Defra Commissioned Peatland Evidence Review

Model for delivery: Collaborative authorship

Background

Peatlands across the UK have been compromised through the planting of commercial forestry; it is estimated that 18% of UK forestry is planted on peat soil. The preparation of sites for planting, the presence of the largely non-native trees and their management have very significant adverse impacts on peatland biodiversity and carbon storage, both on and off site. Although policy across the UK has advanced greatly over recent years to restrict the planting of trees on peat soils there is still a legacy of plantations on peat that needs to be addressed.

There are several policy drivers which establish a need and desire to deliver forest to bog restoration at scale. Being able to quantify the benefits of this (of which net GHG impact is one) is important for supporting future funding delivery for forest-to-bog through public and private streams. 

Objectives

There are a number of sub-themes and questions which will be addressed in the scope of this review: 

• Short narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the GHG emissions of forestry on peat soils (utilise recent review papers). What elements of GHG emissions make up net balance from these sites? Pathways for emissions e.g. on-site vs off-site emissions?
• Net impact of the Forest-to-bog process takes account of:
  • Baseline condition. Where do we start accounting from? Is it felled or with forestry standing? Outline policy setting for rationale. Data for felled state? Does this meet current best practice techniques?
  • Post-felling considerations. What does current best-practice restoration entail? Is there consensus or are there a variety of techniques to consider when quantifying GHG impacts?
  • Trajectory post restoration intervention - immediate GHG impacts vs long term trajectory of emissions. Evidence base for water table driven GHG as well as other factors such as losses from forestry residues, peat disturbance, water pathways.
• Summarise research gaps and future evidence needs.

Notes to guide scope:

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international experience.
• This question is linked to question 4: GHG emissions of restoration process itself (out of scope for this question but covered elsewhere). Also out of scope for this question is leakage and policy related implications for other sites e.g., compulsory restock elsewhere.
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the finalised report should be no more than 30 pages. 

Model for delivery: Collaborative authorship 

Background 

Degradation and drying lead to significant loss of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from peat as it becomes exposed to oxygen. Approximately 80% of UK peatlands are degraded or modified to some extent, and contribute 23,100 kt CO₂e yr^-1 to UK greenhouse gas emissions as estimated by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH). 

Rewetting of degraded peat can cause rapid changes in biogeochemical processes as the hydrology of the peatland and oxygen availability within peat change dramatically. Waterlogging slows decomposition and creates anaerobic conditions, which in turn greatly reduces CO₂ (and N₂O) emissions from peat whilst facilitating methane production as anaerobic microbes become dominant. Whilst methane emissions can initially increase after rewetting, they can be minimised through adopting appropriate restoration and management techniques.

Objectives 

• Short narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the main biogeochemical processes (relevant to this review) that take place in degraded peat.
• Explanation of how these processes change after rewetting.
  • What are the consequences of this change?
  • How do these processes change with time since rewetting, and are they spatially uniform across the rewetted peatland?
  • How quickly after rewetting does a peatland transform from a methane source to a net sink of GHGs?
  • How will climate change affect the biogeochemical processes of rewetted peatlands?
• Identify any management techniques or policy measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of altered biogeochemical processes in rewetted peatlands (e.g. increased methane emissions). 

Notes to guide scope: 

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international experience.
• This question is linked to question 3- At what depth of peat does our understanding of peatland biogeochemical functioning cease to apply? (covered separately).
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the finalised report should not be more than 30 pages.  

Model for delivery: Collaborative authorship 

Background 

The biogeochemical functioning of undisturbed peatlands is mainly controlled by hydrology: in waterlogged conditions, oxygen is limited, facilitating anaerobic processes that preserve organic matter and produce methane, while aerobic decomposition takes place in peat exposed to oxygen. The two main layers of peat – the acrotelm (upper, active layer) and catotelm (deeper, anoxic layer) both have highly specialised microbial communities, shifting from aerobic decomposers in the acrotelm to methanogens in the catotelm. Our current knowledge of biogeochemical functioning of the deeper layers of the catotelm – where processes are very slow - is limited. 

 We currently have single greenhouse gas emission factors for peat of all depths in each condition class, apart cropland where there are also emission factors for wasted/shallow peat cropland.   

Objectives 

• Short narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the main biogeochemical processes (relevant to this review) that take place in peat, how these change with depth, (from acrotelm to deep catotelm), and the role they have in GHG exchange with the atmosphere.
• Identify the depths/layers that are studied in more detail, and those where evidence gaps remain.
  • What is our understanding of GHG emissions of shallow peat?
  • What range of peat depths are the current UK GHG emission factors relevant to?
  • Does chemistry and behaviour of peat alter as we expose lower layers of the peat profile?

 Notes to guide scope: 

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international experience.
• This question is linked to question 2: How do the biogeochemical processes in degraded peat change with rewetting?  (covered separately).
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the finalised report should not be more than 30 pages. 

Model for delivery: Commissioned authorship

Background

Peatland restoration seeks to reduce the emissions of degraded peatland systems and set these habitats on a path to recovery which includes multiple benefits, including an assumption of reduced emissions. The intervention of restoration itself can appear intensive, with the use of some virgin materials and machinery such as diggers and sometimes helicopters to transport materials. With all peatland restoration in the UK being underpinned by climate and carbon targets, the question is often raised as to how much the restoration intervention itself adds to emissions already arising from degraded peat. Whilst short term, with some projects being registered for credits through the voluntary carbon market, it is only right that these added emissions are accounted for. Indeed, the Peatland Code has recently begun to use the emissions calculator (produced by Jack Brennand in association with University of Cumbria and Barker and Bland Ltd) to estimate and account for these emissions. 

Objectives

• Summarise the background and information which is already known around emissions from restoration interventions:
  • Produce a list of inputs and intervention categories for the peatland restoration process in blanket bogs, raised bogs, fens, wet woodlands and forest to bog habitats.
  • Are there projects which have accounted for emissions from restoration e.g. MoorLIFE2020, Peatland Action, Peatland Code projects under v2.1.
  • Summarise the content of the existing product which is available to estimate emissions from restoration: the Cumbria Carbon Calculator Tool. Are other products/tools/models available?
• Assess what gaps remain in our knowledge about emissions from the restoration process. How are these emissions accounted for in England at the project/regional/national level (bring in examples from elsewhere if they exist).

Notes to guide scope

• The focus of this question is on the physical inputs (consumables and materials left on site) and actions which take place directly on a project site. Information and acknowledgement of off-site emissions pathways can be included in the context/discussion but are not the focus of this question.
• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the final report should be no more than 30 pages.

Model for delivery: Collaborative authorship

Background

In their natural, waterlogged state, healthy peatlands are significant carbon sinks, with peatlands in the UK storing more carbon than the forests of the UK, France and Germany combined. However, extensive drainage and other forms of disturbance cause decomposition and erosion of the peat, leading to significant carbon loss: UK peatlands account for approximately 3.5% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. 

Rewetting and other peatland restoration interventions such as planting native peatland species are known to result in rapid carbon emissions reductions from damaged peatlands, but the return to near-natural ecological and hydrological function, including carbon sequestration, is part of a much longer and more uncertain trajectory of change. Understanding the likelihood and timeframes of a return to carbon sequestration on damaged peatlands subject to restoration interventions will greater support our understanding of the potential role of peatlands and peatland restoration in achieving the UK’s net zero targets, and the need for long-term investment in monitoring and management of peatlands subject to restoration interventions.   

The UK GHG emission factors for rewetted peat (rewetted bog, rewetted fen, rewetted modified bog) include carbon sequestration, and restored sites are immediately placed in these categories in the UK GHG Inventory. 

Objectives

• Narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the carbon sequestration capacity of functioning / healthy peatlands in a UK context, comparing different peatland habitats including bogs, fens and wet woodlands, and explaining the drivers of net carbon balance in natural or near-natural systems. What role does methane play?
• Explanation of trajectories of change post-restoration interventions, including evidence from long-term studies which assess pre- and post-restoration carbon losses (in different forms) over time. Based on our current knowledge of the earliest rewetted sites and subsequent advances in restoration techniques, can we predict the likely lag time for a return to carbon sequestration? What proxies can we use to understand likely trajectories of change towards carbon sequestration? What are the potential risks and barriers to achieving this (climate change)?
• Recommendation of lag time(s) for carbon sequestration to be used in future modelling of abatement and in the UK GHG Inventory.
• Comparison of carbon emissions reductions based on the starting condition of peatlands under restoration and the nature and scale of restoration interventions applied.
• Summary of knowledge and research gaps and future evidence needs, including the requirement for supporting long-term monitoring of restoration interventions to avoid the risk of incomplete or misleading conclusions from short-term studies.  Opportunities that quantifying sequestration brings in supporting the Peatland Code. 

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• This question is linked to question 2: How do the biogeochemical processes in degraded peat change with rewetting? as well as question 6: What are the most probable impacts of climate change on peatlands? and question 7: What is the role of peat restoration and rewetting / partial rewetting in climate adaptation?
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the final report should be no more than 30 pages.

Model for delivery: Collaborative authorship

Background

The UK’s peatlands encompass fens and bogs in both lowland and upland contexts. They deliver vital natural-capital functions - storing carbon, agricultural production, regulating water systems, and unique supporting biodiversity - while representing irreplaceable elements of the UK’s environmental and cultural heritage. 
Climate change poses a growing threat to their resilience, with rising temperatures, altered precipitation regimes, and shifts in evapotranspiration likely to disrupt hydrology, vegetation, and carbon dynamics. Occult precipitation, including fog, dew, and cloud water deposition, remains an under-researched yet potentially critical factor in sustaining moisture balance and function. Advancing understanding of these interacting processes is essential to inform UK climate-adaptation policy, strengthen evidence-based restoration strategies, and safeguard both the functional and intrinsic values of the nation’s peatlands – both fen and bog.

Objectives

• The report should be prefaced with a short narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the rationale for the question.
• The scope of this topic is wide-ranging and therefore there are a significant number of sub-questions that could be considered under this question. However, within the timeframe and length requirements it will not be possible to cover all of these. We have included some key areas that are of particular relevance in the policy context for consideration, as this is a collaborative question. However, there is flexibility to refine these.
• To what extent could healthy UK peatlands shift from being carbon sinks to carbon sources under future climate scenarios? How does the balance of sink/source interact with climate for peatlands in differing states?
  • Emissions factors currently act as a national proxy which is fixed over time- is it likely that emissions rates remain stable over future years?
  • How will climate change influence water table levels/moisture regimes in UK peatlands and what are the implications for water security?
  • To what extent is climate change likely to increase vulnerability of the UK’s peatlands to stochastic events?
  • What management strategies and policy measures could help UK peatlands adapt to or mitigate the impacts of climate change?
• Identify research gaps and future evidence needs.

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• This question is linked to question 7: What is the role of peat restoration and rewetting / partial rewetting in climate adaptation? (covered separately).
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore, findings and key messages should be clearly presented and accessible.
• The length of the finalised report should be no more than 30 pages. 

Model for delivery: Collaborative authorship

Background

The UK’s peatlands – both fens and bogs in upland and lowland contexts – are one of our most important natural carbon stores. In healthy condition they provide vital ecosystem services including water quality and security, flood mitigation, biodiversity and cultural value.

As a result of past and current land management activities and pressures over 80% of the UK’s peatlands are in a degraded condition. This leads to significant greenhouse gas emissions and reduced ecological function. Restoration (and by extension rewetting) play an important role in our efforts to reach net zero and meet international obligations. However, in the face of intensifying climate change, the effectiveness of restoration as an adaptation strategy remains uncertain. It will be important to understand which restoration techniques are most robust under future climates, understanding the trade-offs between rewetting levels and land-use needs, and assessing long-term resilience to stochastic events such as wildfire or drought.

The aim of this question is to understand the role of peatland restoration and rewetting in climate adaptation, including hydrological functioning, carbon storage and emissions, biodiversity conservation, water quality and water resources and socio-economic implications of both intervention and non-intervention strategies.

Objectives

• The report should be prefaced with a short narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the rationale for the question.
• To guide the development of this question we have included a number of key areas that are of particular relevance in the policy context for consideration, as this is a collaborative question.  However, there will be flexibility to refine these.
  • How effective are restoration and rewetting interventions in enhancing the resilience of peatlands to anticipated climate change impacts such as drought, extreme rainfall, altered freeze-thaw patterns, wildfire?
  • What are the co-benefits and trade-offs of different restoration strategies for a range of ecosystem services including (but not limited to) carbon storage, water provision and biodiversity?
  • How variable are restoration outcomes likely to be across different regions and peatland types?
  • What governance, policy and funding mechanisms are likely to be required to support long-term iterative restoration processes and adaptive management?

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• This question is linked to question 6: What are the most probable impacts of climate change on peatlands? (covered separately).
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore findings and key messages should be clearly presented and accessible.
• The length of the finalised report should be no more than 30 pages. 

Model for delivery: IUCN led

Background

Grazing is one of the most extensive land uses across UK peatlands. Grazing has potential to shape the vegetation community composition, surface stability and erosion processes and the long-term carbon dynamics of peatlands. Both domestic livestock and wild herbivores may influence peatland condition, hydrological processes and nutrient cycling.

Whilst grazing at low to moderate levels can maintain habitat structure and support biodiversity through creation of micro-habitats, heavy or poorly managed grazing has the potential to cause surface compaction and poaching, loss of vegetation cover and/or shifts in composition and disturbance to peat-forming species, and erosion. Policy frameworks (both past and present) including headage under CAP, stock density calendars, fencing rules and wildlife management (in particular deer) have all influenced grazing intensity and distribution across peatlands. Understanding how these affect resilience, restoration success and carbon and nutrient balance is important for policy development. 

The aim of this question is to provide a synthesis of evidence from published sources and some field visits and discussions with land managers to cover ecological, biogeochemical, socio-economic benefits and impacts of grazing. This will support policy decisions around thresholds and management practices which fully consider any trade-offs.

Objectives

• The report should be prefaced with a short narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the rationale for the question.
• In order to guide the development of this question we have included several key areas that are of particular relevance in the policy context for consideration. However, there is flexibility to refine these.
  • How does grazing type, timing, and intensity affect peatland vegetation, soil structure, soil erosion, surface roughness, water quality and hydrological function?
  • Consider sheep, cattle (including dairy – with geographical constraints), deer and  ponies. How do impacts change when considering different stock types? How does grazing impact upland and lowland peatlands?
  • What are the mechanisms of compaction and disturbance, how do these vary between grazing species and how do they influence rates of accumulation and degradation?
  • Do changes to the vegetation community composition affect the peat formation process and carbon storage? If so, how?
  • How does grazing affect restoration outcomes? – This should consider new projects along with post-restoration management considerations.
  • What are likely to be the most important future considerations for governance and policy decisions regarding grazing management on UK peatlands? 

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore findings and key messages should be clearly presented and accessible.
• The length of the finalised report should be no more than 30 pages. 

Model for delivery: IUCN led

Background

Around 80% of UK peatlands are degraded due to historic and present management, including drainage, afforestation, agriculture, burning, and peat extraction. Restoration of peatland function can occur over very long timescales, and there are degraded peatlands that are considered to have low restoration potential due to significant challenges, such as significant loss and erosion of peat, afforestation or conversion to agriculture. In such cases, restoration may be difficult and expensive, and alternatives (e.g. paludiculture) may be explored. All peatland sites have value, but restoration efforts tend to prioritise sites with higher restoration potential, which can exclude severely degraded sites from current plans. 

Objectives

The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international experience. As part of this technical review, the following areas should be explored and presented:

• Short narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the current state of UK peatlands and the challenges and barriers to restoration on some sites, including definitions of “restoration” to guide scope.
• Explain the potential effects of climate change on restoration potential – are there areas that may become more challenging to restore in the future if restoration is delayed?
• Importance of conserving area and extent in terms of function
• Explore the ‘rehabilitation’ of ecosystem functions or services on sites where restoration may not be possible (e.g. paludiculture or Bord na Móna recreational/nature wetland centres on post extraction sites)
• Is wasted peat restorable or has the degradation process gone too far?
• Include success stories/case studies: e.g. Bolton Fell Moss

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• The primary audience will be policy makers therefore findings and key messages should be clearly presented and accessible.
• The length of the finalised report should be no more than 30 pages. 

Model for delivery: Commissioned authorship

Background

Peatland restoration can deliver significant benefits for water quality and aquatic ecosystems by re-establishing the natural hydrological and biogeochemical functions of healthy peat soils. While restoration activities can create short-term increases in sediment or chemical release - linked to physical disturbance and shifts in redox conditions - these effects are typically temporary and decline as vegetation re-establishes and hydrology stabilises. Over time, restored peatlands can again act as natural filters, immobilising pollutants such as nitrogen, sulphur and various metals. These improvements can translate into better water quality at catchment scale. Reduced sediment and dissolved organic carbon export helps lower water colour, acidity and treatment costs in drinking-water catchments, the majority of which in the UK are dominated by peatland headwaters. By slowing water movement, restoration interventions can also moderate peak flows, improve baseflows and consequently enhance habitat stability in downstream rivers.

By decreasing inputs of fine sediment, nutrients and metals, peatland restoration can reduce stress on aquatic biota, enabling the recovery of sensitive species, improving macroinvertebrate diversity and protecting habitats such as fish spawning grounds. Given that only 14% of rivers in England currently reach good ecological status and none achieve good chemical status, understanding the contribution peatland restoration can make to reversing these trends is increasingly important. Clear evidence of its effects on water chemistry, biodiversity and river health can support investment in peatland recovery as part of the UK’s efforts to meet 30x30 commitments, deliver nature-based solutions and restore freshwater ecosystems.

Objectives

• Narrative and explanatory introduction summarising the main drivers of good and poor water quality in relation to peatland restoration. What are the key biological indicators of this?
• Summary of the short-term and long-term impacts of the restoration process itself (including forest-to-bog restoration, linked to question 1). What interventions are available to mitigate short-term negative impacts on water quality, water biota and river health and how effective are they in practice?
• Does fen restoration reduce nutrient enrichment and what are the impacts of this on water biota and river health over time?
• Explanation of how different physico-chemical indicators of water quality change over time following restoration interventions, in both the peatlands themselves and downstream rivers. How does our understanding of this differ across different indicators and what are the drivers of this?
• Summary of how aquatic communities change over time following restoration interventions in both the peatlands themselves and downstream rivers. How does our understanding of this differ across taxonomic groups and how is this affected by the nature of the habitats and microhabitats created?

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• The Environment Agency are currently conducting a literature review due for completion in March 2026, which will outline the impacts of upland peatland degradation on water quality. This will therefore be outside the scope of this question.
• This question is linked to question 2: How do the biogeochemical processes in degraded peat change with rewetting? The impacts of peat restoration on flood risk, related to river health through related impacts on flow regime, are covered by question 12.
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the final report should be no more than 30 pages.

Model for delivery: Commissioned authorship

Background

UK lowland agricultural peat soils have undergone extensive drainage to support intensive farming, leading to significant peat oxidation, subsidence, and nutrient mobilisation, reducing the soil’s natural filtering capacity and causing widespread water-quality challenges. In their undrained state, lowland peat soils can act as effective natural filters, limiting the movement of pollutants due to the anaerobic conditions associated with high and stable water tables. However, where peat has been heavily drained and intensively cultivated, these soils often contribute to poor water quality, increasing water treatment costs, reducing ecological quality in ditches and rivers, and exacerbating issues such as algal blooms in downstream environments.

Raising the water table in lowland agricultural peat soils, whether through ditch-blocking, controlled water-level management, or conversion to paludiculture, may improve water quality in the long term by reducing peat oxidation and slowing the release of stored contaminants. However, the transition from drained to rewetted conditions can temporarily alter biogeochemical processes. In highly fertilised soils, raising water levels may lead to short-term increases in nutrient leaching, particularly nitrate and phosphate, depending on historical inputs, soil chemistry, and the speed and method of rewetting.

The behaviour of contaminants in UK lowland agricultural peat soils is therefore shaped by a complex interplay of drainage history, fertiliser legacy, soil structure, and water-level management. A detailed understanding of how water-quality impacts evolve over time and across different management regimes is crucial to designing rewetting strategies that minimise short-term risks while maximising long-term environmental benefits.

Objectives

• Narrative and explanatory introduction outlining the main physico-chemical indicators of water quality and how these are impacted by raising water table depth in lowland agricultural peat soils.
• Summary of the evidence in relation to chemical leaching – how does raising the water table alter leaching of nutrients, agri-chemicals, ochre and other mobilised substances in lowland agricultural peat soils and how does this change over time?
• Explanation of how this is affected by the ecohydrology, legacy of pollution, peat soil type and past and current land use within the system. What are the differences between different peatland soil types under different management regimes, including conventional arable agriculture, livestock grazing and paludiculture, and how does this impact water quality when the water table is raised compared to the impacts of continued drainage?
• What is the impact on receiving water bodies downstream of lowland agricultural peat sites?

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• This question is linked to question 10: What are the impacts of peat restoration on water quality, water biota and river health? and question 2: How do the biogeochemical processes in degraded peat change with rewetting?
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the final report should be no more than 30 pages.

Model for delivery: Commissioned authorship

Background

There is increasing interest in the use of Natural Flood Management (NFM) to reduce flood risk for vulnerable communities. NFM seeks to reduce flood risk by restoring or enhancing landscape processes and natural hydrological functions that have been damaged by human activities. The Peatland Code seeks to include assessment of water quality and quantity benefits from peatland restoration when the evidence base allows for robust proxies or direct measurement is cost-effective. 

Peatlands cover nearly 10% of the UK’s land cover but few of our peatlands are in a near-natural state. Most have been damaged by drainage, air pollution, fire, erosion and other land-use pressures, and the last decade has seen a dramatic increase in the number of projects aiming to restore peatland landscapes. The Commission of Inquiry Update report (2018) on ‘Peatland catchments’ highlighted that there is evidence that peatland restoration can reduce flood risk by helping to slow and hold water, which lowers downstream peak flows during storms. There is increasing evidence from various studies that peat restoration alters catchment runoff and can reduce peak flows, and therefore contribute to NFM, in small catchments, but there is less certainty for modelled catchments. There was found to be limited evidence on flood dynamics for different types of restoration. 

Objectives

• Summarise the processes which contribute to flood risk e.g. reduced storage capacity in degraded systems, ‘flashy’ pathways e.g. straight drains etc. Compare this to healthy systems for both upland and lowland peatlands. (Suggested infographic).
• Look at the 2018 Commission of Inquiry update report and the LAPTF findings and use this as a base from which to build on for this report. Bring in other relevant evidence reviews post-2018.
• Produce a post-2018 evidence review summary of hydrological dynamics in peatlands in relation to flood risk for upland and lowland peat areas. Evidence can be drawn from degraded, restored and healthy peatland examples to give an understanding of the processes at play.
• Provide an assessment of which restoration interventions have data on hydrological dynamics and which interventions have limited evidence. How do mechanisms such as surface roughness change over time in line with the restoration trajectory and when are natural processes reestablished?
• How can the implications of restoration on water quantity and movement within the catchment be quantified? What methods have been used to measure this in the field? What are the implications for measuring this at small- and large-scale catchments? Can reasonable proxies be set for quantifying NFM measures in peatlands?

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the final report should be no more than 30 pages.

Model for delivery: IUCN led

Background

Peatland carbon is already quantifiable with the science and current proxies we have. Indeed, the Peatland Code assesses and monetises the carbon benefit of peatland restoration through verification. There has always been an ambition to include other metrics under the Peatland Code and to allow other elements of peatland service delivery to be assessed and rewarded through public and private payments. Examples of non-carbon benefits include recreational use, cultural value, biodiversity, water quality and water quantity. There is an opportunity, if the evidence exists, to be able to more formally account for peatland ecosystem service deliver through the private finance markets or through payments for ecosystem service models e.g. agri-environment schemes. 

Objectives

• Set out the range of services provided by a healthy peatland and give examples using case studies.
• Summarise how these have been valued through different economic models and currency systems e.g., direct monetisation, avoided costs through supporting other metrics, etc.
• Summarise the markets for peatland service evaluation. Bring international examples.
• What range of non-market opportunities exist for valuing peatlands? E.g., the role of CSR and corporate relationships.
• In the context of England, what datasets do we have that would allow us to quantify benefits at different levels? What data gaps exist? Is there potential for establishing new value streams for peatlands?
• Production of a road map for including additional ecosystem services in existing voluntary market standards for peatland restoration.

Notes to guide scope

• The geographical remit is UK peatlands with reference to international examples that are relevant to the UK context.
• The primary audience will be policy makers; therefore the final report should be accessible to non-specialists.
• The length of the final report should be no more than 30 pages.