Peatland Code Version 2.0 FAQs

Further guidance for the Peatland Code Version 2.0

Peatland Code Version 2.0 FAQs

These FAQs feature some common questions regarding the latest update to the Peatland Code. It is correct at the time of writing (March 2023) 

See the Peatland Code section of our website for further details where all Peatland Code and Guidance documents are available.


Question: What suggestions are there to enhance access to Historic features?

Answer: As a minimum current access should be maintained, and historic features and sites should not be fenced unless absolutely necessary. If a site is fenced a pedestrian gate should be provided to facilitate access.
For access enhancement to notable historic features and sites, boardwalks or viewing platforms could be constructed (with relevant permissions attained), scrub vegetation could be cleared around or on approach to a historic site or feature, existing tracks upgraded to provide bicycle or wheelchair access, and information boards or digital interpretation via apps added to enhance visitor experience and accessibility. Critically, any enhancement of access should consider all potential users, including users with visual or movement impairments, to ensure that the heritage assets is, as far as possible, enjoyed and experienced by all.


Question: The emission factors have now changed in Version 2 what happens if the validation was carried out to V.1.2?   

Answer: Verification will always happen to the latest emission factors so in this case projects will be verified to V.2. This is to keep to Peatland Code robust and not oversell carbon savings, some of our projects run for 100 years and we should not be using 100-year-old emission factors.


Question: If a pre-restoration survey was conducted in May 2023, will it still be possible for registration on a 100m grid until May 2025.

Answer: Yes this would be acceptable as this falls withing the given three-month transition period any later than the 1st of June 2023 and the project would have to use V2 Field Protocol.

Field Protocol Fens

Question: What is the number of required dipwells and rust rods per ha of restored ground? 

Answer: Currently this is per assessment unit


Question: Is 5 piezometers always needed if the land is all the same level? 

Answer: Yes initially this is always needed, but if all the reading are the same we can look at reducing them after 1 year for more information see Field Protocol section Fens.


Field Protocol Bogs

Question: Can pre-restoration drone surveys replace baseline fixed point photos from each peat depth recording point?

Answer: Yes and you are no longer required to have photographs at every survey point, please see the Field Protocol for more detail.


Question: Modified bog and drained bog both transition to rewetted modified. What must be evidenced to demonstrate condition category change between them?

: To evidence this you will need to show digger footprint using GPS or drone imagery.

Question: Can previous surveys be assessed against the definition of ‘modified bog’ in V2.0, and if so, what is required to demonstrate compliance to the new standard? For instance, if you have a report less than a1 year old that has not yet been submitted for validation but has areas of modified, assessed against V1.2 criteria and surveyed in 50m x 50m intervals?

Answer: Yes previous surveys can be used to assess modified, but you have to keep in mind that only the modified areas on which you are doing active work (e.g. plug planting or bunding) are eligible.

Question: When you are mapping a gully – would you map just one linear feature i.e., one side of the gully or map both haggs within the gully system.

Answer: If all bare, including the base, otherwise just map one feature.

Validation and verification

Question: When a project is already in progress and validated to version 1.2 when it comes to the restoration validation will that have to be to version 2?

Answer: If you have validated a project against version 1.2 you also carry out the restoration validation to version 1.2. However, when it comes to the emission factors that will need to be to the lates version of the code.


Question: Will we have to re-do the emissions calculations for projects that have already been validated? Would we do this at restoration validation/verification?

Answer: Yes, you will need to do this at verification, this might change your PIUs which could have a small fee to amend on Markit. If you have not yet set up PIUS you should do this when these get set up, in this instance please send the Peatland Code team an amended emission calculator.



Question: Does money invested in a project by a landholder or another party (be it in restoration, monitoring or maintenance), where no carbon sale has taken place, count as carbon finance? 

Answer: Yes, the landowners own money with a view to sell carbon later counts as carbon finance. In the Non-carbon income, we mean other external private sources directly linked to the project costs.

Question: Could an applicant take 100% grant funding providing there are 15% of other costs throughout the project duration that the landowner pays for?

Answer: Only a maximum 85% of the total project costs can be covered by grant funding and non-carbon income. This means that in some cases 100% of the initial restoration works can be covered by a grant, since the total project costs is the initial restoration work and ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the site. If the ongoing monitoring and maintenance is 15% or more of the total project costs, 100% of the initial restoration work could indeed be funded by a grant. The costings are checked at the project plan validation by an independent validation/verification body.


Question: Is foregone income now included within the main additionality Test 2 cost calculation?

Answer: No, after feedback during the Technical Advisory Board income foregone is not included under Test 2.


If your query was not answered in the above sections or you require further information please email