groundwater recharge, stabilizes hydrology, and provides long-term flood mitigation (Joosten et al., 2015). Rewetted and undrained peatlands also secure water supplies for cities and rural communities by buffering seasonal water fluctuations, i.e. absorbing excess rainfall and gradually releasing it during drier periods. Solutions for water resilience through sustainable peatland management Peatland restoration & rewetting: Restoring and rewetting degraded peatlands improves their water retention function, reducing flood peaks and increasing groundwater reserves. Paludiculture: wet agriculture or silviculture on wet and rewetted peatland that uses biomass grown under conditions in which peat is conserved or even newly formed. It offers a sustainable alternative to conventional farming on drained peat, maintaining peats hydrological functions while allowing economic use. Ensure policy consistency across sectors of climate, biodiversity, agriculture, forestry, mining and energy, and use landscape-based approaches that consider hydrological connectivity and drainage impacts. Integrating peatlands into the European Water Resilience Strategy is essential to meet EU biodiversity, climate, and water resilience goals. Their restoration offers a cost-effective, nature-based solution for tackling increasing water-related challenges . Sources: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177788.005 https://www.moorwissen.de/files/doc/Projekte%20und%20Praxis/desire/GMC-factsheet-WBZ-Engl.pdf https://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/isbn/9783510652839 https://www.oekom.de/buch/3-grad-mehr-9783962383695 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.630469/full
Read full responseResponse to Uniform format for national restoration plans
6 Feb 2025
The importance of restoration and rewetting of drained peatlands is rightly recognized in the NRR, especially in Art. 11.4., along with the opportunity for further agricultural use in paludiculture and the need for adequate financing. However, the current draft lacks clarity on the specific (financial) requirements for peatland restoration. Since peatlands are spread across multiple ecosystem and land use categories (wetlands, grasslands, riparian areas, croplands, forests and woodlands), it is not possible to track their financial needs. To address this, peatlands should have their own distinct category summarising their occurrence under other categories. This could be made a compulsory requirement under "Other Measures (14.6.1, C.1)" ensuring visibility while avoiding double countingsince it is assumed that peatland measures are already included under various categories. A potential formulation could be, e.g.: Peatland Restoration and Rewetting (Cross-Cutting Measure) The financial estimates provided here are already accounted for under ecosystem-specific categories (e.g., wetlands, grasslands, croplands, forests, etc). This line serves to enhance transparency and tracking but does not add to the total financial requirement to prevent double counting. It should be noted that the technical background note on ecosystem typology states that wetland ecosystems include natural, semi-natural, or modified inland marshes, mires, bogs, and fens, but this does not fully encompass all peatlands. In practice, peatlands under agricultural use are typically classified as cropland or grassland, while those under forestry use are categorized as forest or woodlandsince they meet the definitions for these categories. As a result, a very large proportion of peatlands risk being misclassified and overlooked in restoration planning. Sections 6.2.2.2 "Indicative total surface area of habitats subject to restoration", and 6.2.2.3 Indicative maps of areas subject to restoration measures (Art.15(3)(a)) should be dis-aggregated by Habitat group or type, rather than presented as a single total. This ensures transparency and accountability in tracking restoration efforts. Since Member States already have data dis-aggregated by Habitat group/type for reporting towards Habitats Directive, this should not create an additional burden. Without this breakdown, it will be impossible to track and monitor the restoration measures. While the NRR allows countries flexibility in deciding whether to restore peat extraction sites and other land uses that constitute drained peatland, detailed reporting on these areas should be mandatory. In some countries, peat extraction and other land uses (e.g., peatlands under forestry use) contribute more to peatland degradation than agriculture. At a minimum, transparency is essential to ensure these areas are accounted for, even if restoration remains optional. This will support greater ambition over time, as countries begin tracking and acknowledging peatlands that would otherwise remain invisible. Formulated as: 11.1.4.1 Information about organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands, peatland extraction, and under other uses (Art. 11(4)) b) estimated surface area of peat extraction site (mandatory) c) estimated surface area of organic soils that constitute drained peatlands under land uses other than agricultural use and peat extraction sites, such as forest (mandatory) The specification of forest in 11.1.4.1. c) is important to clarify that such areas can be a target under Art.11 which targets Agricultural ecosystems, as it is indicated under NRR introduction §(59), and this can support Member States to attract additional finance for peatland restoration.
Read full response