OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Michael Succow Stiftung

MSS

Die Michael Succow Stiftung wurde im Jahr 1999 als eine der ersten gemeinnützigen Naturschutzstiftungen bürgerlichen Rechts in den neuen Bundesländern gegründet.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament)

6 Jun 2023 · Allgemeiner Austausch

Response to Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets

22 Aug 2022

This is a year of important international moments for nature and climate, with the UNFCCC COP27, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP15 and Ramsar COP14 all taking place in 2022. The EU and its Member States can play a leading role in the international arena if they do things right at home. The Regulation on nature restoration, can be a game-changer and trigger a transformation on large scale, contributing to considerable steps in protecting the climate, adapting to warmer and unstable climate for EU citizens, leading to improved functioning of ecosystems, slowing down and stopping the catastrophic biodiversity decline, and stimulating sustainable and resilient economies. We, conservationists and scientists caring for wetlands and peatlands across the EU call on all stakeholders involved to take action to restore peatlands. We welcome the proposal and in particular, we appreciate the target to restore drained peatlands under agricultural use beyond peatlands listed in Annex I of the Habitat Directive (Art. 9 NRL). We strongly assume that the proposed targets are insufficient and should be significantly increased for Member States and that a transformation pathway for peatlands should lead to net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. The proposed Article 9.4 differentiates between restoration and rewetting. Restoration can, however, not mean the continuation of a degrading situation. The overarching objective of the law is: “to contribute to the continuous, long-term and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient nature […] and to contribute to achieving Union climate mitigation and climate adaptation objectives and meet its international commitments.” Climate objectives can – clearly – not be reached without full rewetting. In order to stop peat decomposition, soil subsidence and CO2 emissions from peatlands, peatland restoration always requires full rewetting. Only this way peatland degradation can be stopped and the remaining peat carbon stock be saved. The GHG emission reduction that can be achieved when the proposed targets for peatland rewetting are fulfilled, which represents only a fraction of the proposed restoration targets (7.5 % till 2030, 25% till 2040, 35% till 2050), is low. In 2050 Germany would still show high GHG emissions from drained peatlands (25-30 CO2-eq per ha and year, 30-35 Mt in total per year), followed by Poland and Ireland. This way the globally agreed target of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 will be missed. The targets of the NRL proposal focus strongly on agriculturally used peatlands, while many peatland-rich EU Member States use peatland areas predominantly for other land use types than agriculture (namely Forestry or inappropriate restoration after peat exploitation). These other land use types are hardly covered by the proposal, which leaves the Nordic and Baltic countries with fewer obligations to restore peatlands compared to other Member States, despite their large share of drained peatland areas. As it stands now, Article 9.4 imbalances the NRL’s ambitions in the light of the need for peatlands restoration in all but especially the peatland-rich Member States. Thus we call on the EU decision-makers to ensure that: A) Restoration of peatlands always includes rewetting B) The proposed targets are insufficient and should be significantly increased C) The scope of the target is expanded to all non-residential land uses on drained peatlands D) A mandatory monitoring for peatlands restoration is set in Article 17 The policy brief attached explains those recommendations for EU-decision makers to make clear that EU Member States, above all peatland-rich ones, need to take clear responsibility and commitment to restore, and safeguard peatlands and that EU Member States, landowners, and -users in the EU should be encouraged and incentivised to maintain and re-establish high water levels in peatlands to maximise carbon storage, minimise GHG emissions, and support biodiversity.
Read full response

Response to Carbon Removal Certification

2 May 2022

Michael Succow Foundation, partner in Greifswald Mire Centre is welcoming the initiative of the European Commission to set up a Europe-wide Certification sheme of carbon removals. This should also include avaoided emissions eg. from rewetting and restoration of peatlands as the largest terrestial carbon store in the EU, linking to many Member States' climate policies and connected goals. Following items should be covered in this context: • Prioritization of peatland conservation and the reduction of GHG emissions • Future carbon removal credits for peatland rewetting and restoration seems possible • Large-scale implementation of paludiculture as a low-emission land use alternative for peatlands • Development of an EU-centralized meta-standard for peatland codes • Introduction of a European or international body for the certification of peatlands codes and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) methodology • Include co-benefits as an integral part of the certification mechanism • Putting in place appropriate safeguards to prevent and mitigate risks (e.g. misguided planting of trees on drained peatlands) Please find the policy brief by partners of the Princess BioDiversa project attached, which Succow Foundation fully supports.
Read full response

Response to Restoring sustainable carbon cycles

5 Oct 2021

Sustainable carbon cycles should integrate nature-based solutions as key cost-effective measures with many co-benefits for circular bio-economy, biodiversity, soil and water. This should include enhanced sequestration and safeguarded storage. Peatland are the biggest terrestrial carbon stores globally and in EU, but they are under pressure: ~50% of EU's peatlands are drained for land use like farming, forestry and peat extraction which changed them from sinks into sources; not only for carbon but also for nutrients. They emit ~25 % of all GHGs in agriculture + LULUCF from only 3% of the agricultural land and counteract the total sink balance of forests in the LULUCF sector. Updated science-based figures from Greifswald Mire Centre you find in attached file. Therefore, priority in EU Green Deal policies should be given to restoring drained peatlands and establish sustainable use as paludicultures where appropriate (not in protected areas, preferred in buffer zones!). As biomass production on wet peatlands is an innovative, newly established practice which still comes with higher direct costs than drainage-based land use which externalise environmental costs. Therefore, policies and funding schemes should be programmed in synergy to incentivise peatland carbon farming practices but also processing, incl. CAP, LULUCF regulation under Fit for 55 package, Restoration Law, soil strategy and Carbon Farming Initiative. Remuneration and markets for various products need to be established: 1. Paludiculture biomass which could be used in circular bio-economy (construction materials, packaging, horticulture substrates, bio-fuels etc.); land use as well as biomass processing and marketing should be incentivised, 2. Carbon storage with science-based monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems (e.g. based on MoorFutures methodology), 3. Biodiversity conservation via agri-environmental schemes in CAP and contractual conservation management, 4. Payments for other ecosystem services (PES) like water, nutrient retention etc.. Funds should come from public sources (EU & Member States funds like CAP, ERDF, Life) but also from private sector. For this purpose, MRV systems should be developed on highest scientific knowledge including direct measurements but also proxies like water levels and vegetation to ensure highest integrity of measures and avoid greenwashing. EU should set clear and comparative standards and advice Member States in national adaption and implementation. To facilitate prompt and successful implementation and qualified monitoring, education and capacity building on all levels (practitioners, planners, construction companies, administrations etc), but also communication campaigns to the general public to raise awareness should be fostered.
Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

We are welcoming the roadmap on EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy for a better protection of flora and fauna across the EU. Although we are recognising the ambitious timeline to prepare the strategy in a timely manner to feed into CBD global negotiations and the EU Green Deal, we would like to emphasis that civil society should have the chance to contribute to the decisive draft in form of public consultation. We are asking EC to open the possibility after strategy communication. The conservation and restoration of peatland habitats should play a central part of the EU Strategy. Peatlands are water-saturated areas causing the accumulation of incompletely decomposed plant material (“peat”). Peatlands often demonstrate a unique structural and functional integrity incl. biodiversity which has developed over centuries. Changes in water regime or vegetation may lead to peat and peatland degradation, causing biodiversity loss and enormous emissions of greenhouse gases. Under favourable conditions, however, peatlands may recover, therefore restoration needs to be considered. Typically, peatlands host relatively few species (on average no more than 15% of local floras and faunas) but highly specialised species only living in peatlands (eg. Aquatic warbler) predominate and often species from other habitats are supported. Most species that are permanently associated with peatlands have developed adaptive strategies during the course of evolution. In Western Europe, peatlands cover 276,323 km2, of which 48% are degraded by drainage for agriculture, forestry and peat extraction, or destroyed by infrastructure development, construction, or flooding by dams. In Central Europe, peatlands cover 47,829 km2, of which 74% are drained and degraded. In both sub-regions some 10% of the former peatland area does no longer have enough peat to be considered as peatlands. The growing demand for biomass has caused massive expansion of biomass cultivation on peatlands with deeper drainage and more fertilization, which dramatically changes peat soil properties. In the European Union part of Western and Central Europe, 51% of mires and bogs assessments were classified as “unfavourable bad” and another 34% as “unfavourable inadequate” (EEA, 2015a). In Eastern Europe situation is still considerably better. In damaged peatlands, climate change is expected to increase the probability of catastrophic events, such as peat fires (Minayeva et al., 2013; Sirin et al., 2011), erosion, and inundation, and will impair the further provision of biodiversity habitat (Parish et al., 2008, Bonn et al., 2016). As peatland degradation enhances climate change (because of the enormous emissions involved) (Hiraishi et al., 2014), the impact on biodiversity reaches far beyond the boundaries of the peatland itself. When losses of peatland biodiversity have been specified, the possibilities for restoration can be explored. The concept upon which we base our consideration of different approaches is close to that developed by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), who define (ecological) restoration as ‘the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed’ (SER 2004 ). Defined in this way, restoration encompasses the repair of ecosystems and the improvement of ecological conditions in damaged wildlands through the reinstatement of ecological processes. Such integrative approaches to restoration have been widely adopted over the last decade, and most authors suggest that success should be judged on the basis of an indicator of biodiversity status. The strategy is process oriented, and involves directing autogenic processes while taking landscape interactions into consideration (Whisenant 1999; Van Andel and Aronson 2012 ). Strong emphasis have to be given in the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy and clear mechanisms (incl. funding) described for its implementation.
Read full response